# Section R308.4  in  the  IRC



## north star

*Good morning to you all!   * 

*I am seeking clarification on this section of the IRC code, specifically Item # 6.*

*"Section R308.4, # 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 of the walking surface."*

*Can someone please provide a visual diagram of where the measurement is actually referring*

*to in this section, or possibly some information from the Commentary?    I am trying to determine*

*if a door is too close to a fixed window, ...new construction.    Thank You!!*


----------



## fw.

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

Hook your tape measure in the gap between the door and the frame with the door in the closed position, either side.  If there is glass within 24 inches it needs to be temepered.


----------



## Mule

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

Does this help?


----------



## JBI

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

Mule - Well done! Hope it didn't make your head hurt...  :lol:


----------



## Min&Max

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

There is no other section of the IRC that I detest as much as the glazing requirements. Appears to have been written by a group of intoxicated engineers.


----------



## globe trekker

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

test,   test,  test


----------



## globe trekker

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

I was trying to upload some photos, but have not been able to master the process yet.    :?

Now that the *' Photobucket web site'* has been deemed an undesirable web site [ because of the

reported trojan horse viruses ],  does anyone know of another photo storage site out there, that IS

safe to access?



.


----------



## Mule

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

I use Picture Trail. It'f free for a certain amount of storage and relatively cheap if you want to use it for your strorage site for more than the freebie allows.

http://www.picturetrail.com


----------



## Heaven

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

Does anyone besides me consider a permanently installed doorstop to be a permanent barrier?


----------



## Mule

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

I dot understand what you are getting at? What would a door stop have to do with this?

Are you saying if they install a door stop that the glazing would not have to be safety glazing?


----------



## JBI

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

Heaven - I don't.

But I've also been called a harda$$ more than once.

I've seen too many doorstops that didn't last more than a year to consider them a permanent anything (except maybe a permanent pain in the a$$).

Would a wheel chock be a suitable barrier against vehicle impact in a private garage when protecting equipment?


----------



## rktect 1

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

No doorstops.  Well, you can have the doors top but the window is still safety glazed.


----------



## north star

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

*Thank you all for your input!   * 

*Mule,*

*Our web site administrator has some serious filters in place,  so I cannot view your submitted*

*pics., but thank you anyway.   I will try the ' picturetrail ' site also!*

*fw.,*

*Your input is the way I have always interpreted it, I just wanted some electronic affirmation*

*from this V E R Y  talented group of people..  * 

*Heaven,*

*I would not interpret the door stop as a permanent barrier.*


----------



## kilitact

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

Item #3 provides an exception where theirs a permanent barrier. So heaven I'll agree, how can you turn it down


----------



## texasbo

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> Heaven - I don't. But I've also been called a harda$$ more than once.
> 
> I've seen too many doorstops that didn't last more than a year to consider them a permanent anything (except maybe a permanent pain in the a$$).
> 
> Would a wheel chock be a suitable barrier against vehicle impact in a private garage when protecting equipment?


You're not being a harda$$; you are right.

Heaven, keep in mind that this section isn't just to keep doors from swinging into windows.

A doorstop is clearly not a "barrier" between the door and the glazing. It is a doorstop. If one of the primary purposes of this section is to require safety glazing in areas subject to human impact loads, how does a doorstop eliminate the potential of human impact?


----------



## Heaven

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

I don't believe the section is only for accidental human impact. As quoted from "Building Code Basics- Residential" based on the 2006 IRC and written by Van Note :

"Safety Glass

To prevent serious injury from shards of breaking glass, the IRC requires safety glazing at 11 specific glazing locations as subject to impact by people. For example, glass in doors and adjacent to doors has an increased likelihood of accidental breakage *due to actions to open and close the door and the movement of the door itself*."

I think permanently installed doorstops qualify in some cases and have approved such.


----------



## ccbuilding

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

I always remember the first time I questioned this section, my BO told me that his take on it is that when the guy/gal comes home drunk and it's dark and he mistakes the window for the door while trying to get into the house, the safety glass will keep him from bleeding to death.

