• 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.

Window Fall Protection in Sprinklered Multi Family Structure

R

Rebecca Davis

REGISTERED
Joined
Nov 15, 2023
Messages
12
Location
Bloomington Indiana
I was performing a rental inspection at a four story multi family structure yesterday and came across a few different fall protection scenarios. One is that the fall protection that was installed originally in the windows was screwed in so the window had no way of opening past the 4 inches. It also had window slide latches which had also been screwed through in a way that made them inoperable. However, at this time the vast majority of the fall protection devices have now been removed, making the windows fully operable with no fall protection, with a sill height of 26". I am referencing 1013.8 in the 2012 IBC which was adopeted as the Indiana building code in 2014. It seems obvious to me that the fall protection must be re-installed. My specific question is if the window needs to be capable of opening past the 4" if the building is sprinklered.
 
There is an exception that applies only to R-1. That is no help for your situation.

Exception: Group R-1 occupancies provided with a monitored fire sprinkler system in accordance with Section903.2.8 and designed in accordance with NFPA 13 may have openable windows permanently restricted to a maximum 4-inch (102 mm) open position.
 
Isn't the purpose of the window latches (screws) to prevent the opening for fall protection?

Newer windows may come with factory lock type latches, maybe the windows have to be ordered that way?
 
ICE said:
There is an exception that applies only to R-1. That is no help for your situation.

Exception: Group R-1 occupancies provided with a monitored fire sprinkler system in accordance with Section903.2.8 and designed in accordance with NFPA 13 may have openable windows permanently restricted to a maximum 4-inch (102 mm) open position.
Click to expand...
Yes - I had come across that. I wonder why that isn't included in the IBC
Rebecca Davis said:
I was performing a rental inspection at a four story multi family structure yesterday and came across a few different fall protection scenarios. One is that the fall protection that was installed originally in the windows was screwed in so the window had no way of opening past the 4 inches. It also had window slide latches which had also been screwed through in a way that made them inoperable. However, at this time the vast majority of the fall protection devices have now been removed, making the windows fully operable with no fall protection, with a sill height of 26". I am referencing 1013.8 in the 2012 IBC which was adopeted as the Indiana building code in 2014. It seems obvious to me that the fall protection must be re-installed. My specific question is if the window needs to be capable of opening past the 4" if the building is sprinklered.
Click to expand...
601 N Rogers Fall Protection.JPG
steveray said:
So the building was built in 2014?...Typically you cannot modify a building to be "less safe"....
Click to expand...
2018. The have multiple inspections with multiple agencies and I believe somewhere along the line an inspector said they needed to be removed so the window could open fully ... but it is a fully sprinklered structure, so I am thinking perhaps the window does not have to meet egress requirements.
 
Section 1029.1 indicates that emergency escape and rescue opening are required for basements and sleeping areas below the fourth floor. That would seem to indicate that the fourth floor does not require the egress opening. Operational constraints are covered by Section 1029.4 for required egress openings. Do these devises appear on every level or just the fourth floor?
 
Rebecca Davis said:
My specific question is if the window needs to be capable of opening past the 4" if the building is sprinklered.
Click to expand...
Unless it is a single exit story/building, I don't think so. 2012 was a little less understandable IMO, but I believe the intent was the same then as the 2018.
 
Rebecca Davis said:
I was performing a rental inspection at a four story multi family structure yesterday and came across a few different fall protection scenarios. One is that the fall protection that was installed originally in the windows was screwed in so the window had no way of opening past the 4 inches. It also had window slide latches which had also been screwed through in a way that made them inoperable....
Click to expand...

Good catch, Rebecca! Your are looking for Fire/Life/Safety violations. And then you posted your question here. (Another Kudo!)

Best of all, you can sleep good at night knowing the 4th story windows are legally allowed to be limited without use of a tool.
 
