• 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

retrofit windows

redeyedfly said:
There are many great BOs. Then there are many like you, who believe they have the authority to enforce their opinions on the registered design professionals who are actually liable for the performance of their designs. Of course, you're also forcing the owner to pay for your unnecessary code editorials.
Click to expand...
You have accused me of quite a few things in this post and others preceding. My intent is to present the code, and a professional opinion of what it states.

You accuse me of enforcing my opinion; no, I am applying the code and suggesting that you follow it. Code says listen to the manufacturer and the manufacturer said no. Not sure where I come into that.

As an RDP, yes, you have your professional opinion and are held liable for it. Great. Doesn't mean that you are always right either.
 
I could go here:

R104.9 Approved materials and equipment. Materials, equipment and devices approved by the building official shall be constructed and installed in accordance with such approval.

And here:

R106.1.2 Manufacturer’s installation instructions. Manufacturer’s installation instructions, as required by this code, shall be available on the job site at the time of
inspection.

And then 609.1 which would get me to 703.4

R703.4 Flashing. Approved corrosion-resistant flashing shall
be applied shingle-fashion in a manner to prevent entry of
water into the wall cavity or penetration of water to the building
structural framing components. Self-adhered membranes
used as flashing shall comply with AAMA 711. Fluid-applied
membranes used as flashing in exterior walls shall comply
with AAMA 714. The flashing shall extend to the surface of
the exterior wall finish. Approved corrosion-resistant flashings
shall be installed at the following locations:

Which I can certainly argue is not generally possible with any replacement window.....But maybe caulk meets AAMA714...Some guys put it on like membrane...

No one is dumb just because they are an engineer or a building official....They were dumb before they got that title and never graduated out of that...
 
@ @ > >

" Do you see an issue? "
Click to expand...
I can't tell from the angle of the picture, but are the windows
sufficiently sealed from the exterior elements ?

<< @ @
 
Red, this issue is definitely out of the ordinary, installing a component in a new condition where it was primarily designed to be placed into an existing opening. The same section would apply in CA (below) regarding the need for the manufacturer to specify that the retro-fit window is installed per their instructions. If in fact it is allowed by the manufacturer, then there should not be any conflict as long as the proper evidence is submitted.

Classic is 100% correct with the code cites and info he provided to you.

CA Res. Code R609.1."This section prescribes performance and construction requirements for exterior windows and doors installed in walls. Windows and doors shall be installed and flashed in accordance with the fenestration manufacturer's written instructions. Window and door openings shall be flashed in accordance with Section R703.4. Written installation instructions shall be provided by the fenestration manufacturer for each window or door."
 
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I've heard enough from this person. He's been a member for all of three days and he's hurling insults. The only effective way to deal with them is to ignore them. There is a button for that.
 
ICE said:
I don't know about the rest of you guys but I've heard enough from this person. He's been a member for all of three days and he's hurling insults. The only effective way to deal with them is to ignore them. There is a button for that.
Click to expand...
I was most certainly insulted first. But go ahead and ignore.
Sounds like a few of you are the BOs who think they have a little more power than they actually do. The truth hurts I guess.
 
redeyedfly said:
I assure you that engineers have no inferiority complex to BOs with the equivalent education of a real estate agent. Most of you don't even know the code let alone how or why any of the provisions are included.
I will call BS that the window mfg won't allow their flangeless windows in new construction. I'd wager your code fiction buddy added that detail out of thin air.
Click to expand...
I find this post quite interesting. It includes a couple of logical fallacies.

1. Personal attacks: this type of logical fallacy is typically used to distract an opponent by attacking their character. The opponent usually tries to defend their character, thus being distracted from the actual argument at hand. A good example of this is seen typically in debates between politicians. This tactic is typically used where the holder of an opinion or position becomes aware that they cannot argue their side through logic.

2. Onus of proof: this type of logical fallacy is where one side demands that the other side prove them wrong. This establishes the conception that without onus of proof that the opinion or position is wrong, it must be right. The reality is much different, it is not a binary situation. In that circumstance, the opinion or position is neither true nor false. There is simply not enough evidence provided.

Onus of proof is where we as building officials live a lot of the time. For instance, the building inspector provides a code reference saying installation must be to manufacturer's written instructions. The onus is then on the builder to provide the instructions they are using to install the window.
 
redeyedfly said:
We do it every day in IBC buildings.
Click to expand...
Ok, i'll keep playing...You are allowed to use the IBC for a SFD.....Which will still have the manufacturers installation instructions requirement...

[A] 107.2.4 Exterior wall envelope. Construction documents
for all buildings shall describe the exterior wall
envelope in sufficient detail to determine compliance with
this code. The construction documents shall provide
details of the exterior wall envelope as required, including
flashing, intersections with dissimilar materials, corners,
end details, control joints, intersections at roof, eaves or
parapets, means of drainage, water-resistive membrane
and details around openings.
The construction documents shall include manufacturer’s
installation instructions that provide supporting
documentation that the proposed penetration and opening
details described in the construction documents maintain
the weather resistance of the exterior wall envelope. The
supporting documentation shall fully describe the exterior
wall system that was tested, where applicable, as well as
the test procedure used.

