-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
egress window at bedroom?
- Thread starter BSSTG
- Start date
Paul Sweet
Sawhorse
You have to look at this in 3 dimensions, not just in plan. If the post stops far enough below the window sill that it doesn't interfere with a ladder, then it isn't an obstacle. It might even be something to step onto so you have a shorter drop. A shrub directly below the window might be good for breaking your fall if you have to jump out of the window. A shrub 3 feet out from the wall is more likely to interfere with a ladder than one next to the wall.
Brudgers - 1st let me say - I sure hope you don't have grandchildren
2nd) If/when taxes are implemented I pay them whether I agree with how those taxes are used or not. Many times I do not, but I still pay them.
3rd) My area of responsibility is code compliance and doing my best I can to make sure that occupants of buildings are as safe as possible while still enforcing actual code requirements and reasonable interpretations thereof.
My area of responsibility does not cover the raising of taxes or justifying of how taxes are spent.
I thought that was what this bulletin board was dedicated to as well. Perhaps I have been misinformed.
2nd) If/when taxes are implemented I pay them whether I agree with how those taxes are used or not. Many times I do not, but I still pay them.
3rd) My area of responsibility is code compliance and doing my best I can to make sure that occupants of buildings are as safe as possible while still enforcing actual code requirements and reasonable interpretations thereof.
My area of responsibility does not cover the raising of taxes or justifying of how taxes are spent.
I thought that was what this bulletin board was dedicated to as well. Perhaps I have been misinformed.
Papio Bldg Dept
Platinum Member
Those examples I would certainly find as permissable given the circumstances not preventing egress, but the specific circumstances we were discussing have to do with built structures that prevent, not assist, egress.Paul Sweet said:
AegisFPE
Silver Member
I disagree with the idea of enforcing window well provisions. There is no well that the occupant must climb out of, therefore the 36-inch dimension is irrelevant.
The code specifies a minimum 20-inch width. It would seem a reasonable interpretation would say that this dimension must be maintained. Therefore, it seems reasonable to swing a 20-inch arc from each edge of the window; if either or both are clear, then the minimum clear width is present.
The post may be a benefit, serving as a grab bar!
The code specifies a minimum 20-inch width. It would seem a reasonable interpretation would say that this dimension must be maintained. Therefore, it seems reasonable to swing a 20-inch arc from each edge of the window; if either or both are clear, then the minimum clear width is present.
The post may be a benefit, serving as a grab bar!
Last edited by a moderator:
fatboy
Administrator
OK folks, reign it in, this is supposed to be a discussion of viewpoints on code issue. Let's not get personal, or start attacking.
As I previously stated, I thought that this bulletin board was intended for the use of persons involved in the activity of maintaining a certain level of safety for occupants of buildings by enforcing actual code requirements and reasonable interpretations thereof.
Apparently I have not been misinformed as to the purpose of this forum. It is a shame that the proper use of the english language is so easily warped into something less than pure.
Apparently I have not been misinformed as to the purpose of this forum. It is a shame that the proper use of the english language is so easily warped into something less than pure.
Papio Bldg Dept
Platinum Member
Window well or wishing well? As for relevance, one of the reasons offered in the commentary regarding the minimum dimensions for a window well references a tendancy for occupants to be pinned or trapped between the frame of the opening and the window well wall opposite the EE opening.AegisFPE said:
AegisFPE
Silver Member
I would classify a wishing well as a confined space, and prohibit its use as an egress route.
I fail to see how a single post could constitute a well or a wall. Does it constitute an obstruction, absolutely.
Let's make sure all obstructions are outside of the minimum prescribed clear area. I do not find that the code requires a clear landing outside the opening.
Therefore, maintaining the minimum height and width of the opening as prescribed by code, between the edge of the opening and any obstruction, seems reasonable.
I fail to see how a single post could constitute a well or a wall. Does it constitute an obstruction, absolutely.
Let's make sure all obstructions are outside of the minimum prescribed clear area. I do not find that the code requires a clear landing outside the opening.
Therefore, maintaining the minimum height and width of the opening as prescribed by code, between the edge of the opening and any obstruction, seems reasonable.
GBrackins
Registered User
what I like is this is up to 87 posts and proposes autosexual reproduction and in the end it's up the AHJ's intrepration. if they don't like the AHJ's ruling then it's off to the board of appeals.
