Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Ron … it’s there. Check IRC 316.1 as it reads “… raised floor surfaces located more than 30” above the floor or grade below shall have guards not less that 36" in height … "
Although I think the proposed 24" rule for the IRC is a little more reasonable for windows (IMO 3x5 DH with fixed IR lower would qualify), as there are wall areas to grab, thats not how the code reads for now.
The second floor is more than 30" above grade, so all areas (including windows) need to have fall protection where a 4" ball can't pass through according to the IRC. Some AHJ's just choose not to enforce this requirement. For the life of me I can't understand why, as the bodies keep piling up outside low windows.
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: csoutherland This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Robert,
I have never heard of R316 interpreted to apply to windows because of the need for emergency escape and rescue mentioned in R310. Is this something that is enforced in your area?
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Carl … I can’t even remember when I ever saw low operable windows as described in the post around here in new construction. That must be a regional thing.
Most of the code debates are about the IBC provisions, but IMHO the IRC provisions are more general and clearly apply. I would apply the 36" rule in the IRC as a p/t AHJ, as would many others. If you read IRC 316.1 it clearly applies to anything that is a fall hazard ... including windows.
But this is not universally applied for those areas under the ICC codes. I just don't get that considering how many small children are killed falling out of low/open windows. [I assume that is why the next edition of the IRC will have specific provisions for minimum window heights]. Unfortunately, the time to pick this up is really at plan review ... quite sticky to change after the fact.
Both fall protection and egress/escape can co-exist easily ... place the sill between 36" and 44" AFF and have the 20"x24"/5.7 sf operable area, or provide this escape area above any fall protection guard or fixed IR lower.
For an existing window, it's a little more sticky. Thats why I said I would love to be a fly on the wall for the meeting on this window. Probably some type of removable guard (that does not require any keys or tools) or fixed IR lower is the best solution but that's the local AHJ's call for new construction.
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: psabados This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Builder Update
The construction super for the builder left me a nice little message on my answering machine this AM. He's quoting 2000 IRC 308.4 Item #6.1. Window does not require safety glazing.
OK. Tried several times to get back to him, not available. Really want him now to tell me that this window is not a safety hazard. I advised the home owner to contact AHJ for clairfication. If they wont I think I will just for my own satisfaction. Even if this situation is 100% total code compliant I would still insert it into my report as a safety concern.
The home owner at this time is not demanding that the window be replaced, just something a little safer.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I’m not in ICC an area (hope I never am as that code is too weak), but I glanced through the IRC for ‘Protection of Building Openings’ and didn’t find what I was looking for.
I would be concerned about falling through the window. Seems there should be a safeguard rail in front of the window with the bottom sill that low and the ground outside that low.
Safety glazing on a window that low above the walking surface and that high above the surface on the other side would just mean that, when you fell through, you land on a pile of small piece of glass instead of a pile of large pieces of glass, safer, but still not very good.
In cases like that, I recommend either a guardrail in front of it or laminated tempered safety glass. That way, the glass breaks into small pieces, but stays in place, keeping you from falling through.
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Paul … R308.4 is defining “hazardous locations for the purposes of glazing”, not fall protection guards which are only addressed in R316.1
I wouldn't get into a pissing match with the builder over the code provisions, let the AHJ handle that (it's his/her job) ... it really depends on his/her interpretation of the code anyway.
But it is pretty obvious to everybody here that the installation is a safety issue, and that the homeowner should have some type of window guard as a minimum.
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: psabados This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
HI guys,
Yep absolutely. 308.4 meets the glazing requirements. I really wanted to drop 316.1 fall protection on him but let it slide. Doesnt do any good to complain to the answering maching. The home owner is really trying to find out from the AHJ's on safety, but they too seem to be avoiding them.
It's a case of meeting min. codes and thats that. The builder is trying to save a few dollars of job profit rather than take the bull by the horns and make an unsafe condition safe and be a hero. That's what the home owner really wants. Not a new window raised higher, just protection from the potential of one of her children falling out and to the ground.
To top if off, this is not a cheap home and the overall quality of construction is very good.
This is another case in point where staged construction inspections could have prevented this by alerting the buyer of a safety situation. Oh well hind sight is 20-20.
Originally Posted By: dfrend This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Why have the opening? I know I would want it.
I know this guy, and he would be dead had the window been smaller. He had gone in the front door and was forced to bail out. Seconds later the room flashed, and a few minutes later here it is:
Unfortunately the baby was not found in the search.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The problem that I find is that, while the window “opening” is wide enough (20"), and that the “opening” is high enough (24"), many people seem to forget that the minimum “opening size” is 5.7 sf.
Did I hear 'I thought it was 5.0 sf?'
No, the minimum opening size is 5.7 sf.
There is an Exception for ground floor windows ONLY, and that Exception does allow the "opening size" to be reduced to 5.0 sf, but that is not the requirement, that is the Exception.
How big is 5.7 sf at 20" wide? Just over 41" high OPEN HEIGHT. If you figure that the overall window size is twice the opening height plus about 6" or so (to allow for the window frames, etc.), that window would be over 7' tall.
How about a 5.0 sf by 20" wide? 36" high OPEN HEIGHT. If you figure that the overall window size is twice the opening height plus about 6" or so (to allow for the window frames, etc.), that window would be over 6 1/2' tall.
The windows in your photo do not look like they are large enough. That firefighter was lucky to be able to get out through that window.
Originally Posted By: dfrend This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Your probably right. Of course with 1000 degrees licking my heels, I could go through about any window. You notice he wen t head first and he did not know a ladder was there, that saved him from more serious injury than the burns he got.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Yes, I noticed he went head first.
I'm also sure that if there were no window there, he would have found a way *through* the wall, bringing the wood siding down with him.
I've never been in that position, but once, many, many, moons ago, when I was remodeling, I felt like I was going to die in the attic I was working in. I managed to finish driving in the last nail in the ceiling fan brace 2x4 I was installing, left my tools there, and headed back out to the access opening. This is one of the 'belly crawl' attics that I do not go through now, no space, but back then I had to get there to install that brace (before the days of the new braces you put in from the bottom). I managed to get my head over the opening before I passed out (that cold air was a life saver), so I went down the ladder head first (intentionally). I laid on the hall floor for probably an hour before I could get up. Then I called it a day. My tools are still there in that attic.
Originally Posted By: dfrend This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
LMAO!
Come on, try 8 hours times 5 days rouging black steel sprinkler pipe in a residential attic climbing rafters 20' up fully insulated on a 105 week. The house had no AC but felt like a freezer when you come down. And I still itch from it.
LMAO!