Hello,
I have to ask a (maybe slightly silly) question.
I just received the quote from the window supplier, and they have offered me the same frame for all the floor-to-ceiling windows and the patio door (Salamander BluEvolution 82). The frame height is 73mm (3 inches). There must be a mistake here, right? A threshold height of 7.6cm (3 inches) for the (side) patio door is surely a trip hazard. I could still accept 2–3cm (about 1 inch)...
I have to ask a (maybe slightly silly) question.
I just received the quote from the window supplier, and they have offered me the same frame for all the floor-to-ceiling windows and the patio door (Salamander BluEvolution 82). The frame height is 73mm (3 inches). There must be a mistake here, right? A threshold height of 7.6cm (3 inches) for the (side) patio door is surely a trip hazard. I could still accept 2–3cm (about 1 inch)...
JaiBee07 schrieb:
There must be some mistake here, right? I don’t think so. Unless you ordered an accessible or barrier-free design.
Hmm... my standard ones, like many others here in the development (I never really measured properly, except once here for the forum, because it doesn’t look wrong or feel wrong), have the height necessary to keep the rain outside. I quickly measured inside for @Pinkiponk: it was about 5.5cm (2.2 inches) including the floor structure, so the outer trim is logically a bit higher.
JaiBee07 schrieb:
A threshold height of 7.6cm (3 inches) at the (side) terrace door is definitely a trip hazard. Nope... unless you have two left feet and shuffle around 😉 My old house had around 15cm (6 inches), which was really annoying, but you get used to it.
This is normal. Some manufacturers theoretically offer the option to build the bottom frame flatter. However, this version does not close or seal as effectively as the standard profile and is naturally more expensive.
The reason behind this also involves airtightness, which is required nowadays. Achieving this with a very flat profile is simply more difficult.
The reason behind this also involves airtightness, which is required nowadays. Achieving this with a very flat profile is simply more difficult.
H
Hausbau 5514 Jun 2022 23:43PhiIipp schrieb:
That is normal. Some manufacturers theoretically offer the option to build the lower frame flatter. However, this technically results in less effective sealing and closing compared to the standard profile and is naturally more expensive.
The reason behind this is the airtightness requirements that must be met today. Achieving this with a very flat profile is more difficult. For my five floor-to-ceiling windows Brömse Premium 2.0 (1 single-leaf and 2 double-leaf windows), I have the same lower sill detail as on the front door. Therefore, all thresholds are the same height (about 1 cm (0.4 inches)).
Are you referring to airtightness? My result was 0.7 (the requirement is apparently 3.0).
I spoke with my site manager again yesterday. It seems that it is not clearly defined.
It is quite common, also for cost reasons, to install standard floor-to-ceiling windows here.
I will ask the window manufacturer if they offer a shallower option for the lower threshold and what the additional cost would be.
It is quite common, also for cost reasons, to install standard floor-to-ceiling windows here.
I will ask the window manufacturer if they offer a shallower option for the lower threshold and what the additional cost would be.
We have been dealing with the issue of window sills with our construction company for some time. These potential pitfalls were also included in our calculations. However, we wanted terrace doors with a 2 cm (0.8 inch) low threshold. According to our builder, the problem is the resistance to driving rain.
Similar topics