His second observation was, if there is a fire in the house and lots of smoke, again the safety glass will save injury when someone trying to escape mistakes the window for the door.

So, no we would not approve a doorstop.


----------



## Heaven

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

I agree that there are places where safety glass is warranted due to the considerations you list. There are places that those considerations don't really make sense. In most of the cases where I would approve a doorstop, the glazing is perpendicular to the doorway (and, not at the bottom of the stairs, for instance). The language in the code, and the commentary, leave room for reasonable judgment.


----------



## kilitact

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

ccbuilding wrote;



> I always remember the first time I questioned this section, my BO told me that his take on it is that when the guy/gal comes home drunk and it's dark and he mistakes the window for the door while trying to get into the house, the safety glass will keep him from bleeding to death.His second observation was, if there is a fire in the house and lots of smoke, again the safety glass will save injury when someone trying to escape mistakes the window for the door.
> 
> So no we would not approve a doorstop.


Using this logic to enforce building code regulations, the possibilities would be endless. We could require guards on toilets to keep the drunkard, who’s upchucking, from drowning, or require safety harness’s to keep them from falling down the stairs or in some cases even on flat ground and require fire sprinklers to put out the fire when they fall asleep with a light cigarette, wait we already have that requirement in some states.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC



			
				ccbuilding said:
			
		

> His second observation was, if there is a fire in the house and lots of smoke, again the safety glass will save injury when someone trying to escape mistakes the window for the door.


Without glass shards how will he cut his way to escape,  if there are two hungry Velociraptors prowling by the door?

Seriously, this sort of compounding of hypotheses is not good code practice.

That's why the code expects people to escape out of second and third floor windows if there's a fire.


----------



## texasbo

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

And indeed there are those who would put exit signs over second or third floor windows... ( I don't do little smiley faces)

I do however agree with one comment: Lets stay away from the componding of hypotheses, and read the code. The code requires safety glazing within a 24" arc, unless a barrier is installed. It doesn't say anything about "unless a device is installed to stop the door". Homespun fixes are never a good idea, especially when they don't come close to accomplishing the intent of the code.

Brudgers: referring to the diagrams Mule provided, are there any of them where you would believe the code allows a doorstop in lieu of safety glazing?


----------



## Paul Sweet

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

Min & Max said "There is no other section of the IRC that I detest as much as the glazing requirements. Appears to have been written by a group of intoxicated engineers."

Actually I believe it was originally written in Federalese by the Consumer Safety Protection Commission.  Intoxicated engineers would write a lot more clearly.


----------



## JBI

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

Paul, that's fairly debateable...  :lol:


----------



## Heaven

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

Since barrier is not defined in teh IRC, then the common useage prevails

Definition of barrier:

a structure or object that impedes free movement

Well, that's the definition I like anyway. The word barrier doesn't nessesarily mean "wall". There could be some "barrier" to us understanding each other's point of view.


----------



## Heaven

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

woops double


----------



## kilitact

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

I agree that a barrier is more that a homesprun device.

 I think the use of the word barrier without any clear definitions leaves it up to the code official (s) interpretation. I think riff and raff could debate the interpretation of this word until the cows come home.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> I agree that a barrier is more that a homesprun device. I think the use of the word barrier without any clear definitions leaves it up to the code official (s) interpretation. I think riff and raff could debate the interpretation of this word until the cows come home.


The code official's interpretation should be in keeping with the common usage.

Anything else is not in compliance with the building code.


----------



## peach

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

It really has to do with emergency ingress... the firefighters or police offices can break the glass without getting shredded... that's my story, and I'm sticking to it


----------



## pwood

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

it has to do with egress! people in a hurry to get out the smokey building may crash thru windows that they think are the doors due to the close proximity,therefore the safety glass requirement!


----------



## Heaven

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC



			
				pwood said:
			
		

> it has to do with egress! people in a hurry to get out the smokey building may crash thru windows that they think are the doors due to the close proximity,therefore the safety glass requirement!


That's why glazing four feet or higher off the floor needs to be safety glazing?

