It is to interpret what is there. Not to interpret what isn't.Papio Bldg Dept said:respectfully, and without going where previous and various versions of this question have taken us, what then in your opinion is the purpose of R104.1?
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.
It is to interpret what is there. Not to interpret what isn't.Papio Bldg Dept said:respectfully, and without going where previous and various versions of this question have taken us, what then in your opinion is the purpose of R104.1?
In this case, the section you previously cited gives the building official latitude to reasonable interpret "window well." That section doesn't allow "opening onto" to become a requirement for a clear path.Papio Bldg Dept said:So how would you enforce it if the post was in the 36 inch minimum horizontal projection and width of a window well, but the window could still be fully opened? My frustration is that it appears 310.2 is so poorly written, that if I take it at its literal application (an "if it doesn't say it then it is silent" approach), then anything (posts, shrubs, etc), with exception for ladders and steps only (which are permitted to encroach a maximum of 6 inches), may encroach into that minimum horizontal area. R310.2 Window Wells. The minimum horizontal area of the window well shall be 9 square feet, with a minimum horizontal projection and width of 36 inches. The are of the window well shall allow the emergency escape and rescue opening to be fully opened. Exception: The ladder or steps required by Section R310.2.1 shall be permitted to encroach a maximum of 6 inches into the required dimensions of the window well. I give up.
I am not suggesting an "opening onto" condition, merely a function of egress-ability, or being able to get out of a window, which, if I understand correctly, is the intent behind the bars, screens, and window well requirements (to keep people from getting stuck or pinned as they egress through the EER opening.brudgers said:In this case, the section you previously cited gives the building official latitude to reasonable interpret "window well." That section doesn't allow "opening onto" to become a requirement for a clear path. Keep in mind that the 22' drop onto concrete pavement from a third floor EERO is more of a hindrance than a fence post. Unless you are going to require soft and fluffy pillows be installed.
I think I'd rather climb down the fence post or slide down the flagpole than splat on the concrete26' tall fence-post/flagpole is 6 inches out and directly centered on the EER opening.
Not for the fireman on a ladder outside the window trying to get in to haul an unconscious person out of that bedroom.brudgers said:Keep in mind that the 22' drop onto concrete pavement from a third floor EERO is more of a hindrance than a fence post.
In the earlier code versions, (2003) extensive studies in San Diego were specifically cited in the commentary for fire personnell being able to get access, especially. You bring up a good point about the continued relevance of that reasoning. I am not sure if the ICC has updated their commentary in that regard for more recent code cycles.beach said:The purpose of an EERRO isn't really intended to provide ingress for fighters, although it's nice to have.......for example, if you installed code compliant bars on the exterior of your egress window, where would the unlatching mechanism be located?
Maybe they should just call them EEOs and omit the R altogether?beach said:Another example would be multiple bedroom windows appearing to be the same size where only one meets EERO requirements, which is pretty common around here..... During an incident, we would never know which is the egress window, we would typically just ingress (break) the window that we thought would be the most advantages.
Now that there is funny.!Mac said:Emergency Individual Egress/Ingress Opening - EIEIO
Really? In Canada it is stated the intent is for both egress and entry. We had an argument with a daycare that had a sleeping room with an existing window that didn't meet egress that since both they and the children could fit through it that it should not be required. The fact that it was required for ingress as well as egress helped bring an end to that debate.beach said:The purpose of an EERRO isn't really intended to provide ingress for fighters, although it's nice to have.......for example, if you installed code compliant bars on the exterior of your egress window, where would the unlatching mechanism be located?
I had a pot-on-the stove incident once (no flames yet, just lots of smoke). The owner had compliant bars installed over the windows. You should have seen the shocked look on his face when he came home and here are all these firefighters in his home and no damage to his door, windows or security bars. He asked how did we get in and I said through your window. He asked how did you get through the security bars? I just smiled and walked away.beach said:The purpose of an EERRO isn't really intended to provide ingress for fighters, although it's nice to have.......for example, if you installed code compliant bars on the exterior of your egress window, where would the unlatching mechanism be located?
That will not work on iimpact resistant glassWe were taught to take a pike pole and break the glass, catch the center rail and pull frame and all out of the wall if you were doing rescue operations. Don't have to worry about broken glass or getting a large unconscious occupant out a small sash. If that didn't work a chain saw can create an opening quickly.