Thread: Safety glazing next to a slider

I have a situation where the Municipality says that a window within 24" of the fixed portion of a sliding glass door does not have to be safety glazed. I read the code as explained below:

The 2006 IRC calls for safety glazing when glazing “is in
an individual fixed or operable panel adjacent to a door
where the nearest vertical edge is within a 24-inch arc of
the door in a closed position and whose bottom edge is
less than 60 inches above the floor or walking surface.”
This section is not easily understood. Imagine attaching
one end of a 24-inch-long string to the corner of the door
jamb, then pulling the free end in a horizontal arc. Any
glass less than 60 inches above the floor and within the
reach of the string would need to be safety glazed.
Arcs are measured from both door jambs, on the inside
and outside — four places. In the case of a sliding glass
door, the whole assembly is considered the “door”: You
would not measure from the edges of only the operable
panel, but from the edge of the inoperable panel as well
— in other words, the edge of the door assembly.

Can someone help me with making the case for safety glazing, or setting me straight if I am way off base? Oh yea, and they want an answer like yesterday... thanks for any help on this. David

Similar Threads:

• Pool Safety Links
• Safety Glazing
• Make pool safety a priority - Orlando Sentinel
• Recent drowning calls remind us of child pool safety - AZFamily (subscription)
• 2,953 Archived Environmental, Pests, Health and Safety Posts

Your right, but you already have the code... but I can see how there would be dispute if the reader already had their mind made up that the 24" arc was only on the hinge side of a hinged door... but then what do they do with a slider? Oh, well...
There are some drawings that have been posted hear in the past from code check, etc. Maybe, do a search or someone will repost the diagrams or the IRC commentary on the subject.

Originally Posted by Dave Mortensen

I have a situation where the Municipality says that a window within 24" of the fixed portion of a sliding glass door does not have to be safety glazed.

They are treating the "fixed portion" as a wall.

Not saying they are correct, but that is their reason.

In one sense, they would be correct when measuring "floor line" between receptacle outlets, but ...

It does not take much to swap those sides around on most sliding glass doors, making the fixed panel the operable panel, and then you are left with that window within 24" of the operable panel.

*I* think they are incorrect in their call. If you ask them "how wide is the door opening, buck-to-buck and jamb-to-jamb I'm betting they measure the entire width of the sliding glass door, in which case they would be correct, and they would have just shot themselves in the foot, because they are currently saying that is not the case.

Ask them.

If the Muni doesn't agree with me then my client does not have much to go on when insisting the window be safety glazed. I guess all I can do is try to educate the Muni, lotta luck...
I'll keep you posted and I appreciate the responses!

OK; I'm one of those Muni's

Here is my opinion/interpretation of the code and every section in the code is an interpretation of the individual reading the code!

On a sliding glass patio door let's take the part of the door that slides say left to right from the inside. If there is a window within 24" to the left of the operating sliding door then that window needs to be safety glazing.

The glazing to the right of the opening portion of the door is considered a sidelight so it is required to have safety glazing. The fixed portion is safety glazing so it meets the code. Anything farther than 24" to the operating portion of the sliding door does not need to be safety glazing.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

If you ask them "how wide is the door opening, buck-to-buck and jamb-to-jamb I'm betting they measure the entire width of the sliding glass door, in which case they would be correct, and they would have just shot themselves in the foot, because they are currently saying that is not the case. Ask them.

You would have this same scenario with doors that have sidelights built into the frame of the door.

Take a conventional door 3'0" 6"8" door and add a sidelight to the door on each side. It is a complete unit that the framer installs. If these sidelights are within 24" of an operational door then these sidelights would be required to have safety glazing. The buck to buck or jamb to jamb would be the same as you described above. You wouldn't be required to install safety glazing in any other portions within 24" of those sidelights.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

It does not take much to swap those sides around on most sliding glass doors, making the fixed panel the operable panel, and then you are left with that window within 24" of the operable panel.

You have to look at what is there at the time of the inspection, not what may happen in the future. If they alter the door later then any glazing within the 24" radious would need to be safety glazing. And yes they may do it and without permits and inspections but then it would be up to the next HI to catch the renovation and write it as a violation to the code.

Wayne

In your example, when the operating side is opened it slides over the fixed portion. Should the door be slammed open, doesn't that potentially create a situation where the window within 24" of the fixed panel could be damaged? The window in question on my recent inspection was 3 studs width (4 1/2") from the slider.

I guess it could be possible but then again....can we protect everybody from everything?

I (in my opinion) couldn't justify requiring something on a "what if!"

Then of course it is all in the interpretation of the code official. I have my opinions and others have theirs. We may not all agree on every item but then what would the world be like if we all agreed?

I have had HI call and question my interpretation on specific codes. We had a nice discussion, no putting the other one down for their profession, just a good interesting conversation about why each felt the way they did! On some occassions the HI changed my opinion and on others I changed theirs!

The codes can't protect every idiot out there! Even Tony!

You're right, we can't protect everybody from every situation. I appreciate your viewpoint as a Muni official and realize the window hasn't been compromised in 25+ years with this installation. Since this was the first time I've seen the slider so close to a window I though it prudent to ask around. My leaning is still towards the window needing saftey glazing, but I'm definitely wavering! Thanks again.

One thing to consider, the purpose of the safety glass is not to prevent the glass from breaking from operation, but to protect the person from horror film style shards of glass that would injure the person. Think human impact.
I can see both side of the argument. Of course as HI we have the luxury to bring up the "what if's" without a specific code. The MI on the other hand can only enforce the minimum code.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

OK; I'm one of those Muni's

So am I ... at times.

Here is my opinion/interpretation of the code and every section in the code is an interpretation of the individual reading the code!