Rebecca Davis said:
One is that the fall protection that was installed originally in the windows was screwed in so the window had no way of opening past the 4 inches. It also had window slide latches which had also been screwed through in a way that made them inoperable.
Click to expand...
All of them are a life safety code violation
1015.8 Window openings.
Windows in Group R-2 and R-3 buildings including dwelling units, where the top of the sill of an operable window opening is located less than 36 inches above the finished floor and more than 72 inches (1829 mm) above the finished grade or other surface below on the exterior of the building, shall comply with one of the following:

1. Operable windows where the top of the sill of the opening is located more than 75 feet (22 860 mm) above the finished grade or other surface below and that are provided with window fall prevention devices that comply with ASTM F2006.

2. Operable windows where the openings will not allow a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere to pass through the opening when the window is in its largest opened position.

3. Operable windows where the openings are provided with window fall prevention devices that comply with ASTM F2090.

4. Operable windows that are provided with window opening control devices that comply with Section 1015.8.1.
1015.8.1 Window opening control devices.
Window opening control devices shall comply with ASTM F2090. The window opening control device, after operation to release the control device allowing the window to fully open, shall not reduce the minimum net clear opening area of the window unit to less than the area required by Section 1030.2.

Did you check the screens for possible compliance. Cheaper and easier to install then replacing windows.


1721764062793.png
1721764113034.png

YI: ASTM F2090 is an easy 15 page read.

Atch 2 - ASTM F2090 Emergency Egress Window Fall Protection.pdf

Atch 2 - ASTM F2090 Emergency Egress Window Fall Protection.pdf - Window Fall Protection RFI - Solicitation FA5215-RFI-Fall-Protection - Posted 2021-03-12T20:19:09-05:00
govtribe.com

1015.8.1 Window opening control devices.
Window opening control devices shall comply with ASTM F2090. The window opening control device, after operation to release the control device allowing the window to fully open, shall not reduce the minimum net clear opening area of the window unit to less than the area required by Section 1030.2.
 
Just something that's odd.

IBC:
1015.8 Window openings. Windows in Group R-1, R-2 andR-3 buildings including dwelling units, where the top of thesill of an operable window opening is located less than 36 inches above the finished floor and more than 72 inches(1829 mm) above the finished grade or other surface below on the exterior of the building, shall comply with one of the following:

Residential Code:
R312.2.1 Window sills. In dwelling units, where the top of the sill of an operable window opening is located less than 24 inches (610 mm) above the finished floor and greater than 72 inches (1829 mm) above the finished grade or other surface below on the exterior of the build- ing, the operable window shall comply with one of the following:
 
The window as an emergency escape and rescue opening wouldn’t be required in a 4-story R-2 building because stories with a single exit wouldn’t be allowed in a 4-story building.
 
Rebecca Davis said:
I have not been able to locate any code in regards to that hunch. I was hoping someone may be able to help me with that.
Click to expand...
Admittedly, I think the code is sloppy here. 2018 and beyond appear to have made an attempt at clarifying it. It first lists where the EERO's are required, then provides a paragraph adding to it, but only if the 2 conditions are met. I think this is confirmed by the following interp:

1721767492461.png
 
There are two separate issues under discussion here, right?

Emergency Escape and Rescue openings as @ICE just referenced (1031 in my current code). This is so people can get out, or (rarely) so rescuers can get in.

This
ICE said:
Just something that's odd.

IBC:
1015.8 Window openings. Windows in Group R-1, R-2 andR-3 buildings including dwelling units, where the top of thesill of an operable window opening is located less than 36 inches above the finished floor and more than 72 inches(1829 mm) above the finished grade or other surface below on the exterior of the building, shall comply with one of the following:

Residential Code:
R312.2.1 Window sills. In dwelling units, where the top of the sill of an operable window opening is located less than 24 inches (610 mm) above the finished floor and greater than 72 inches (1829 mm) above the finished grade or other surface below on the exterior of the build- ing, the operable window shall comply with one of the following:
Click to expand...
is about keeping kids from falling out of windows. That's my understanding anyways, and I agree with @ICE, it's odd that there's such a big difference between the two codes.
 
Since this is in the context of a code enforcement issue, first determine if they are required to be EERO's and it sounds like they are. Then, when it was built, would they be required to have fall protection, it sounds like that's also a yes. Based on that I would absolutely cite the missing devices as code violations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top