# Window sill guards R613.2



## Sifu (Jul 27, 2012)

http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj584/raspicher/HPIM0159.jpg

I told the builder about the window sill requirement at framing.  I went to final today and found these pieces of wood.  They do limit the opening to less than 4" where below 24".  Reading the code and exception #1 I can't see where I can turn them down.  See a flaw in my reasoning?


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 28, 2012)

*Exceptions: *

1. Windows whose openings will not allow a 4-inch-diameter sphere to pass through the opening when the opening is in its largest opened position.



Assuming the piece of wood is meant to take the place of the sill height or somehow limits the opening of the window this would not comply.

The code requires the window be manufactured to limit its opening or is provided with an aftermarket limiting device that complies with ASTM F 2090 or for non-EERO; ASTM F 2006. Note retrofit devices are available for most casement windows.

Francis


----------



## Sifu (Jul 28, 2012)

So you mean that since the window when open allows the passage of the 4" sphere at a point above the wood bar it wouldn't be permitted?  If the wood bar was replaced by a steel mesh grate screwed on to the window up to a height of 4' the window would still have 2' of opening above it allowing a 4" sphere.  Would that not be permitted?  The wood bar is meant to prevent a child from being able to access the open window at a point lower than 24".  Assuming the bar is not temporary would it not meet this;  would it not meet the intent of keeping a child from climbing out?

"Glazing between the floor and 24 inches (610 mm) shall be fixed *or have openings through which a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere cannot pass*."  The glazing between 24" and the floor will not have an opening which would allow a 4" sphere to pass.

I don't know of a ASTM F 2090 for casements but I'll look.


----------



## Yankee (Jul 28, 2012)

Yes it would meet the intent of the code. The window does not need to be limited to a 4" opening above the 24" from finished floor.


----------



## rogerpa (Jul 29, 2012)

ASTM F2006 is not an appropriate standard for residential use. Yes, I know that it's listed in the IRC '06 code, but it was removed in the IRC '09. This was a case were the proponent of the change submitted the same language in both the IBC and the IRC without checking the standards. Neither the staff nor the committee did appropriate homework.

1.3 This safety specification applies only to devices intended to be  applied to windows installed at heights of more than 75 ft  (23 m) above  ground level in multiple family dwelling  buildings. This safety  specification is not intended to apply to windows below 75 ft (23 m)  because all windows below 75 ft (23 m) that are operable  could be used  as a possible secondary means of escape.

Sources for window guards meeting ASTM F2090, including casements, available here. http://www.stopat4.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Windows-Fall-Prevention-Safety-Products-Overview.pdf.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 29, 2012)

Sifu we are determined to make the correct and best call for each situation and it will vary with each AHJ. ICC has an AHJ available for another opinion FWIW.

Do you suppose this same issue was discussed and evaluated before the final code language was written?

What qualifies for intent I suggest look in the administration section on Modifications, Alternative materials . . . and Tests. Along with rogerpa's contention that ASTM F 2006 applies only to windows 75 ft. and above; though not all windows are EERO's; they "could be used as a possible secondary means of escape" which is in the standard; this looks like the intent of the design of what's in the photo. Besides would it meet ASTM F 2090 70 lbs. dynamic load test 100 times provided in rogerpa link above?

JMHO listed devices are required not only because of specific criteria; the listed device heeds the precaution in the same way as the labeling of safety glazing for replacement as oppose to a bar fastened to the frame above the sill would bring the need for fall protection into question. Never the less all devices can be by-passed or removed.

Either way you gave a warning and it sounds as if the contractor new the requirement and did not ask for permission. The cost of a compliant WOCD is reasonable, just probably have a wait for the order to be shipped.

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?8466-Window-sill-guards-and-EE-openings

This is the most I've written in a while; probable will have to right me up!

Francis


----------



## peach (Aug 7, 2012)

Maryland is talking about dropping the sill height to 18"; either way, slide a bed under the window and you have a potential walking surface less than 24" below the sill.  Can't regulate parenting, I guess.


----------



## Sifu (Aug 8, 2012)

peach said:
			
		

> Maryland is talking about dropping the sill height to 18"; either way, slide a bed under the window and you have a potential walking surface less than 24" below the sill.  Can't regulate parenting, I guess.


Walking surface?  I called that a launch pad when I was a kid (still would if the bed wouldn't break).  Looked at another one yesterday with a sill height of 22"...above a window seat.  Code says "floor".  Away I went.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 8, 2012)

Sifu,

After your gone and you've approved that set-up (if you do approve that set-up), it most likely will be removed. Have the contractor put a 1/2"x 3" long lag screw in it to make sure its secure. Then when the contractor removes it, he can put a big blob of putty in it on the repair.


----------

