New Help with Code Inspector re: Tempered Glass

9 years ago

last modified: 9 years ago

Adding a new sunroom off the back of my house, with full windows. I am having a bit of a gentlemens disagreement with the permit inspector about the need for tempered glass in a certain window, and could use help in providing proof that it is not needed.

First off, I am in Ohio, and here is the code I believe we are following:

http://www.com.ohio.gov/documents/di...lCode10412.pdf

The pertinent section says:

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

2. 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.

Exceptions:
1. Decorative glazing.
2. When there is an intervening wall or other permanent barrier between the door and the glazing.
3. Glazing in walls on the latch side of and perpendicular to the plane of the door in a closed position.
4. Glazing adjacent to a door where access through the door is to a closet or storage area 3 feet (914 mm) or less in depth.
5. Glazing that is adjacent to the fixed panel of patio doors.

I believe in my instance, Exception number 3 is in play for the following window:

As you can see, while it is in the 2' arch, it is in the plane of a wall that is perpendicular and on the latch side of the sliding glass door.

I am trying to find visual examples to explain why it is ok, and not finding much. Anyone have a legit document I could use to show him?

Thanks!

Featured Answer

User

9 years ago

last modified: 9 years ago

These rules have been in the IRC and its predecessor (the CABO code) since the mid 80's. Until the 2009 IRC there was no exception for glass in a wall perpendicular to the wall of the door if it was within the 24" arc (a semicircle was drawn horizontally from the edge of the door).

The 2009 IRC required safety glass if the glass was in a wall perpendicular to the closed door if within 24" of the hinge side of a swinging door. The Ohio code appears to have butchered that requirement beyond recognition.

To satisfy the inspector that the old 24" arc rule is not in effect, show him THIS.

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (11)

PRO
Mark Bischak, Architect
9 years ago
Error on the side of safety.
aclute
Original Author
9 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Hind sight being what it is yes. However I ordered the windows having read the code and realized I didn't need it. To fix it now would required getting the sashes fixed (not cheap because of the SDL) or get the 3M film placed on (not cheap because of the SDL).

But the bigger question is: am I wrong in how I am reading the code?

And if I am not wrong, then safety really isn't an issue in this instance (since the code writers don't feel necessary to cover it).
Related Professionals
Athens Architects & Building Designers · Auburn Architects & Building Designers · Kalamazoo Architects & Building Designers · Newport Architects & Building Designers · Pensacola Design-Build Firms · Bloomington Design-Build Firms · Somerset Design-Build Firms · West Plains Design-Build Firms · McComb Design-Build Firms · Danville Design-Build Firms · Chicago Design-Build Firms · Napa Design-Build Firms · Amherst Home Builders · Wheeling Home Builders · Montrose Home Builders
User
9 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
The code you referenced states that it was taken from the 2009 International Residential Code but the section you quoted was copied so poorly that it doesn't even make any sense. Read the 2009 IRC quoted below to understand where safety glazing should be used:

This section was probably corrected in an addendum or a later printing of your code. The best person to ask about that is the building inspector.
aclute
Original Author
9 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I am confused. I posted in my post a link directly to the code in place for our state, with that language specifically in there (copied it).

Inspector agrees that specific language is in our code, just doesn't agree with what it means.

Also if you look at slide 9 of this presentation from the ICC on the 2015 code, it supports my case.

http://media.iccsafe.org/Annual/2015/Safety-Glazing.pdf

Finally, JDS, the code you quoted says the window has to be "in the plane of the door" which in my case I am not.

i do appreciate the insight though, and please keep me honest.
aclute
Original Author
9 years ago
Thank you...more code reinforcement that I have this right.
User
9 years ago
How far is that window from the floor? An exception in one area doesn't mean that it doesn't have to follow the rules for other areas. As in, that looks to be within 18" of the floor, which needs tempered, regardless of location in relationship to the door.
aclute
Original Author
9 years ago
Knee wall is about 22". Bottom sill of window is 24" off the floor
User
9 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
The problem you might run into is that the Ohio code, although copied from the IRC, is NOT the IRC and in addition, this section has been poorly rewritten and no longer resembles the IRC.

If the inspector believes in the literal application of the term "arc" (apparently abandoned by the IRC) he can simply do that and you would have to appeal to a state code board which is almost never worth the effort or time.
PRO
Charles Ross Homes
9 years ago
Since you and the inspector disagree, why not appeal to the code official in your municipality for a clarification? It may not be painless, but it should be quick and cost you nothing.
aclute
Original Author
9 years ago
Thought I would close the story on this. Final inspection was this week by a different inspector. I was not here but wrote up my reasoning, and included examples I had found.

No feedback other than it was passed. Works for me!