Clearly there are a number of reasons why safety glazing might be beneficial, and a number of ways to "barrier" glazing. I quoted ICC commentary earlier in this thread, there isn't just one correct answer.

Hey wait a minute,

Why in figure R308.4(6) is the right sidelight perpendicular to the door wall not required to have safety glazing?

And why in figure R308.4(4) isn't the right side window perpendicular to the door wall labeled as requiring safety glazing?

These drawings are not scaled properly.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC



			
				pwood said:
			
		

> it has to do with egress! people in a hurry to get out the smokey building may crash thru windows that they think are the doors due to the close proximity,therefore the safety glass requirement!


If that were true, then there would not be the barrier exception.


----------



## texasbo

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> pwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has to do with egress! people in a hurry to get out the smokey building may crash thru windows that they think are the doors due to the close proximity,therefore the safety glass requirement!
Click to expand...

If that were true, then there would not be the barrier exception.

That's precisely why there IS the barrier exception. The wall or barrier prevents impact, whether it be from the door, or something else, oh, say like a human. A door stop is not similar to a wall. The door stop solves part of the problem. The least important part.

Would a horizontal bar installed as allowed in other sections suffice? An argument could even be made for "no", otherwise the code would allow it as an exception for glazing near doors as well. However, I would find the horizontal bar more palatable than a door stop.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

How about installing bollards on each side of the doorway?

I believe that some builders would go to just about any length and/or expense to avoid submitting to minimum code requirements.   :mrgreen:

Uncle Bob


----------



## texasbo

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

Peach said:



> It really has to do with emergency ingress... the firefighters or police offices can break the glass without getting shredded... that's my story, and I'm sticking to it


Pwood said:



> it has to do with egress! people in a hurry to get out the smokey building may crash thru windows that they think are the doors due to the close proximity,therefore the safety glass requirement!


It's both, in addition to door impact.

While I'm not a big fan of ICC commentaries, I do agree with the quote from Heaven (bold and underlines added by me): "Safety Glass

To prevent serious injury from shards of breaking glass, the IRC requires safety glazing at 11 specific glazing locations as subject to impact by *people*. For example, glass in doors and adjacent to doors has an increased likelihood of accidental breakage *due to actions to open and close the door *and the movement of the door itself."

"Actions to open and close the door" (in *addition* to the movement of the door itself) could mean many things, including ( please indulge me on the compounding of hypotheses): emergency personnel ingress, panic egress, careless delivery men carrying your new Barcalounger, me trying to fumble with the door on an icy, windy day carrying my new distributor and timing light for my Chevy, or an arkitect going through the door with his arms full of T-squares, triangles, and electric erasers. In none of these cases would a door stop be an effective barrier to impact by *people*.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

If shattering glass due to fire department access was a reason, Emergence Escape and RESCUE openings would require safety glazing.


----------



## kilitact

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

brudgers wrote;



> If shattering glass due to fire department access was a reason, Emergence Escape and RESCUE openings would require safety glazing.


I agree, and I think a few other locations also. Permanently installed barrier is the keyword, a one foot high planter box would work.


----------



## texasbo

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> If shattering glass due to fire department access was a reason, Emergence Escape and RESCUE openings would require safety glazing.


They do when they are doors.

That's what we're talking about here; glazing in and near doors, right?

Uncle Bob said:



> How about installing bollards on each side of the doorway?I believe that some builders would go to just about any length and/or expense to avoid submitting to minimum code requirements.
> 
> Uncle Bob


It's certainly not just limited to builders, and if you read some of the comments above, bollards aren't such a silly proposition. Comparatively speaking....

I weep for our profession.


----------



## Heaven

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If shattering glass due to fire department access was a reason, Emergence Escape and RESCUE openings would require safety glazing.
Click to expand...

They do when they are doors.

That's what we're talking about here; glazing in and near doors, right?

I think we all agree on safety glass for door glazing. we are talking about windows/glazing within the specified area around doors.

Now, consider this -- the code does not say "exterior doors", so are all of you "wall proponents" inspecting for safety glazing in windows which are within the specified dimensions of interior doors?