I like AegisFPE's thoughts ..... 20" wide opening requirement swung on an arc, now if they only had a rope to swing on they could safely rapeal down
I like AegisFPE's thoughts ..... 20" wide opening requirement swung on an arc, now if they only had a rope to swing on they could safely rapeal down
Originally posted by Aegis
"I disagree with the idea of enforcing window well provisions. There is no well that the occupant must climb out of, therefore the 36-inch dimension is irrelevant.
The code specifies a minimum 20-inch width. It would seem a reasonable interpretation would say that this dimension must be maintained. Therefore, it seems reasonable to swing a 20-inch arc from each edge of the window; if either or both are clear, then the minimum clear width is present."
To elaborate on an earlier posting:
It was my assumption given the original posting that the post was actually blocking the clear space required for an emergency egress and rescue opening. It was not my assumtion that this post was below the opening of the window. Hence my comparison to a window well condition that typically concerns itself with the area from the opening upward.
If the required opening area of 20" width, 24" height and 5.7 square feet clear opening area for a reasonable distance can be maintained, then we have given the occupant a reasonable opportunity to exit under emergency situations.
One other observation: I suppose it is possible that the post could provide a handhold or support, but isn't it just as likely that the post could seriously harm someone if they were to fall on it? Or get hung up on t?
"I disagree with the idea of enforcing window well provisions. There is no well that the occupant must climb out of, therefore the 36-inch dimension is irrelevant.
The code specifies a minimum 20-inch width. It would seem a reasonable interpretation would say that this dimension must be maintained. Therefore, it seems reasonable to swing a 20-inch arc from each edge of the window; if either or both are clear, then the minimum clear width is present."
To elaborate on an earlier posting:
It was my assumption given the original posting that the post was actually blocking the clear space required for an emergency egress and rescue opening. It was not my assumtion that this post was below the opening of the window. Hence my comparison to a window well condition that typically concerns itself with the area from the opening upward.
If the required opening area of 20" width, 24" height and 5.7 square feet clear opening area for a reasonable distance can be maintained, then we have given the occupant a reasonable opportunity to exit under emergency situations.
One other observation: I suppose it is possible that the post could provide a handhold or support, but isn't it just as likely that the post could seriously harm someone if they were to fall on it? Or get hung up on t?
KZQuixote
Sawhorse
I agree BM. If the 20 inch width can be maintained within a swung arc, the intent is met. To start treating an obstruction with the window well requirements is a reachBig Mac said:
Bill
jpowell
Bronze Member
Hey guys. Good discussion... (well, about 50/50... 
) I agree that Papio should enforce. Let's look at the actual code.
R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required. Basements, habitable attics and every sleeping room shall have at least one operable emergency escape and rescue opening...The net clear opening dimensions required by this section shall be obtained by the normal operation of the emergency escape and rescue opening from the inside. ...Emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way.
PUBLIC WAY. Any street, alley or other parcel of land open to the outside air leading to a public street, which has been deeded, dedicated or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public for public use and that has a clear width and height of not less than 10 feet (3048 mm).
So egress windows must have a clear opening, and open directly to a public way. This public way must have a clear width and height of 10'. It is simply incredible to say that a post in front of the window allows this clear opening, or access to or from the window.
Here is some other backup below, in case the above code does not seem enough. In the situation that you have a window well or egress window under a deck, the code is very clear that you need: 1. A clear opening, and 2. a clear path from the window to a yard or court. You simply can't block it.
---
R310.1.1 Minimum opening area. All emergency escape and rescue openings shall have a minimum net clear opening of 5.7 square feet (0.530 m2).
R310.2 Window wells. The minimum horizontal area of the window well shall be 9 square feet (0.9 m2), with a minimum horizontal projection and width of 36 inches (914 mm). The area of the window well shall allow the emergency escape and rescue opening to be fully opened.
R310.5 Emergency escape windows under decks and porches. Emergency escape windows are allowed to be installed under decks and porches provided the location of the deck allows the emergency escape window to be fully opened and provides a path not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height to a yard or court.
) I agree that Papio should enforce. Let's look at the actual code.R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required. Basements, habitable attics and every sleeping room shall have at least one operable emergency escape and rescue opening...The net clear opening dimensions required by this section shall be obtained by the normal operation of the emergency escape and rescue opening from the inside. ...Emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way.
PUBLIC WAY. Any street, alley or other parcel of land open to the outside air leading to a public street, which has been deeded, dedicated or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public for public use and that has a clear width and height of not less than 10 feet (3048 mm).