And then you would have to meet Ex #2 to use a flush caulked
assembly that does not drain to the exterior...

1403.2 Weather protection. Exterior walls shall provide the
building with a weather-resistant exterior wall envelope. The
exterior wall envelope shall include flashing, as described in
Section 1405.4. The exterior wall envelope shall be designed
and constructed in such a manner as to prevent the accumulation
of water within the wall assembly by providing a water resistive
barrier behind the exterior veneer, as described in
Section 1404.2, and a means for draining water that enters the
assembly to the exterior. Protection against condensation in
the exterior wall assembly shall be provided in accordance
with Section 1405.3.
Exceptions:
1. A weather-resistant exterior wall envelope shall not
be required over concrete or masonry walls designed
in accordance with Chapters 19 and 21, respectively.
2. Compliance with the requirements for a means of
drainage, and the requirements of Sections 1404.2
and 1405.4, shall not be required for an exterior wall
envelope that has been demonstrated through testing
to resist wind-driven rain, including joints, penetrations
and intersections with dissimilar materials, in
accordance with ASTM E331 under the following
conditions:

And I am liable if I accept an engineers mistake that I know about.
It's called malfeasance........Not only that, but it puts my municipality
on the hook in theory forever where your liability ends with you...
 
If you can't meet the prescriptive code you can always request a code modification. You would have to show that the way you propose to seal the window will provide equivalent weather protection.
 
tmurray said:
I find this post quite interesting. It includes a couple of logical fallacies.

1. Personal attacks: this type of logical fallacy is typically used to distract an opponent by attacking their character. The opponent usually tries to defend their character, thus being distracted from the actual argument at hand. A good example of this are seen typically in debates between politicians. This tactic is typically used where the holder of an opinion or position becomes aware that they cannot argue their side through logic.

2. Onus of proof: this type of logical fallacy is where one side demands that the other side prove them wrong. This establishes the conception that without onus of proof that the opinion or position is wrong, it must be right. The reality is much different, it is not a binary situation. In that circumstance, the opinion or position is neither true nor false. There is simply not enough evidence provided.

Onus of proof is where we as building officials live a lot of the time. For instance, the building inspector provides a code reference saying installation must be to manufacturer's written instructions. The onus is then on the builder to provide the instructions they are using to install the window.
Click to expand...
1. I guess you missed the post I was replying to where he insulted me.
2. The claim was made that the window mfg would not allow flangeless windows in new construction. That goes against all of my experience. I didn't even ask for proof, I simply stated that I doubt the claim.

Nice try though.
 
steveray said:
Ok, i'll keep playing...You are allowed to use the IBC for a SFD.....Which will still have the manufacturers installation instructions requirement...

[A] 107.2.4 Exterior wall envelope. Construction documents
for all buildings shall describe the exterior wall
envelope in sufficient detail to determine compliance with
this code. The construction documents shall provide
details of the exterior wall envelope as required, including
flashing, intersections with dissimilar materials, corners,
end details, control joints, intersections at roof, eaves or
parapets, means of drainage, water-resistive membrane
and details around openings.
The construction documents shall include manufacturer’s
installation instructions that provide supporting
documentation that the proposed penetration and opening
details described in the construction documents maintain
the weather resistance of the exterior wall envelope. The
supporting documentation shall fully describe the exterior
wall system that was tested, where applicable, as well as
the test procedure used.

And then you would have to meet Ex #2 to use a flush caulked assembly that does not drain to the exterior...

1403.2 Weather protection. Exterior walls shall provide the
building with a weather-resistant exterior wall envelope. The
exterior wall envelope shall include flashing, as described in
Section 1405.4. The exterior wall envelope shall be designed
and constructed in such a manner as to prevent the accumulation
of water within the wall assembly by providing a waterresistive
barrier behind the exterior veneer, as described in
Section 1404.2, and a means for draining water that enters the
assembly to the exterior. Protection against condensation in
the exterior wall assembly shall be provided in accordance
with Section 1405.3.
Exceptions:
1. A weather-resistant exterior wall envelope shall not
be required over concrete or masonry walls designed
in accordance with Chapters 19 and 21, respectively.
2. Compliance with the requirements for a means of
drainage, and the requirements of Sections 1404.2
and 1405.4, shall not be required for an exterior wall
envelope that has been demonstrated through testing
to resist wind-driven rain, including joints, penetrations
and intersections with dissimilar materials, in
accordance with ASTM E331 under the following
conditions:

And I am liable if I accept an engineers mistake that I know about...It's called malfeasance....Not only that, but it puts my municipality on the hook in theory forever where your liability ends with you...
Click to expand...
Again I strongly doubt the window mfg would not allow this installation.

Fun fact, most commercial window mfgs specifically DO NOT provide flashing details. In IBC world there are way too many wall types and air/weather barrier systems to capture all of them. Also it is not the window mfgs scope to provide such information. You will typically get the flashing details from the AWB mfg. Then there are the unique conditions where the assy is custom for the application. That is where RDPs and envelope consultants create custom details.
None of these situations are unusual when you step outside of IRC cookie cutter construction.