On a sliding glass patio door let's take the part of the door that slides say left to right from the inside. If there is a window within 24" to the left of the operating sliding door then that window needs to be safety glazing.

The glazing to the right of the opening portion of the door is considered a sidelight so it is required to have safety glazing. The fixed portion is safety glazing so it meets the code. Anything farther than 24" to the operating portion of the sliding door does not need to be safety glazing.

Except that, when reviewing the plans, you never really *KNOW* *which* panel will be fixed and which will be active, thus, at Plan Review, the plan reviewer 'should' address safety glazing from the 'door opening', which is different than a regular door with sidelights (see below).

You would have this same scenario with doors that have sidelights built into the frame of the door.

Take a conventional door 3'0" 6"8" door and add a sidelight to the door on each side. It is a complete unit that the framer installs. If these sidelights are within 24" of an operational door then these sidelights would be required to have safety glazing. The buck to buck or jamb to jamb would be the same as you described above. You wouldn't be required to install safety glazing in any other portions within 24" of those sidelights.

No, jamb to jamb is door jamb to door jamb, and the door jambs are between the sidelights and the door. With sidelights you will have: left jamb-side light-right jamb (for side light)-left jamb (for door)-door-right jamb (for door)-left jamb (for side light)-side light-right jamb for side light.

Now, in *some* cases, the side light and door jambs are combined into one single common jamb, but not it all cases. I used to see that combined common jamb all the time, now, though, I more often see separate jambs.

The reason (besides the installation being stronger) is manufacturing requirements and warehousing requirements. Make one side light, and one door, and assemble them in any combination.

Now, a custom door with a left side light is just a simple assembly, not a custom manufactured unit, same with door and right side light, or door and a left and a right side light, or a door and two right side lights, or a door and a transom light, etc.

You have to look at what is there at the time of the inspection, not what may happen in the future.

"You have to look at what is there at the time of the inspection" and in accordance with the plans, which 'should' reflect the ' don't know for sure where the active and fixed panels are going, so safety glass is required being measured from *the door opening* '.

but then it would be up to the next HI to catch the renovation and write it as a violation to the code.

But ... HIs do not do "code inspections" ... ... okay, whether they like it or not, they are doing "code inspections", just without any "enforcement power".

No teeth, but we can gum them to death.

The door shown in attached photo, the window on the left of the entry door requires safety glazing?
Yes? No?

This is a test. Jerry P, be still.
If you have an opinion site IRC 2006 code section. Those in CA refer 2007 CBC section.
Thank you.

R308.4 sec. 7.4 and sec. 10 and it does not meet the exceptions

So... I'd say yes.

Originally Posted by Victor DaGraca

R308.4 sec. 7.4 and sec. 10 and it does not meet the exceptions

So... I'd say yes.

Be more specific: 2003 IRC or 2006 IRC. That will eliminate differences in wording between them.

Note: I am not agreeing with, nor disagreeing with, Victor, simply pinning him down more specifically.

Well, ECJ, WCJ did ask that we cite 2006 IRC....so that's where it came from.

Originally Posted by Victor DaGraca

Well, ECJ, WCJ did ask that we site 2006 IRC....so that's where it came from.

Just verifying, many still pull out the 2003 IRC and quote from it.

Except that, when reviewing the plans, you never really *KNOW* *which* panel will be fixed and which will be active, thus, at Plan Review, the plan reviewer 'should' address safety glazing from the 'door opening', which is different than a regular door with sidelights (see below).

We do address safety glazing at plan review. The plans we see actually have window and door schedules and the elevations and floor plans indicate how it will be framed. However I can't tell you the last time I saw a patio door on a plan review. IF a plan came through with a patio door then I would question it.

No, jamb to jamb is door jamb to door jamb, and the door jambs are between the sidelights and the door. With sidelights you will have: left jamb-side light-right jamb (for side light)-left jamb (for door)-door-right jamb (for door)-left jamb (for side light)-side light-right jamb for side light.

No, I didn't say anything about a sidelight that was framed beside the door! I said:

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

You would have this same scenario with doors that have sidelights built into the frame of the door.

Take a conventional door 3'0" 6"8" door and add a sidelight to the door on each side. It is a complete unit that the framer installs. If these sidelights are within 24" of an operational door then these sidelights would be required to have safety glazing.

Now, in *some* cases, the side light and door jambs are combined into one single common jamb, but not it all cases. I used to see that combined common jamb all the time, now, though, I more often see separate jambs.

Same thing I said above.

Now, a custom door with a left side light is just a simple assembly, not a custom manufactured unit, same with door and right side light, or door and a left and a right side light, or a door and two right side lights, or a door and a transom light, etc.

Don't know what you mean here. Are the doors and sidelights made as one unit or as described as a door with a separate sidelight that you can install on either side. If it is the later then the sidelight would be required to be safety glazing but any other windows farther than 24" would not.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

HI to catch the renovation and write it as a violation to the code.

But ... HIs do not do "code inspections" ... ... okay, whether they like it or not, they are doing "code inspections", just without any "enforcement power".

No teeth, but we can gum them to death.

OK I used the wrong words here. They are looking for "code violations" but they cannot write it up as a code violation. It is an "opinion" that a certain item may need attention.

I actually believe we are saying the same thing it's just that you and I phrase things differently.

I looked in the 2006 IRC Commentary and they give diagrams on just about every situation "except" for sliding doors! I guess they don't want to make a solid decision on that scsnario either!!! So it all boils down to the interpretation of who is reading the code! We are all correct on this one! Do what you feel is right!


Wayne

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

No, I didn't say anything about a sidelight that was framed beside the door! I said:

And what you described was a sidelight-door-sidelight with the *DOOR* jambs between the *door* and the sidelight.

Depends on if you are addressing "bucks" or "jambs".

