Blog › Compliance Checking

Safety Glazing Under AS 1288: The Locations Documentation Misses

ParitySense team · September 2026 · 6 min read

AS 1288 governs the selection and installation of glass in buildings, including the human-impact provisions that determine where safety glazing — toughened or laminated glass — is required: glazed doors, glazing beside doors, low-level glazing, bathrooms and shower screens, balustrades. The compliance logic is contextual: whether a given panel must be safety glass depends on where it is, how big it is and how low it sits — facts that live on the plans and elevations, not in the window schedule row that actually specifies the glass. That split between where the requirement is triggered and where the product is specified is why glazing is one of the most quietly non-compliant parts of a documentation set.

How the requirement and the specification drift apart

A window schedule specifies each unit's glass type: W12 — 6 mm clear float, D03 — 10.38 mm laminated. The schedule is written from the elevations at one point in design. Then context moves:

• Sills drop. A window lowered at a revision — for outlook, for ventilation, for a changed floor level — can cross the height threshold below which the standard treats it as a human-impact location. The schedule row for W12 was not edited, so 6 mm float rides through to procurement.
• Doors move. Glazing that was a metre from the nearest door at Rev B is directly beside a relocated door at Rev D. Glazing adjacent to doors is a designated impact category; nothing in the glazing itself changed, so nothing flagged.
• Rooms change use. A store becomes an ensuite; the standard's wet-area glazing provisions now apply to a window scheduled as ordinary annealed glass.
• Panels grow. The standard's thresholds interact with panel size; a fixed light enlarged during façade coordination can move between categories while keeping its tag and its schedule row.

Each case has the same shape: the trigger changed on one document, the specification sat on another, and no process connected them. It is the glazing edition of the door schedule problem — one truth, multiple authors — with the added twist that the requirement is not even written anywhere as a value to compare; it must be derived from geometry.

Reconciling the glazing package

1. Build the population. Every glazed element: window and door schedule rows, shower screens (often only in the finishes schedule or spec), balustrades (often only in a detail), internal glazed partitions. Elements that appear on plan but in no schedule are findings immediately.
2. Derive the impact locations. For each element, pull the contextual facts from the current plans and elevations: sill height, panel size, distance to doors, wet-area status, barrier function. This is the step manual reviews skip and sample; it is mechanical enough to automate, provided elevations are dimensioned — the same documentation-for-checkability argument made in accessibility documentation.
3. Compare against the specified type. Impact location + annealed glass in the schedule = finding, cited to the elevation, the schedule row and the spec clause. Where the geometry is near a threshold, the finding should say so rather than assert — the standard specifies the exact thresholds, and near-threshold cases are precisely the ones a human should measure and decide.
4. Check the spec agrees with the schedule. Specifications commonly contain a blanket "all glazing to AS 1288" clause plus a glass schedule of their own. Two schedules (architect's and specifier's) for one package is a standing precedence problem; where they disagree, resolve by RFI, with the contract's precedence order in mind.
5. Re-run on revision. Any revision touching floor levels, door positions, window sizes or room uses re-opens the derivation for the affected elements. Triggering the re-check off the revision, automatically, is the only version of this process that survives design development — the pattern the ParitySense glazing check follows, with each finding held for human confirmation.

Energy, wind and the other half of AS 1288

Human impact is the headline risk, but the same schedule also carries wind-load and energy outcomes: glass thickness and type against the façade wind pressures, and glazing performance against the energy assessment (U-value and SHGC from the energy report versus what the schedule actually specifies). These are additional columns in the same reconciliation — the energy report is one more document stating facts about W12 that the schedule can silently contradict. The method does not change: one population of elements, every document that speaks about them, compared on current revisions, findings adjudicated by a human. That is the general model argued in the compliance checking guide.

FAQ