# Transom Safety Glazing



## alora (Jul 14, 2011)

Commercial storefront, fully glazed.

8' high frames with 7' tall door with transom above.

Does the transom need to consist of safety glazing?  Why or why not?


----------



## steveray (Jul 14, 2011)

Barring anything strange.....not with information given here...2406.3 2003 IBC


----------



## Coug Dad (Jul 14, 2011)

not one of the specified conditions where safety glazing is required.


----------



## Frank (Jul 14, 2011)

See 2009 IBC 2406.4 item 6

As long as it is 60 inches above walking surface not required to be safety glazing


----------



## alora (Jul 14, 2011)

A local AHJ is thinking of adopting & amending the 2009 IBC, Section 2406.4.6 [2406.3.6, 2006 IBC] to eliminate the 60" dimension entirely.

This would mean that transoms are "within a 24-inch arc of either vertical edge of the door in a closed position" and would now be required to consist of safety glazing.

Would the impact against the transom -- by, say, someone slamming the door shut below it -- be truly considered a "human impact load"?


----------



## Architect1281 (Jul 14, 2011)

unless the harlem globe trotters are residing in town the AHJ is an ______________ ot

the concept started as IMPACT GLAZING so the impact would come from ?????


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

Does the transom need to consist of safety glazing, *No*

Not required

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?3543-Safety-Glazing-Illustrations&highlight=glazing


----------



## alora (Jul 14, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Does the transom need to consist of safety glazing, *No*Not required
> 
> ...


Do you typically answer the easy questions only?


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

It is not required, what more do you want. Look at the link, I provided, that image is from ICC, what more do you want? Why say in 300 words what can be said in three,

*No, Not Required.*

Why not, because its Not Required.


----------



## alora (Jul 14, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> It is not required, what more do you want. Look at the like I provided, that image is from ICC, what the f do you want?


Just for the record.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> Just for the f'ing record.


What record, you taking me to court


----------



## alora (Jul 14, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> It is not required, what more do you want. Look at the link, I provided, that image is from ICC, what more do you want? Why say in 300 words what can be said in three, *No, Not Required.*
> 
> Why not, because its Not Required.


I'm curious as to why.

Is the "human impact load" solely to do with people crashing into the glazing?

Does the 'slamming' of the door have any bearing on the safety glazing requirement?

And a 'because the code says so' answer wasn't what I was looking for.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to why.Is the "human impact load" solely to do with people crashing into the glazing?
> 
> Does the 'slamming' of the door have any bearing on the safety glazing requirement?
> 
> And a 'because the code says so' answer wasn't what I was looking for.


When was the last time there was human impact on a transom?

There probably have been NO reported  injuries


----------



## alora (Jul 14, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> When was the last time there was human impact on a transom? ...


Is someone carrying a ladder crashing into the transom above a 'human impact'?


----------



## mark handler (Jul 14, 2011)

"ladder impact" and a three stooges movie.....

1930 ....The Stooges are part time firemen who break up a swank party, and later...


----------



## High Desert (Jul 14, 2011)

Human impact in the glazing section is just what it implies.......a human impacting something. Human impact loads tests are made with a weighted bag dropped from various heights into the glazing specimen. These are to mimic someone impacting the glazing. To my knowledge, they have never used a ladder in one of these tests. And I don't believe the test even takes into consideration the slamming of a door.


----------



## fatboy (Jul 15, 2011)

Sorry, can't see any pics, but if it's above 80", not required to be safety glazing. Can't think of the "what if's".


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 15, 2011)

> This would mean that transoms are "within a 24-inch arc of either vertical edge of the door in a closed position" and would now be required to consist of safety glazing.


The transoms are above the horizontal edge of the door and therefore above the arc of the door.


----------



## TJacobs (Jul 15, 2011)

not required...for the record...33 1/3, 45 and 78 rpm


----------



## alora (Jul 15, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> The transoms are above the horizontal edge of the door and therefore above the arc of the door.


Not in elevation view.

The code doesn't differentiate plan or elevation view.

The 24-inch arc (in elevation view) would include the transom, as it's "adjacent".

Point is, if this adoption/amendment goes through, it seems that it will require safety glazing in transoms.


----------



## Architect1281 (Jul 16, 2011)

Human Impact from Base Jumpers is not listed so therefore it is not required

Sometimes ya just gotta say WTF (Joel Goodsen)


----------



## peach (Jul 16, 2011)

not required.. now if you modify the code provision to eliminate the 60" dimension, the transom will indeed, be within the 24" arc of the vertical edge of the door - then it would be required... dumb, if you ask me.. (oh, you did)...


----------



## ICE (Jul 16, 2011)

The imprint was left on the window by the owl's down powder.  I bet that hurt.


----------



## texasbo (Jul 18, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> "ladder impact" and a three stooges movie.....1930 ....The Stooges are part time firemen who break up a swank party, and later...


Let me guess... A pie fight?


----------