So egress windows must have a clear opening, and open directly to a public way. This public way must have a clear width and height of 10'. It is simply incredible to say that a post in front of the window allows this clear opening, or access to or from the window.
Here is some other backup below, in case the above code does not seem enough. In the situation that you have a window well or egress window under a deck, the code is very clear that you need: 1. A clear opening, and 2. a clear path from the window to a yard or court. You simply can't block it.
---
R310.1.1 Minimum opening area. All emergency escape and rescue openings shall have a minimum net clear opening of 5.7 square feet (0.530 m2).
R310.2 Window wells. The minimum horizontal area of the window well shall be 9 square feet (0.9 m2), with a minimum horizontal projection and width of 36 inches (914 mm). The area of the window well shall allow the emergency escape and rescue opening to be fully opened.
R310.5 Emergency escape windows under decks and porches. Emergency escape windows are allowed to be installed under decks and porches provided the location of the deck allows the emergency escape window to be fully opened and provides a path not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height to a yard or court.
jpowell
Bronze Member
Sorry, I don't see a way to edit my post.
To the point of the original question, I would say the post has to be 36" away from the window minimum, and allow the window to fully open.
To the point of the original question, I would say the post has to be 36" away from the window minimum, and allow the window to fully open.
globe trekker
Registered User
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,739
jpowell,
There is quick and easy way to remedy this, so that you CAN "edit" your contributions.
Please consider becoming a Sawhorse (i.e. - a paid member). This Forum is a great
resource!
.
fatboy
Administrator
If there wasn't a change submitted by 1/1/13, then the 2015 is locked up. looks like the 2012 is pretty much unchanged, other than requireing well drainage. And looking through the code change proposals I found this;
RB119 – 13
R310.1.1, R310.1.2, R310.1.3, R310.1.5 (NEW)
Proponent: Rick Davidson, City of Maple Grove, Association of Minnesota Building Officials (rdavidson@maplegrovemn.gov)
Revise as follows:
R310.1.1 Minimum opening area unobstructed glass area for windows. All Where windows are used as emergency escape and rescue openings, they shall have a minimum net clear opening unobstructed glass area of 5.7 square feet (0.530 m2).
Exception: Grade floor openings windows shall have a minimum net clear opening unobstructed glass area of 5 square feet (0.465 m2).
R310.1.2 Minimum opening unobstructed glass height. The minimum net clear opening height The minimum unobstructed glass height shall be 24 inches (610 mm).
R310.1.3 Minimum opening unobstructed glass width. The minimum net clear opening width The minimum unobstructed glass width shall be 20 inches (508 mm).
R310.1.4 Operational constraints. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall be operational from the inside of the room without the use of keys, tools or special knowledge.
R310.1.5 Doors used as emergency escape and rescue openings. Where a door is used to meet the requirements of this section, it shall be of a size that is capable of being used for its intended purpose.
Reason: This is a different and more logical approach to dealing with the size of emergency escape and rescue openings.
The dimensions that are currently being used for egress windows have been cited in ICC Commentaries and in the UBC predecessors as being the result of a study by the San Diego Fire Department. That statement is false. The ICC offices have no copies of any study that was done by the San Diego Fire Department that establishes egress window dimensions nor is there any record of any such study existing nor is there any recollection by ICC staff that they have ever seen such a study. Discussions with long time members of the San Diego Fire Department reveal that the Department never took part in any study to determine the appropriate size of egress windows.
Therefore, it is safe to assume that the dimensions in the code for egress windows exist without any scientific basis.
However, if one is going to have emergency escape and rescue windows, one must have certain size requirements for those windows. But the rules should be reasonable and defensible.
It has been stated by some folks that the reason for the 20 inch width requirement is that it accommodates the width of a fire ladder (20 inches). The area is necessary because "the studies" indicated that such a size (5.7 square feet) is necessary to allow emergency personnel to enter the room through the window wearing necessary safety gear (24 inches of height and 5.7 square ft). I’m not sure how that justifies the 5.0 square foot openings permitted at grade.
I don’t know if there is a standard width for ladders or not. But the fallacy that exists is the assumption that the window will be open when a rescue attempt is made. Isn’t it more likely that the window will be closed? Isn’t it more likely that the following photos depict actual conditions? Isn’t it more likely that a rescue person would need to break the window to initiate a rescue? If the ladder is placed in the window opening, won’t it impede access into the room, especially with a casement window? Isn’t it more reasonable to regulate the rescue opening based on the glass size of the closed window rather than the openable size of the window since that is more than likely how rescue personnel will encounter the window? Won’t rescue personnel break out any glass in an opening rather than try to open the window? Of course.