Don't know what you mean here. Are the doors and sidelights made as one unit or as described as a door with a separate sidelight that you can install on either side.

Yes to both.

The doors and sidelights are made as separate units. Then, when an order is placed, the door/sidelight combination is assembled from the pre-made sections. Here is an example. I order a door with a side light on each side. The door/sidelight unit was delivered 'in one piece', however, there were two jambs between the side light and the door, each having been made separately, for use either separately or with the other, depending on what is ordered.

I ordered the upgrade to stain grade oak, so all the jambs (6 side jambs, 1 head jamb and the sill) were all oak. Each jamb was basically a 2x6 piece of oak, which means the jambs between the door and each side light is doubled, like a 4x6 piece of oak (only in two 2x6 pieces screwed together).

When using single jambs between the door and side lights, the unit must be custom made as one unit, it cannot be stocked in sections and assembled into the final assembled size. It is a manufacturing/warehousing decision, do you stock: a door, and a door and one side light, and a door with two side lights, or, do you stock doors and side lights, using them singly or putting them together to make a unit as needed. Much more cost effective to stock the units to be assembled than to try to stock each type of assembled unit you offer.

Example, you need a door with a 12" side light on the left and an 18" side light on the right, do you stock a one piece assembly sized that way, or, do you take a 12" side light, a door, and an 18" side light and assemble them into one unit, then ship them? The first way would require you to stock every single thing you offered, and you would need a huge warehouse for that. The second way, you stock doors, 12" side lights and 18" side lights, 24" side lights, and maybe even 30" side lights and 36" side lights - a pretty straight forward to do, and look at all the combinations you can assemble from those units. Need a door with a 24" side light on the right and a 30" side light on the left? Presto, changeo, it is so.

If it is the later then the sidelight would be required to be safety glazing but any other windows farther than 24" would not.

Either way (assembled as one unit at the factory or assembled on site), you measure from the edge of the door, not from the edge of the side light.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

And what you described was a sidelight-door-sidelight with the *DOOR* jambs between the *door* and the sidelight.

Depends on if you are addressing "bucks" or "jambs"..

I thought I described it pretty good. One cpmplete unit. You and I know the difference between a jamb and a door buck but I don't know if others know the difference. That is why I said a complete unit!

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

The doors and sidelights are made as separate units. Then, when an order is placed, the door/sidelight combination is assembled from the pre-made sections. Here is an example. I order a door with a side light on each side. The door/sidelight unit was delivered 'in one piece', however, there were two jambs between the side light and the door, each having been made separately, for use either separately or with the other, depending on what is ordered.

I ordered the upgrade to stain grade oak, so all the jambs (6 side jambs, 1 head jamb and the sill) were all oak. Each jamb was basically a 2x6 piece of oak, which means the jambs between the door and each side light is doubled, like a 4x6 piece of oak (only in two 2x6 pieces screwed together).

When using single jambs between the door and side lights, the unit must be custom made as one unit, it cannot be stocked in sections and assembled into the final assembled size. It is a manufacturing/warehousing decision, do you stock: a door, and a door and one side light, and a door with two side lights, or, do you stock doors and side lights, using them singly or putting them together to make a unit as needed. Much more cost effective to stock the units to be assembled than to try to stock each type of assembled unit you offer.

Example, you need a door with a 12" side light on the left and an 18" side light on the right, do you stock a one piece assembly sized that way, or, do you take a 12" side light, a door, and an 18" side light and assemble them into one unit, then ship them? The first way would require you to stock every single thing you offered, and you would need a huge warehouse for that. The second way, you stock doors, 12" side lights and 18" side lights, 24" side lights, and maybe even 30" side lights and 36" side lights - a pretty straight forward to do, and look at all the combinations you can assemble from those units. Need a door with a 24" side light on the right and a 30" side light on the left? Presto, changeo, it is so. .

Who cares about how they stock them, manufacture them, ship them, order them or whatever.

I believe I specified the situation and described the door as it was delivered to the site for the framer to install. Geeesh!

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Either way (assembled as one unit at the factory or assembled on site), you measure from the edge of the door, not from the edge of the side light.

And I believe I said exactly that!

If these sidelights are within 24" of an operational door then these sidelights would be required to have safety glazing. The buck to buck or jamb to jamb would be the same as you described above. You wouldn't be required to install safety glazing in any other portions within 24" of those sidelights.

OK, the client decided not to press the issue since the Municipality is staying firm on the window NOT needing to be safety glazed. It was not included on any repair addendum and the buying and selling agent are both happy with the outcome (of course the deal went through!). I feel I have addressed the issue as far as I can since I have sent the Municipality information on my views (and yours).
In my opinion, the issue remains ambiguous regarding sliding glass doors. Thanks for all the responses!

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

The door shown in attached photo, the window on the left of the entry door requires safety glazing?
Yes? No?

This is a test. Jerry P, be still.
If you have an opinion site IRC 2006 code section. Those in CA refer 2007 CBC section.
Thank you.

Originally Posted by Victor DaGraca

R308.4 sec. 7.4 and sec. 10 and it does not meet the exceptions

So... I'd say yes.

You can't use R308.4 sec. 7.4 is not correct because ALL of the following categories must be met.

7. Glazing in an individual fixed or operable panel, other
than those locations described in Items 5 and 6 above,
that meets all of the following conditions:

7.1. Exposed area of an individual pane larger than
9 square feet (0.836 m

2).
7.2. Bottom edge less than 18 inches (457 mm)
above the floor.
7.3. Top edge more than 36 inches (914 mm)
above the floor.
7.4. One or more walking surfaces within 36
inches (914 mm) horizontally of the glazing.

If the bottom edge is more than 18" above the floor. (It looks like it anyway!) Then no!

