• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Windows/guards under 9.8.8.1

I

Inspector Gadget

REGISTERED
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
1,305
Location
New Brunswick
Thought I'd poll my fellow Canadians as to how other jurisdictions are dealing with the NBC 2020 requirements for guards for residential windows >1.8m from the exterior surface and <90cm from the floor.

Our office has adopted a policy formally recognizing window opening control devices (WOCD) that conform to ASTM F2090-21 on an egress window required to have protection under 9.8.8.1(4) and any WOCD conforming to either ASTM F2090 or ASTM F2006 for windows not required to be egress compliant.

I know Ontario's building officials adopted a formal policy along the same lines and the Province of Alberta issued a bulletin (STANDATA 23-BCV-001) likewise adopting ASTM-compliant WOCDs.

Kinda wondering how others are dealing with it .....
 
is this what you're referring to in Ontario? Generally, for houses where the top of the window sill is more than 480mm above finished floor on one side, or the finished floor is located less than 1800mm to the adjacent floor or ground on the other side of the window, window protection is not required. Otherwise, guards or window restrictors limiting openings to max 100mm are required (OBC 9.8.8.1 (5) and (6)). For doors, where the finished floor is more than 600mm, the door also needs to be protected with a guard or restricted to max 100mm opening.

ASTM F2090 - Standard Specification for Window Fall Prevention Devices With Emergency Escape (Egress) Release Mechanisms, was not included in the Vol 2 appendix of the 2012 OBC (at least it didn't come up under a search), but IS included in the 2024 OBC under vol 2, 9.8.8.1.(4).

https://bcas.oboa.on.ca/support/sol...requirements-for-windows-in-a-part-9-building
 
cworks said:
is this what you're referring to in Ontario? Generally, for houses where the top of the window sill is more than 480mm above finished floor on one side, or the finished floor is located less than 1800mm to the adjacent floor or ground on the other side of the window, window protection is not required. Otherwise, guards or window restrictors limiting openings to max 100mm are required (OBC 9.8.8.1 (5) and (6)). For doors, where the finished floor is more than 600mm, the door also needs to be protected with a guard or restricted to max 100mm opening.

ASTM F2090 - Standard Specification for Window Fall Prevention Devices With Emergency Escape (Egress) Release Mechanisms, was not included in the Vol 2 appendix of the 2012 OBC (at least it didn't come up under a search), but IS included in the 2024 OBC under vol 2, 9.8.8.1.(4).

https://bcas.oboa.on.ca/support/sol...requirements-for-windows-in-a-part-9-building
Click to expand...
That's the angle that our office has adopted.
 
cworks said:
Canada: less than 480mm (19”) above finished floor
Click to expand...
America: less than 24 inches (610 mm) above the finished floor. Five inch difference and they picked an odd number. We don’t have odd numbers for much of anything.
 
ICE said:
America: less than 24 inches (610 mm) above the finished floor. Five inch difference and they picked an odd number. We don’t have odd numbers for much of anything.
Click to expand...
Canada hasn't adopted ASTM 2090, so there is a major issue related to the conflict on egress widows vs. window opening limiters where the opening is too low.
 
As Tmurray points out, we haven't adopted ASTM 2090... but we've kinda hinted at it in an appendix note.

Once cracked open, some openable windows can be opened further by simply pushing on the openable part
of the window. Care must be taken in selecting windows, as some with special operating hardware can still
be opened further by simply pushing on the window or by deactivating a spring-loaded button or other
mechanism that is not considered a window opening control device (WOCD) that could be inadvertently
operated by a young child. A technical description of WOCDs can be found in ASTM F2090, “Standard
Specification for Window Fall Prevention Devices With Emergency Escape (Egress) Release Mechanisms.”
Click to expand...

The thing is, appendix notes aren't considered prescriptive solutions.

On the other hand, the folks that made our latest Code created a problem, because under the guard requirements, the language is that one cannot open a window past 100mm (4") unless restricted by a device that requires tools or special knowledge; which appears to directly conflict with the egress window requirements that state one has to have a window that can open to egress dimensions *without* being restricted by tools or special knowledge.

I've taken heart from language in 2090 that delineates the two, and defines forces for opening a window opening control device.

The way I see it, the Code has created a conundrum that demands a rational solution; I think this is it.
 
My second-storey egress windows at home are double-hung and of an appropriate size so that the upper sash alone meets egress. The lower sash is restricted to a <4" opening by way of placing a sash stop in the track that was provided to me by the manufacturer, although it's just a simple piece of plastic that securely snaps into the track. There is no way for a person to remove the sash stop without the knowledge that it is actually removable and a pry tool to assist as the amount of force required to remove it is enough to make even a knowledgeable person uneasy about breaking the window.

Could be said that this is a bit of a waste where you're paying for a double-hung and only get part of the benefit, although it is simple and clearly compliant IMHO.
 
Steve French said:
My second-storey egress windows at home are double-hung and of an appropriate size so that the upper sash alone meets egress. The lower sash is restricted to a <4" opening by way of placing a sash stop in the track that was provided to me by the manufacturer, although it's just a simple piece of plastic that securely snaps into the track. There is no way for a person to remove the sash stop without the knowledge that it is actually removable and a pry tool to assist as the amount of force required to remove it is enough to make even a knowledgeable person uneasy about breaking the window.

Could be said that this is a bit of a waste where you're paying for a double-hung and only get part of the benefit, although it is simple and clearly compliant IMHO.
Click to expand...
That is a fair concern, and one we evaluated when looking at the issue, but I frequently remind people that the code only tries to prevent people from doing things that could result in some form of physical or financial injury. It doesn't stop us from doing illogical things. That naturally is the role of the designer and the owner.
 
tmurray said:
That is a fair concern, and one we evaluated when looking at the issue, but I frequently remind people that the code only tries to prevent people from doing things that could result in some form of physical or financial injury. It doesn't stop us from doing illogical things. That naturally is the role of the designer and the owner.
Click to expand...
For sure, can't always protect people from themselves!
 
"My second-storey egress windows at home are double-hung and of an appropriate size so that the upper sash alone meets egress."
Is the bottom of the upper sash within the allowable distance above the floor? (44" in the USA)
 
Paul Sweet said:
"My second-storey egress windows at home are double-hung and of an appropriate size so that the upper sash alone meets egress."
Is the bottom of the upper sash within the allowable distance above the floor? (44" in the USA)
Click to expand...
There actually is no max height of an egress window in Canadian codes (I would agree this is an oversight).

This is the from the explanatory material in the code on the issue:

Window Height
Article 9.9.10.1. does not set a maximum sill height for escape windows; it is therefore possible to install a
window or skylight that satisfies the requirements of the Article but defeats the Article's intent by virtue
of being so high that it cannot be reached for exit purposes. It is recommended that the sills of windows
intended for use as emergency exits be not higher than 1.5 m above the floor. However, it is sometimes
difficult to avoid having a higher sill: on skylights and windows in basement bedrooms for example. In
these cases, it is recommended that access to the window be improved by some means such as built-in
furniture installed below the window.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top