----------



## texasbo

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> texasbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If shattering glass due to fire department access was a reason, Emergence Escape and RESCUE openings would require safety glazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do when they are doors.
> 
> That's what we're talking about here; glazing in and near doors, right?
Click to expand...

I think we all agree on safety glass for door glazing. we are talking about windows/glazing within the specified area around doors.

Now, consider this -- the code does not say "exterior doors", so are all of you "wall proponents" inspecting for safety glazing in windows which are within the specified dimensions of interior doors?

You ask that like it's a frivolous concept. Are you not? Seriously?

I can't speak for "all of the wall proponents", and obviously, there's one person that is more than willing to accept a 1' tall planter box, but as for my jurisdiction, we certainly do.


----------



## fw.

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

I weep for our profession.

The fact that this thread has even stooped to considering a doorstop or a foot tall planter as a permanent barrier makes me want to cry as well.   

I thought this forum was for building code professionals, not for lazy and cheap contractors trying to find a way to twist the code.  :evil:

This should be a simple no brainer, regardless of the reason that you put your hand through the window, you are more likely to do it when there is a door involved, and for that reason safety glazing is required.

The foot tall planter is more likely to trip you and send you through the window than to keep you from impacting the glass.


----------



## Heaven

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

I have no reason to want this subject to become confrontational, I am here to learn but I only learn by reasoning out the "why" of something. So, if I am way of base with my viewpoint to date I am willing to change how I read and interpret the code.

How many of you lurkers read this to mean (permanent barrier = wall) in every location indicated in the code language? And that for instance, a window 4' off the finished floor on a wall perpendicular to an interior door but within 24" of the edge of the door is required to have safety glazing?

I'm really curious, please weight in ~

As an aside, I just had a house guest here for two weeks who is from Illinois. He asked me one day and I quote "why do the houses here have so many windows?". Maybe I know the answer now . . .


----------



## Mule

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> Does anyone besides me consider a permanently installed doorstop to be a permanent barrier?


The door is not the reason for the safety glass. Glazing by a door is considered to be in a hazardous location. The only reason door swing comes into play is because this is the area most likely for someone to fall into. The reason for the safety glass is that in case of emergency, someone is trying to exit and trip and fall the glass would not come down on them chopping them to pieces.

This is my opinion.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> I have no reason to want this subject to become confrontational, I am here to learn but I only learn by reasoning out the "why" of something. So, if I am way of base with my viewpoint to date I am willing to change how I read and interpret the code.How many of you lurkers read this to mean (permanent barrier = wall) in every location indicated in the code language? And that for instance, a window 4' off the finished floor on a wall perpendicular to an interior door but within 24" of the edge of the door is required to have safety glazing?
> 
> I'm really curious, please weight in ~
> 
> As an aside, I just had a house guest here for two weeks who is from Illinois. He asked me one day and I quote "why do the houses here have so many windows?". Maybe I know the answer now . . .


You can have a lot of windows if you know where to place them to avoid safety glazing requirements.


----------



## kilitact

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

fw wrote;



> The fact that this thread has even stooped to considering a doorstop or a foot tall planter as a permanent barrier makes me want to cry as well.  I thought this forum was for building code professionals, not for lazy and cheap contractors trying to find a way to twist the code.
> 
> This should be a simple no brainer, regardless of the reason that you put your hand through the window, you are more likely to do it when there is a door involved, and for that reason safety glazing is required.
> 
> The foot tall planter is more likely to trip you and send you through the window than to keep you from impacting the glass.
> 
> I weep for our profession.


This response certainly highlights the degree of professionalism to which has been attained. Yes, I would agree if I was a weeper, this is weeping material.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

Just for the weepers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HQIcdGg63I


----------



## peach

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

ok... it's required because the Code says so...

None of us are old enough to remember why it came into the code.


----------



## Heaven

Re: Section R308.4  in  the  IRC

If they mean wall, why do they then add "permanent barrier", and if they want to ad "permanent barrier" why don't they define the parameters of an acceptable barrier such as "at least 36" tall"?


----------