If the bottom is not then 7.1 must also be met. And that would be determined by the way the manufactuer built the window. One large pane with the appearance of individual panes or all individual panes.

Exposed area of an individual pane larger than 9 square feet...maybe
Bottom edge less than 18" above the floor...maybe

So maybe required maybe not on this section of the code.

However it meets the requirements of R308.4 Hazardous locations. #10

10. Glazing adjacent to stairways, landings and ramps
within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally of a walking
surface when the exposed surface of the glass is less
than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the plane of the adjacent
walking surface.

Then yes safety glazing required!

The Jerry's await the correct answer and code reference.

Hmmmm ? I guess no interest therefore no takers?

I thought the correct answer is "yes" due to 2006 IRC R308.4 item 10 (adjacent to a landing), but you've already said that is incorrect.

At first glance one would think R308.4 item 6 would apply (within 24" arc of the door), but exception 4 exempts "walls perpendicular to the plane of the door in a closed position, other than the wall toward which the door swings when opened". I assume that door is hinged on the left and swings into the house. I see a knob on the right and I don't see any hinges on the exterior on the left side. If I'm wrong and the door swings out, then the window is not exempt and it needs safety glazing.

R308.4 item 7 needs all four conditions to be met:

• individual pane larger than 9 square feet -- maybe ... that looks like a stick-on grill and not a true divided light, and area could be more than 9 sq ft.
• bottom edge less than 18 inches above the floor -- don't think so ... bottom edge is even with the door knob
• top edge more than 36 inches above the floor -- yes
• walking surface with 36 inches horizontally -- can't see it in the pic but I'd say yes.

Exterior door requires a landing (R311.4.3) on each side and that one would be within 36" of the window, so I get the same answer as Wayne (R308.4 item 10) and for the same reasons...

Two questions:

1) How high is a typical door knob?

2) Does it matter?

Presumably, that's all the replies WCJ will get.

In that case, let's divide the issue and conquer it.

Is this location addressed in the code as being a hazardous location?

Let us look.

From the 2006 IRC.

- R308.4 Hazardous locations.

The following shall be considered specific hazardous locations for the purposes of glazing:

- - 1. Glazing in swinging doors except jalousies. (Jerry's note: Does not apply to this location.)

- - 2. Glazing in fixed and sliding panels of sliding door assemblies and panels in sliding and bifold closet door assemblies. (Jerry's note: Does not apply to this location.)
- - 3. Glazing in storm doors. (Jerry's note: Does not apply to this location.)
- - 4. Glazing in all unframed swinging doors. (Jerry's note: Does not apply to this location.)
- - 5. Glazing in doors and enclosures for hot tubs, whirlpools, saunas, steam rooms, bathtubs and showers. Glazing in any part of a building wall enclosing these compartments where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) measured vertically above any standing or walking surface. (Jerry's note: Does not apply to this location.)
- - 6. Glazing, in an individual fixed or operable panel adjacent to a door where the nearest vertical edge is within a 24-inch (610 mm) arc of the door in a closed position and whose bottom edge is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the floor or walking surface.
- - 7. Glazing in an individual fixed or operable panel, other than those locations described in Items 5 and 6 above, that meets all of the following conditions: (Jerry's note: Does not apply to this location. As do not the following 7.1 to 7.4)
- - - 7.1. Exposed area of an individual pane larger than 9 square feet (0.836 m2).
- - - 7.2. Bottom edge less than 18 inches (457 mm) above the floor.
- - - 7.3. Top edge more than 36 inches (914 mm) above the floor.
- - - 7.4. One or more walking surfaces within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally of the glazing.
- - 8. All glazing in railings regardless of an area or height above a walking surface. Included are structural baluster panels and nonstructural infill panels. (Jerry's note: Does not apply to this location.)
- - 9. Glazing in walls and fences enclosing indoor and outdoor swimming pools, hot tubs and spas where the bottom edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) horizontally of the water’s edge. This shall apply to single glazing and all panes in multiple glazing. (Jerry's note: Does not apply to this location.)
- - 10. Glazing adjacent to stairways, landings and ramps within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally of a walking surface when the exposed surface of the glass is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the plane of the adjacent walking surface.
- - 11. Glazing adjacent to stairways within 60 inches (1524 mm) horizontally of the bottom tread of a stairway in any direction when the exposed surface of the glass is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the nose of the tread.

Okay, we now have potential yes locations:

- R308.4 Hazardous locations. The following shall be considered specific hazardous locations for the purposes of glazing:
- - 6. Glazing, in an individual fixed or operable panel adjacent to a door where the nearest vertical edge is within a 24-inch (610 mm) arc of the door in a closed position and whose bottom edge is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the floor or walking surface.
- - 10. Glazing adjacent to stairways, landings and ramps within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally of a walking surface when the exposed surface of the glass is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the plane of the adjacent walking surface.
- - 11. Glazing adjacent to stairways within 60 inches (1524 mm) horizontally of the bottom tread of a stairway in any direction when the exposed surface of the glass is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the nose of the tread.

Okie dokie, are there any exceptions to those potential yes answer?