I maintain that the OP is stretching their authority. The windows are prescriptively acceptable.
 
Teeshot said:
Red, this issue is definitely out of the ordinary, installing a component in a new condition where it was primarily designed to be placed into an existing opening. The same section would apply in CA (below) regarding the need for the manufacturer to specify that the retro-fit window is installed per their instructions. If in fact it is allowed by the manufacturer, then there should not be any conflict as long as the proper evidence is submitted.

Classic is 100% correct with the code cites and info he provided to you.

CA Res. Code R609.1."This section prescribes performance and construction requirements for exterior windows and doors installed in walls. Windows and doors shall be installed and flashed in accordance with the fenestration manufacturer's written instructions. Window and door openings shall be flashed in accordance with Section R703.4. Written installation instructions shall be provided by the fenestration manufacturer for each window or door."
Click to expand...
I've retired and don't keep up, but Red is right, I'd venture to say that worldwide more flange-less windows are installed than flanged, I don't like it but as a matter of fact the installation standards are published by ASTM and BOs were supposed to keep up, the AAMA publishes their InstallationMasters guide wherein they republish them, §16.8 Installation of Block Frame (non-Flanged) Windows in Membrane/Drainage Wall Systems is the applicable section, §16.8.2 does require a sill pan. Tee, I don't care what §R703.4 says but manufacturers seldom publish installation instructions for liability reasons, instead they defer to AAMA.

Note: I took the California required courses on this 20 years ago and my InstallationMasters manual is dated 2000 so things could have changed, when I took the classes we were told that all BOs would be carrying the AAMA InstallationMasters manuals with them on all inspections, along with the NFRC Certified Products Directory, and a huge AAMA book listing every window made and approved, that never happened.
 
Thanks CA! Glad you are still kicking!....Sometimes we teach our customers and sometimes they teach us. Either way civility is key....I would need a dumptruck to carry all of the codes and standards i am "supposed" to have to inspections. That is where the construction side needs to step up. If you install it to a guide or manual, have that on the job.
 
redeyedfly said:
Again I strongly doubt the window mfg would not allow this installation.

Fun fact, most commercial window mfgs specifically DO NOT provide flashing details. In IBC world there are way too many wall types and air/weather barrier systems to capture all of them. Also it is not the window mfgs scope to provide such information. You will typically get the flashing details from the AWB mfg. Then there are the unique conditions where the assy is custom for the application. That is where RDPs and envelope consultants create custom details.
None of these situations are unusual when you step outside of IRC cookie cutter construction.

I maintain that the OP is stretching their authority. The windows are prescriptively acceptable.
Click to expand...

I can only speak to my experience, but in "commercial" construction, the window installation and flashings are specified by the architect. The code dealing with residential construction specifies installation standards. In theory, an architect could be enlisted to perform similar work on residential through an alternative means approval.

Just because "there is a lot of flangeless windows being installed" does not mean that it meets code (another logical fallacy). If most manufacturers had specifications for flangeless window installs, it should be simple to provide one. If most manufacturers had specifications for flangeless window installs, one of the hundreds of building officials on this forum likely would have run across this scenario.

I reached out to a colleague of mine on this issue who sits on the standards committee for window installation. He confirmed that there is currently no approved methods for installing a flangeless window in new construction. But, I'm in Canada after all, and as Conarb has pointed out on occasion, we like to make sure our windows work good so the outside stays out and the inside stays in.
 
redeyedfly said:
1. I guess you missed the post I was replying to where he insulted me.
2. The claim was made that the window mfg would not allow flangeless windows in new construction. That goes against all of my experience. I didn't even ask for proof, I simply stated that I doubt the claim.

Nice try though.
Click to expand...
Come on now. Your post was inflammatory and designed to incur that response. Don't sit there and cry victim when you walk into a forum full of building inspectors and started spouting negative, all encompassing statements that amount to building inspectors all make you do things out of preference rather than code, and then be surprised when people tell you that it's not a good attitude to have towards an official. It's like going through security screening at the airport, calling them all fat, lazy, and stupid, then being surprised that you've been "randomly" selected for secondary screening.

But in re-reading your posts, I can see where you are coming from. You alluded that you have been involved in projects that have done this. People on the forum stated that this was deficient construction. Constructing something deficiently would indicate the person undertaking this construction was negligent. You likely (along with everyone on the face of this planet) feel that you are a competent person. being involved with a project where there is deficient construction creates a instance of psychological dissonance (belief of competence vs. evidence of negligence). The interesting thing with psychological dissonance is the inclination for people to subconsciously reject evidence that disproves the position that occupied their mind first (in this case the belief of competence) through the use of confirmation bias. When this bias occurs, we subconsciously reject or lessen the evidence that does not support our position and elevate evidence that does.

I'm not saying this to try and hurt your feelings and to be honest, I really don't expect you to change your mind. I just felt that we can all look at this to understand why someone might argue what appears from the outside to be an illogical position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top