Wind-Mit technical bulletin

Word on the street is that re-inspectors/citizens will conscider glass block unprotected openings starting today. This includes all sizes and all counties.

Isn’t that the way it has been?

for me yes, yorks course went by size and county

Ahh. that does not seem right “Yorks class” The form asks if the opening is protected or not. No mention of where the property is located. I believe he gives his opinions on many things that are not necessarily the facts. I think we need a Lawyer to interpret the form for us. I can just see ending up in court for something I wrote on the form that was not as per the form and using the defence that is what Bill said. I imagine Judge Judy would tell me then I should not have signed it.

im just saying Mike, Not just Yorks class , but most inspectors outside wbdr have always conscidered these cmu’s as per fbc, not openings. According to my source, The “field inspectors” have been instructed to call these unprotected opening throughout the state.

:smiley: I think the people in charge of the Field Inspectors have “finally” did something right.

This is why we need a state approved wind mitigation training program that is detailed enough to cover not only the specifics, but how to handle the ambiguities. That way if it is in the training material, we have a valid reference, otherwise we will have to check ‘other’ with a brief description and let the underwriters make the qualitative call. As long as our observations and reports are based only on what we actually see and have in hand, there should be little liability IMO.

FBC lists glass block as a CMU, you could build a whole house out of glass block. It also does not open, so is it an opening? I am just saying. :twisted:

As far as I am concerned it is an opening but John you may have a valid point. It sure would be great if the people who made the form had to come up with the answers to all the questions we have in the field.

im not sayin whats right, im just relaying info

Well I appreciate it.:smiley:

At least the underwriters and I agree on something.

Shuffle the cards and deal again. Now they have changes in the rules so that your hand of aces over kings is beaten by a pair of deuces. Keeping track? Time may come when the rewritten rules will come against us. Better start to document all this crap.

From section 5 of the InterNACI wind mitigation course:

“The Building Code allows for two protection systems, depending upon the location within the State. In the HVHZ, all openings must be impact rated or protected. That means all windows, doors, skylights and glass block. In the balance of the wind borne debris area, only the glazed openings on the building must be impact rated and protected. This includes: doors and garage doors with windows, windows, skylights, but not glass block.”

Let me see if I can further muddy the water
FBC chapter 2 definitions
Openings: Apertures or hole in the building envelope which allow air to flow thru the building envelope and which are designed as “open” during design winds as defined by these provisions. Seems to me by definition it is not an opening.
Is it then Glazing?
FBC chapter 3 Building planning section R308 Glazing
No mention of glass block in the entire section
Glass block construction is regulated by
FBC chapter 6 section 610 Glass unit masonry
610.1 refers to glass block as panels and no mention of protection mentioned in the entire chapter
Does it need protection in the HVHZ? Maybe Maybe not
FBC chapter 44 High-Velocity Hurricane Zones
section 4410.
Glass block shall have product approval. But wait a minute
section 4410. exceptions
when detailed shop drawings designed by a speciality engineer and signed by the engineer the requirement for product approval is waved
Wonder how that is interrupted by the OIR?

Follow up to my earlier post. If it is not an opening by definition and it is not glazing. It does not require protection. What say ye?

What is the definition of “opening”?

FBC 2007 chapter 2 defines Openings as: Apertures or holes in the building envelope which allow air to flow thru the building envelope and which are designed as “open” during design winds as defined by these provisions

The insurance industry is notorious for “redefining” things. Like a few years ago they redefined “flooding” and what constitutes it. Of course it heavily favors them when an analysis or scope is completed so they can claim something was caused by flood waters rather than wind driven water so if the individual has flood insurance the insurance company will push as much over to the flood side to eliminate their responsibility. Like this crap with, if it is a strap but does not have the right number of nails or was put on on a Thursday when the moon was in first quarter phase it is a clip. Not be confused with toenailing because there is a banana tree in the yard.

In the HVHZ, which I do not do, I would say you need protection on the glass block. Going back to MSFH, it was supposed to be, then it wasn’t, then it was if it was greater than 4 sq ft. Does anyone remember what York said?

Be careful looking at the codes, OIR does not do codes.

I remember York said the exact same thing- required in hvhz, and not outside. He is still saying the same. Have you heard anything regarding these rumors john?