Yes, some potential exceptions to the above 3 potential yes answers are:
- Exception: The following products, materials and uses are exempt from the above hazardous locations:
- - 3. Glazing in Section R308.4, Item 6, when there is an intervening wall or other permanent barrier between the door and the glazing.
- - 4. Glazing in Section R308.4, Item 6, in walls perpendicular to the plane of the door in a closed position, other than the wall toward which the door swings when opened, or where access through the door is to a closet or storage area 3 feet (914 mm) or less in depth. Glazing in these applications shall comply with Section R308.4, Item 7.
- - 5. Glazing in Section R308.4, Items 7 and 10, when a protective bar is installed on the accessible side(s) of the glazing 36 inches ± 2 inches (914 mm ± 51 mm) above the floor. The bar shall be capable of withstanding a horizontal load of 50 pounds per linear foot (730 N/m) without contacting the glass and be a minimum of 11/2 inches (38 mm) in height.
- - 9. Safety glazing in Section R308.4, Items 10 and 11, is not required where:
- - - 9.1. The side of a stairway, landing or ramp has a guardrail or handrail, including balusters or in-fill panels, complying with the provisions of Sections 1013 and 1607.7 of the International Building Code; and
- - - 9.2. The plane of the glass is more than 18 inches (457 mm) from the railing; or
- - - 9.3. When a solid wall or panel extends from the plane of the adjacent walking surface to 34 inches (863 mm)to 36 inches (914 mm)above the floor and the construction at the top of that wall or panel is capable of withstanding the same horizontal load as the protective bar.

Alright, let's take them one at a time, requirement with the exception, starting with the requirement for doors:
- R308.4 Hazardous locations. The following shall be considered specific hazardous locations for the purposes of glazing:
- - 6. Glazing, in an individual fixed or operable panel adjacent to a door where the nearest vertical edge is within a 24-inch (610 mm) arc of the door in a closed position and whose bottom edge is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the floor or walking surface.
- - - Exception: The following products, materials and uses are exempt from the above hazardous locations:
- - - - 3. Glazing in Section R308.4, Item 6, when there is an intervening wall or other permanent barrier between the door and the glazing. (Jerry's note: Does not apply to this location.)
- - - - 4. Glazing in Section R308.4, Item 6, in walls perpendicular to the plane of the door in a closed position, other than the wall toward which the door swings when opened, or where access through the door is to a closet or storage area 3 feet (914 mm) or less in depth. Glazing in these applications shall comply with Section R308.4, Item 7.

Exception 4. "in walls perpendicular to the plane of the door in the closed position" - Sounds like it applies. See attached drawings 1 and 2, yes, that applies to the location shown in the photo, thus, the requirement in R308.4.6 for that to be safety glass is canceled out by the exception which excepts glazing "in walls perpendicular to the plane of the door in the closed position"

ANSWER #1 Safety glazing NOT required *for that section*, but that is not the only applicable section.

Let's go back and address the other two potential yes sections.

- R308.4 Hazardous locations. The following shall be considered specific hazardous locations for the purposes of glazing:
- - 10. Glazing adjacent to stairways, landings and ramps within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally of a walking surface when the exposed surface of the glass is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the plane of the adjacent walking surface.
- - 11. Glazing adjacent to stairways within 60 inches (1524 mm) horizontally of the bottom tread of a stairway in any direction when the exposed surface of the glass is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the nose of the tread.
- - - Exception: The following products, materials and uses are exempt from the above hazardous locations:
- - - - 5. Glazing in Section R308.4, Items 7 and 10, when a protective bar is installed on the accessible side(s) of the glazing 36 inches ± 2 inches (914 mm ± 51 mm) above the floor. The bar shall be capable of withstanding a horizontal load of 50 pounds per linear foot (730 N/m) without contacting the glass and be a minimum of 11/2 inches (38 mm) in height. (Jerry's note: There is no bar, so this does not apply.)
- - - - 9. Safety glazing in Section R308.4, Items 10 and 11, is not required where:
- - - - - 9.1. The side of a stairway, landing or ramp has a guardrail or handrail, including balusters or in-fill panels, complying with the provisions of Sections 1013 and 1607.7 of the International Building Code; and (Jerry's note: There is no guardrail, etc., so this does not apply.)
- - - - - 9.2. The plane of the glass is more than 18 inches (457 mm) from the railing; or (Jerry's note: There is no guardrail, etc., so this does not apply.)
- - - - - 9.3. When a solid wall or panel extends from the plane of the adjacent walking surface to 34 inches (863 mm)to 36 inches (914 mm)above the floor and the construction at the top of that wall or panel is capable of withstanding the same horizontal load as the protective bar.

Exception 9.3 "when a solid wall ... extends from the plane of the adjacent walking surface to 34 inches to 36 inches above the floor".

Alright, now for some fancy measuring, and the reason I asked:
1) How high is a typical door knob? Typically, 36"
2) Does it matter? Yes.

See attached, photo 3 and drawings 4 and 5.

ANSWER #2 Safety glazing NOT required *for those two sections* either.

FINAL ANSWER: No. That window is not required to be safety glazing.

Jerry I agree with your findings IF the sill window is 36" off the bottom of the walkway.

You assumed quite a bit in your explanation (door knob 36 inches from walking surface and that the window sill "IS" level with the door knob)!

Let's look at some more assumptions.

Looking at the door; exterior doors are 3' 0" or 2' 8". Let's make the door a 2' 6" door for easy comparison/measurements.

Looking at the width of the door as 2' 6" and then taking the window at it's header height of 6' 8". Using the width of the door for a scale (2' 6") and scaling from the top of the window down that would make the window at least 5' tall.

OK let's take the possibility that the window is only 4' tall. Then that would make the sill of the window 2' 8" from the walking surface.

Safety glazing required!

BUT that doesn't make any sense either because that would make the door knob like 24" off the ground.

I'm thinking now that the area where the door is drops down to a lower part of the house, like a recessed living room.

I really don't think you can come up with a positive yes or no answer without more information.

By the way is that ET in the living room looking out?

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

Jerry I agree with your findings IF the sill window is 36" off the bottom of the walkway.

You assumed quite a bit in your explanation (door knob 36 inches from walking surface and that the window sill "IS" level with the door knob)!

