Window Restrictors as opposed to Guarding?

bemak

Is it adequate to install window restrictors instead of guards on first floor window openings with a cill height between 300-800 above the floor level?

my guess is no because it would mean that the window couldn't be used as a means of escape but just wanted to double check. I've seen the guards on a few new houses lately and they are awful.

Metric Tensor

AFAIK - There are window restrictors that you can use that have a little pinch or press down action that allow the windows to be used as fire escape windows.

However, I don't think this is a substitute for guarding. Moreso this is an additional safety item for the window (that is above 800) for child safety.

That's my view - I think kceire's might hold more weight!

bemak

Metric Tensor wrote: »

AFAIK - There are window restrictors that you can use that have a little pinch or press down action that allow the windows to be used as fire escape windows.

However, I don't think this is a substitute for guarding. Moreso this is an additional safety item for the window (that is above 800) for child safety.

That's my view - I think kceire's might hold more weight!

Ya I was aware of those restrictors as well. Best solution is probably to put a fixed section of glazing from cill to 800mm above floor level with an openable section above.

Gumbo

bemak wrote: »

Is it adequate to install window restrictors instead of guards on first floor window openings with a cill height between 300-800 above the floor level?

my guess is no because it would mean that the window couldn't be used as a means of escape but just wanted to double check. I've seen the guards on a few new houses lately and they are awful.

The window restrictor is a different requirement to guarding.
The restrictor is required in all first floor windows and I insist on them been installed even in bathrooms etc. It's there to stop a child opening a window and going for a drop which we have seen quite a few times recently (phibsboroigh and cork).

The guard is there as part of TGD K rather than B above.
If the door can fully open, the guard is required also, toughened glass below the 800mm mark.

bemak

this is what i was looking to do.

does the 400mm cill create another problem? i.e. something to step up on? hence the restrictor

Gumbo

bemak wrote: »

this is what i was looking to do.

does the 400mm cill create another problem? i.e. something to step up on? hence the restrictor

The opening section requires a restrictor either way.
The step up onto the cill has to be seen. In some cases I've requested the guarding at 800 above the cill height if it's deep enough to stand in.

fatty pang

kceire wrote: »

The window restrictor is a different requirement to guarding.

Indeed and it wouldn’t function as a permanent barrier.

The restrictor is required in all first floor windows and I insist on them been installed even in bathrooms etc. .

TGD-B (1.5.6e) doesn’t explicitly distinguish between windows at ground floor and above when it comes to requiring restrictors.

The guard is there as part of TGD K rather than B above.
If the door can fully open, the guard is required also, toughened glass below the 800mm mark.

Fully opened is incorrect. Guarding must prevent a 100mm diameter sphere from passing through any opening or gap. The ‘safety’ glass must be of adequate strength.

fatty pang

bemak wrote: »

this is what i was looking to do.

does the 400mm cill create another problem? i.e. something to step up on? hence the restrictor

NHBC provide clear guidance on the issues involved here -
www.nhbc.co.uk/Builders/ProductsandServices/.../filedownload,40525,en.pdf
You will also need to address the issue of the large fixed light if height differential is >600 between floor level and outside ground level. The glazing will have to withstand specified loads in the absence of any other barrier. Loads described in EN 1991-1-1 are more onerous then BS 6180. I will leave it to those with competence to adjudge which is appropriate.

bemak

What's the title of that document if you don't mind me asking. Link is down

fatty pang

bemak wrote: »

What's the title of that document if you don't mind me asking. Link is down

NHBC Technical Extra. Issue 17, Feb 2015. Its on their website.

bemak

Got it. Thanks a mil. Great resource, never heard it it before!

fatty pang

bemak wrote: »

Got it. Thanks a mil. Great resource, never heard it it before!

NHBC Standards - available for free - is what the Homebond manual ought to be. Then again NHBC is what Homebond ought to be.

bemak

fatty pang wrote:

NHBC Standards - available for free - is what the Homebond manual ought to be. Then again NHBC is what Homebond ought to be.

I actually was considering buying the homebound manual but this is much better

fatty pang

bemak wrote: »

I actually was considering buying the homebound manual but this is much better

I don't think they have updated it since the 7th Edition which had some archaic details when it was brand new. Joseph Litttle did a good appraisal of it in Construct Ireland at the time. I wouldn't hold out any hope of it ever coming close to the NHBC or even the Zurich manual.