Therefore, it seems to make much more sense to base emergency escape and rescue window requirements on glass size rather than openable area. Even for occupants of the room, it may be more appropriate to break the glass rather than trying to reach operating hardware that may be located where the air is untenable.
Last, there is language proposed to address doors used as rescue and escape openings. The size of the door entering the room is unregulated. This is the primary exit from the room. If a door used as the primary exit is not regulated, why should a secondary door face stricter limits? The proposed language requires that the door be "capable of being used for its intended purpose". This is similar to language approved by the IRC committee in the past and gives the field inspector discretion over door sizes. The inspector may use location, size of the occupant, or whatever limitations seem reasonable to establish the opening size.
RB119 – 13
R310.1.1, R310.1.2, R310.1.3, R310.1.5 (NEW)
Proponent: Rick Davidson, City of Maple Grove, Association of Minnesota Building Officials (rdavidson@maplegrovemn.gov)
Revise as follows:
R310.1.1 Minimum opening area unobstructed glass area for windows. All Where windows are used as emergency escape and rescue openings, they shall have a minimum net clear opening unobstructed glass area of 5.7 square feet (0.530 m2).
Exception: Grade floor openings windows shall have a minimum net clear opening unobstructed glass area of 5 square feet (0.465 m2).
R310.1.2 Minimum opening unobstructed glass height. The minimum net clear opening height The minimum unobstructed glass height shall be 24 inches (610 mm).
R310.1.3 Minimum opening unobstructed glass width. The minimum net clear opening width The minimum unobstructed glass width shall be 20 inches (508 mm).
R310.1.4 Operational constraints. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall be operational from the inside of the room without the use of keys, tools or special knowledge.
R310.1.5 Doors used as emergency escape and rescue openings. Where a door is used to meet the requirements of this section, it shall be of a size that is capable of being used for its intended purpose.
Reason: This is a different and more logical approach to dealing with the size of emergency escape and rescue openings.
The dimensions that are currently being used for egress windows have been cited in ICC Commentaries and in the UBC predecessors as being the result of a study by the San Diego Fire Department. That statement is false. The ICC offices have no copies of any study that was done by the San Diego Fire Department that establishes egress window dimensions nor is there any record of any such study existing nor is there any recollection by ICC staff that they have ever seen such a study. Discussions with long time members of the San Diego Fire Department reveal that the Department never took part in any study to determine the appropriate size of egress windows.
Therefore, it is safe to assume that the dimensions in the code for egress windows exist without any scientific basis.
However, if one is going to have emergency escape and rescue windows, one must have certain size requirements for those windows. But the rules should be reasonable and defensible.
It has been stated by some folks that the reason for the 20 inch width requirement is that it accommodates the width of a fire ladder (20 inches). The area is necessary because "the studies" indicated that such a size (5.7 square feet) is necessary to allow emergency personnel to enter the room through the window wearing necessary safety gear (24 inches of height and 5.7 square ft). I’m not sure how that justifies the 5.0 square foot openings permitted at grade.
I don’t know if there is a standard width for ladders or not. But the fallacy that exists is the assumption that the window will be open when a rescue attempt is made. Isn’t it more likely that the window will be closed? Isn’t it more likely that the following photos depict actual conditions? Isn’t it more likely that a rescue person would need to break the window to initiate a rescue? If the ladder is placed in the window opening, won’t it impede access into the room, especially with a casement window? Isn’t it more reasonable to regulate the rescue opening based on the glass size of the closed window rather than the openable size of the window since that is more than likely how rescue personnel will encounter the window? Won’t rescue personnel break out any glass in an opening rather than try to open the window? Of course.
Therefore, it seems to make much more sense to base emergency escape and rescue window requirements on glass size rather than openable area. Even for occupants of the room, it may be more appropriate to break the glass rather than trying to reach operating hardware that may be located where the air is untenable.
Last, there is language proposed to address doors used as rescue and escape openings. The size of the door entering the room is unregulated. This is the primary exit from the room. If a door used as the primary exit is not regulated, why should a secondary door face stricter limits? The proposed language requires that the door be "capable of being used for its intended purpose". This is similar to language approved by the IRC committee in the past and gives the field inspector discretion over door sizes. The inspector may use location, size of the occupant, or whatever limitations seem reasonable to establish the opening size.