Which is why I stated:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Alright, now for some fancy measuring, and the reason I asked:

1) How high is a typical door knob? Typically, 36"
2) Does it matter? Yes.

I'm thinking now that the area where the door is drops down to a lower part of the house, like a recessed living room.

You mean there is a step *inside the door*? Not allowed.

I really don't think you can come up with a positive yes or no answer without more information.

True, but, basing observations on typical construction, the hole for the door knob is factory pre-drilled at approximately 35-1/2" above the bottom of the door. Adding 1/2" for threshold, etc., that makes the typical door knob at 36" above the floor.

From that standard reference point, i drew a line from the door knob to the corner of the wall keeping the line in alignment with the mullions on the door (a horizontal reference point in an angular photo), I then drew a line along the bottom of the window to the corner of the wall, meeting the height of the door knob line, thus transferring my horizontal reference height around to the perpendicular wall.

The window was slightly above that 36" height horizontal reference line.

Without actually going out there and measuring, there is no way to know for sure, likewise, when reviewing plans, there is no way to know for sure at what height things will be until they are constructed, but you put your good faith into judgments made during plan review, right?

Okay, with that being said, I feel confident that, and with 99% certainty, saying that windows *does not need to be safety glazed* is far more of a 'sure thing' than saying that window requires safety glazing. Is there a 1% chance that I am wrong, sure. But I'll take 99/1 odds every day.

On two 26 story towers I inspected a year or two ago, the project manager came over to our trailer (our inspection trailer was on-site next to that of the owner/developer and the contractors trailers) and complained to our lead inspector about something I was calling out. When our lead inspector asked him why he was making a big deal about that thing, the project manager said "Because, Jerry is right 98% of the time, so when I catch him being wrong, I have to take advantage of it."

Duly noted.

Even at 98/2 odds, I will take those odds every day.

Quote:

I'm thinking now that the area where the door is drops down to a lower part of the house, like a recessed living room.

You mean there is a step *inside the door*? Not allowed.




No! I'm saying the whole foundation is lower than the other part of the house. "This is allowed!"

Also what about my scenario's about how the window sill may be lower than 36"? Even the door header is lower than the window header!

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

Let's look at some more assumptions.

Looking at the door; exterior doors are 3' 0" or 2' 8". Let's make the door a 2' 6" door for easy comparison/measurements.

Looking at the width of the door as 2' 6" and then taking the window at it's header height of 6' 8". Using the width of the door for a scale (2' 6") and scaling from the top of the window down that would make the window at least 5' tall.

OK let's take the possibility that the window is only 4' tall. Then that would make the sill of the window 2' 8" from the walking surface.

Jerry you are something else man! You are so ate up with yourself its not even...........I don't even know how to come up with words to describe how you feel about yourself. You don't even look at others opinions! It is yours and yours only! Like I said before; you have got the guys on this forum brainwashed!

Why don't you step off your pedestal that you have put yourself on and open your mind to others ways of thinking!

I know I'm the mean old newcomer on here and challenging one of the guys that has been on here forever and is "never" wrong in you guys eyes!

Are the rest of you guys afraid to disagree with Jerry (except for a few)? Geesh!! I think the government needs to investigate you (Jerry)! You have a cult going on here!!

OK go ahead and reply and avoid areas that could prove you wrong! Let everybody know how smart you are! Oh...they already know that though don't they! You tell them all the time!!

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

No! I'm saying the whole foundation is lower than the other part of the house. "This is allowed!"

Okay, I'm following you now.

You are saying that the door opens into (just for a visual example) an enclosed porch (which is, of course, lower than the other floor areas).

Presuming that is the case, the window *is still* higher than 36" above the walking surface. In my drawing, you would simply remove the 7-3/4" step down, making the landing at the same height as the floor inside, which is (typically) 36" to the door knob, and that window is slightly above the door knob.

Also what about my scenario's about how the window sill may be lower than 36"? Even the door header is lower than the window header!

The door header is above the window header, what are you referring to? You've lost me there.

I know I'm the mean old newcomer on here and challenging one of the guys that has been on here forever and is "never" wrong in you guys eyes!

You're not a mean old anything, and I don't know about the rest of the guys here, but I read what you write and sometimes it does not make sense, so I ask questions.

It sounds to me as though you are the one not used to be questioned.

An example is your emphatic statement (I say emphatic because you used an ! after it: "Even the door header is lower than the window header!"

So I asked the question I did above: "The door header is above the window header, what are you referring to?"

Wayne, go measure the heights of the door knobs in the doors in your office and home, how high are they above the floor?

Use that measurement (they are all probably about the same measurement) to relate to that photo.

Please explain why the floor on the other side of that window has anything to do with the windows height above the landing on the door side of that window. It does not. The floor on the other side of that window could be, for all we know, even with the bottom of the window, or 5 feet below the bottom of the window, but you have lost me in how that effects the height of the window above the landing on the outdoor side of that door, where the landing is in front of that window.

Your post makes me think you might be like Steve Martin ... a wild and crazy guy ... but not in the sense it applies to him.

Whoa there Wayne, back-off. That entire window adjacent to entry door scenario was mine. I asked the question as a simple exercise in interpreting a significant code change for both interest and knowledge. Few replied and the only one of those that was correct was Jerry Peck’s although Brandon gave it a good shot. I was also certsain that ec Jerry would get it and the reason I added "Jerry P be still."

Unfortunately it appears when somebody counters your opinion with geometric reasoning you retaliate by staging a personal attack. How silly and clearly demonstrates just how fragile your ego is. Jerry P and I have crossed swords over the years and yet maintain a mutual respect regardless how often we agree/disagree.

This BB is a wonderful vehicle for learning and to employ a personal attack on another’s post because you don’t agree with it is beyond ridiculous and only results in the participants on this venue losing any respect they had for you.

You sound very much like a jurisdictional “Code Nazi” without adequate knowledge or understanding of the codes you supposedly enforce? I hope I’m wrong, but I seriously suggest you consider finding another venue to vent your spleen on as you have conducted yourself as a person carrying a very large chip on their shoulder.

OK Jerry I'm with you on ypur position. We will question each other when we differ in opinions. Sorry if I got a little aggravated! I've got to go get some sweet tea so I'll be back in a bit to respond!

OK here we go gang.

First of all I want to apologize for my rant and to Jerry P. You are a very intelligent man! What aggravates me though is when people don't listen to another’s opinion. I was guilty of that too!

Here's one of the reasons;

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

I was also certsain that ec Jerry would get it and the reason I added "Jerry P be still."

You are saying he is right before you even heard any responses that may differ from his.

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Unfortunately it appears when somebody counters your opinion with geometric reasoning you retaliate by staging a personal attack.

OK Jerry used geometric reasoning. So I gave some of my own.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

Jerry, Let's look at some more assumptions.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

Looking at the door; exterior doors are 3' 0" or 2' 8". Let's make the door a 2' 6" door for easy comparison/measurements.

Looking at the width of the door as 2' 6" and then taking the window at it's header height of 6' 8". Using the width of the door for a scale (2' 6") and scaling from the top of the window down that would make the window at least 5' tall.

OK let's take the possibility that the window is only 4' tall. Then that would make the sill of the window 2' 8" from the walking surface.

Does this make as much sense as a door knob height?

No personal attack yet.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

BUT that doesn't make any sense either because that would make the door knob like 24" off the ground.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

I'm thinking now that the area where the door is drops down to a lower part of the house, like a recessed living room.

I really don't think you can come up with a positive yes or no answer without more information.

The next post by Jerry P is where I got it aggravated!

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Okay, with that being said, I feel confident that, and with 99% certainty, saying that windows *does not need to be safety glazed* is far more of a 'sure thing' than saying that window requires safety glazing. Is there a 1% chance that I am wrong, sure. But I'll take 99/1 odds every day.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

On two 26 story towers I inspected a year or two ago, the project manager came over to our trailer (our inspection trailer was on-site next to that of the owner/developer and the contractors trailers) and complained to our lead inspector about something I was calling out. When our lead inspector asked him why he was making a big deal about that thing, the project manager said "Because, Jerry is right 98% of the time, so when I catch him being wrong, I have to take advantage of it."

Jerry P didn't even take into consideration my view points and try to understand what I was referring too until I pointed it out.

This is where I lost it and wasn't even thinking about what the code says and Jerry P's reasoning. It was all about me proving my point. And now that I re-read it I was actually confirming his geometrical reasoning and not my own!

I have to commend Jerry P for not stooping to my level! I will go into discussions with a open mind and not allow myself to degrade myself by name calling. My apologies!

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

This BB is a wonderful vehicle for learning and to employ a personal attack on another’s post because you don’t agree with it is beyond ridiculous and only results in the participants on this venue losing any respect they had for you.

Agreed! But I think it is very important to listen to other opinions with an open mind (mine will be from here on out).

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

You sound very much like a jurisdictional “Code Nazi” without adequate knowledge or understanding of the codes you supposedly enforce? I hope I’m wrong, but I seriously suggest you consider finding another venue to vent your spleen on as you have conducted yourself as a person carrying a very large chip on their shoulder.

No I'm not a "Code Nazi" and I do understand the codes. And yes I "did" have a chip on my shoulder at first! I try to be the best I can be and inspect structures to the best of my knowledge. It irritates the crap out of me when I am hard set on something and then someone points out something that is so obvious that I can't believe that I actually interpreted it that way! And that is being mad at myself.

Again My apologies to anyone I offended especially Jerry P.

I hope we can have professional discussions without any outbursts like the one I just did. I'm sorry!

[quote=Wayne Carlisle;57764]It irritates the crap out of me when I am hard set on something and then someone points out something that is so obvious that I can't believe that I actually interpreted it that way! And that is being mad at myself.[/quote]

Wayne,

I have been there myself.

That is when I take my 40 lashes with a wet noodle and go back to my corner ... as I have said, and done, many times before.

No need to apologize or beat yourself up, we are all here to learn from each other. Sometimes we aggressively defend our thinking. Sometimes that defense of our thinking opens new windows of opportunities to learn from the thinking of others.

Occasionally, it may feel like we've been hit upside the head with a 2x4 before we grasp what the others are saying, and, man, it hurts! Been there too.

As long as in the end we can still converse and learn from each other. That's what matters.

WC Jerry and I have clashed swords before, Bob Harper and I have clashed swords before, others and I have clashed swords before, but like in The Princess Bride ...

Inigo Montoya: You are ready then?
Man in Black: Whether I am or not, you've been more than fair.
Inigo Montoya: [drawing his sword] You seem a decent fellow... I hate to kill you.
Man in Black: You seem a decent fellow... I hate to die.

Inigo Montoya: You are wonderful.
Man in Black: Thank you; I've worked hard to become so.
Inigo Montoya: I admit it, you are better than I am.
Man in Black: Then why are you smiling?
Inigo Montoya: Because I know something you don't know.
Man in Black: And what is that?
Inigo Montoya: I... am not left-handed.
[Moves his sword to his right hand and gains an advantage]
Man in Black: You are amazing.
Inigo Montoya: I ought to be, after 20 years.
Man in Black: Oh, there's something I ought to tell you.
Inigo Montoya: Tell me.
Man in Black: I'm not left-handed either.

Wayne, looks like none of us are left-handed.

We should be able to rescue the Princess Bride if we work together.

I know, the above will be lost on those who never saw The Princess Bride, however, because it appealed to both children and their parents, many people did see it, I hope you are one of those who did.

Dang. I was running the kick back for the TD and fumbled on the one yard line. Ah, well...what's that saying about nothing ventured, nothing gained?

- R308.4 Hazardous locations.
The following shall be considered specific hazardous locations for the purposes of glazing:
- - 10. Glazing adjacent to stairways, landings and ramps within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally of a walking surface when the exposed surface of the glass is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the plane of the adjacent walking surface.

- Exception: The following products, materials and uses are exempt from the above hazardous locations:
- - 9. Safety glazing in Section R308.4, Items 10 and 11, is not required where:
- - - 9.1. The side of a stairway, landing or ramp has a guardrail or handrail, including balusters or in-fill panels, complying with the provisions of Sections 1013 and 1607.7 of the International Building Code; and
- - - 9.2. The plane of the glass is more than 18 inches (457 mm) from the railing; or
- - - 9.3. When a solid wall or panel extends from the plane of the adjacent walking surface to 34 inches (863 mm)to 36 inches (914 mm)above the floor and the construction at the top of that wall or panel is capable of withstanding the same horizontal load as the protective bar.

I had read exception 9 to R308.4 several times before I posted. Exceptions 9.1 and 9.2 have been around for a while, and talk about the landing having a guard that is at least 18" away from the window. Exception 9.3 was new to the 2006 code. Being familiar with 9.1 and 9.2, and seeing the phrase "is capable of withstanding the same horizontal load as the protective bar" in the new 9.3 (the phrase is a reference back to exception 5), the thought that stuck in my head was that 9.3 was talking about a solid barrier (something like a knee wall) at the edge of the landing, while that landing & barrier could still be up to 36" away (horizontally) from the wall which held the window. So I looked at the photo, thought "nope, no guard or barrier between the landing and the window", and concluded that exception 9 did not apply.

It didn't occur to me that 9.3 could be talking about the same wall that held the window. Well, actually it did, but only for a brief moment. I quickly dismissed it with a thought of "well if that's what they meant, then they've just effectively lowered the height of the bottom edge of the glass in R308.4 item 10 and 11 from 'less than 60 inches' to less than 36 inches. If that's what they wanted to do, then why not just change 60 to 36?"

I came back to the thread too late to answer Jerry P's questions about the height of the door knob. Once I read them, I had a good idea where he was headed, and my thoughts returned again to that thought that I had so quickly dismissed. I pulled out my copy of "Significant Changes to International Residential Code, 2006 Edition" and flipped through it until I hit R308.4. Right there in black & white, accompanied by a color diagram, it says:

Items 10 and 11 of Section R308.4 regulate glazing adjacent to stairways and landing due to the concern of human impact. Exception 9 has previously exempted such locations from the safety glazing requirements where two conditions (both 9.1 and 9.2) occurred. A new exception has been added that will also exempt those glazed areas adjacent to stairways and landings from being considered as hazardous locations for safety glazing purposes. If the bottom edge of the glazing is located at least 36 inches above the walking surface with a solid wall or panel extending below the glazing, the glazing is not required to be safety glazing. The code change effectively reduces the minimum required height of glazing that is not safety glazing from 60 inches to 36 inches.

The bold is mine.

FWIW, I think this code change (addition of exception 9.3) is poorly written and as a result it can wind up having varying interpretations.

First, there's the circular reference to "protective bar" that leads you back to exception 5.

Next is the way they use the "and" and "or" for the three conditions. They wrote ... "safety glazing is not required where 9.1 and 9.2 or 9.3." Some could read this and think they mean (9.1 and 9.2) or 9.3, while others could read it and think they mean 9.1 and (9.2 or 9.3). I think the first way is what is intended.

Third, if the intent was to lower the safety glass threshold adjacent to stairs and landings from 60 inches down to 36 inches, why not just change it in items 10 and 11, instead of adding a new exception?

And last, some will interpret 9.3 literally to apply only if the top of the wall is between 34 and 36 inches above the floor. I can see someone arguing "Item 10 calls for safety glazing below 60 inches. Exception 9.3 applies if the wall below the window is 34 to 36 inches above the floor. Your wall is 37 inches high so 9.3 doesn't apply". I think that argument is wrong, because I don't think that is the intent behind the change, but I think a case could be made that it is what the code (as written) is saying.

Originally Posted by Brandon Chew

And last, some will interpret 9.3 literally to apply only if the top of the wall is between 34 and 36 inches above the floor. I can see someone arguing "Item 10 calls for safety glazing below 60 inches. Exception 9.3 applies if the wall below the window is 34 to 36 inches above the floor. Your wall is 37 inches high so 9.3 doesn't apply". I think that argument is wrong, because I don't think that is the intent behind the change, but I think a case could be made that it is what the code (as written) is saying.

That's what I first did.

I said (to myself), that the way it was written, if the top of the wall was 36-1/4" above the floor, then it needs safety glazing to the 60" height , but, as you, I knew that could not have been their intent, so I read the same book to verify their intent.

I know why they chose 34" to 36", because that's the height of guardrails (which in itself is poorly written): guards at balconies and raised floor areas = 36" high minimum, guards at the sides of open stairs with a total rise of more than 30" only need to be 34" high minimum. Isn't a guard even more important along the open side of a stair, where you do not have a flat standing or walking surface? So why not have the guard the same height?

Now, to me, 34" to 36" height of the guard should just state 'guards must be at least 34" high'. Leaving out that 2" variance, which just confuses matters. Unless they are implying that the 34" applies along the side of a stairway and the 36" applies along the side of a landing, which gets back to my question about why two different heights? However, that is not what their drawings are showing, thus that is not what they are implying, so why not just make it 34" ... or 36"?