# Replacement Windows



## Buelligan (Sep 29, 2016)

*2015 IRC
310.2.5 Replacement Windows *Replacement windows installed in buildings meeting the scope of this code shall be exempt from the maximum sill height requirements of sections R310.1 and Sections R310.2.1 and 310.2.2 provided the replacement window meets the following conditions:

1. The replacement window is the manufacturer's largest standard size window that will fit within the existing frame or existing rough opening. The replacement window is of the same operating style as the existing window _*or*_ a style that provides for an equal or greater window opening area than the existing window.
2. Not a change......​
So based on this language* "The replacement window is of the same operating style as the existing window". *The replacement window can reduce the opening any amount as long as it is the same "operating style" (i.e. double hung for double hung). Although a change in style (i.e. double hung to single hung) must be equal or greater?

The situation is this. We had an existing condition (double hung) with a 24" of vertical opening (which is code minimum) to a replacement window (double hung) that only opens 17"! So the intent is to allow the emergency egress to be significantly reduced if the same style is used but the opening must remain the same just for changing the style?

Seems to me that not allowing ANY reduction in emergency egress would be the intent for all situations not just a style change. I realize that putting a replacement window inside the frame of the existing IS GOING TO reduce the opening, but a 7" reduction is pretty significant, right?

Example of what we are seeing:

Double Hung for Double Hung replacements:
Existing conditions: 24"x31" existing opening = 5.1 sq ft. (not 5.7 as required)
Replacement window: 17"x29" opening = 3.4 sq. ft!!!

So they can lose 7" of vertical opening and reduce it 1.7 sq.ft. just because it was the same style? But have to meet 5.7 if they change the style? Seems like replacement window industry logic and not code safety logic to me. But hey maybe I'm just being to cynical?

How do the rest of you read, interpret and enforce this?


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Sep 29, 2016)

Some AHJ have amended their code to not allow a reduction.  That said it can be reduced with a replacement of the same operating style.

"Sometimes it is difficult to replace an existing window with one of the same or similar operator type without reducing the size of the resulting opening below that required for EERO. For this reason, new provisions in the 2015 IRC permit the installation of a replacement window that is the same operator type as the window being replaced, *if* it is the manufacturer’s largest standard size window of that operator type that will fit within the existing frame.

A different operator type that provides an equal or greater size opening may also be used. Use of an operator type different than the original that would reduce the size of the opening provided, however, cannot occur. Also, this provision cannot be used if the replacement of the window is part of an addition or alteration that creates a new requirement for an EERO."

http://windowanddoor.com/article/oc...-windows-emergency-escape-and-rescue-openings


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 29, 2016)

B, Thanks for the alert, will not be using the 2015 and if we adopt another code I'll adjust prior to adoption.

Issues:

1) I was told that the 5.7 sf was for a Firefighter with air bottle can access the EEO and then we allow a grade floor window to be 5.0 sf. Maybe the Firefighters don't go in to get you anymore? Some window manufactures can't make a compliant window apparently. 

2) The other lie, spindle spacing on a guard @ 4-inches for a baby's head, the stairs are allowed to be 4-3/8", and 6-inches allowed between the riser and step. 4-3/8" allows the stair guys to save spindle$$.

To many code exceptions making the code harder to abide by.


----------



## Buelligan (Oct 3, 2016)

Gee, 62 views and only 2 replies? Guess you guys are running the other way? LOL


----------



## mark handler (Oct 3, 2016)

Buelligan said:


> *2015 IRC*
> How do the rest of you read, interpret and enforce this?


The State of CA chose *not to adopt this section* in the 2016 CRC, CEBC and CBC


----------



## Buelligan (Oct 3, 2016)

So it would seem that this is the intent of the code. Let the replacement windows make a non compliant situation significantly less compliant as long as it is the same style? Seems like a fox is in the henhouse. Oh well, I got bigger fish to fry. Guess I'll let this go and move along, unless my ICC code opinion says otherwise. Thanks.


----------



## Buelligan (Oct 3, 2016)

mark handler said:


> The State of CA chose *not to adopt this section* in the 2016 CRC, CEBC and CBC



 Do you even issue permits for replacement windows? Beginning to think we are the only jurisdiction to do so.


----------



## conarb (Oct 3, 2016)

Buelligan said:


> Do you even issue permits for replacement windows? Beginning to think we are the only jurisdiction to do so.



Some do, some don't, just like the solar panel installations, Sacramento is owned by the environmental lobbyists, they want to make it as easy as possible to "save energy", even though they don't do any good unless you get the U-factor below 2.0 (according to my Title 24 consultants computer program) and engineer the coatings to the location and vary the coatings to each elevation.  I've had a meeting with the Daylighting Institute at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories on these issues, the idea is/was to create an industry in place then the DOE's R-10 window technology is available, the best I can get now using RESFEN and Window 6 is triple pane R-5.56.

*Here are LBL's computer tools* to get some benefit[/URL]


----------



## JBI (Oct 3, 2016)

Older windows tend to have less sash frame (especially the old single pane windows). The allowance for a slight reduction recognizes newer window designs for energy efficiency. The intent was not to allow a significant reduction in opening size.
The 5.0 s.f. at grade recognizes that it is easier to get in and out of a window when standing on the ground versus working off a ladder, especially when assisting someone who is unable to respond. 
The 4 3/8" spacing on the run of the stairs is a geometry thing, it allows 2 spindles per tread for a uniform appearance. 
The 6" triangle is allowed because few small children will likely lay down on the stairs and try to fit their head through.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 3, 2016)

Buelligan said:


> Do you even issue permits for replacement windows? Beginning to think we are the only jurisdiction to do so.


I do and require egrees and energy efficancy


----------



## Buelligan (Oct 4, 2016)

mark handler said:


> I do and require egrees and energy efficancy


Under 2015 IRC section I quoted? So you require replacement of any style to meet current egress compliance?


----------



## Buelligan (Oct 4, 2016)

JBI said:


> Older windows tend to have less sash frame (especially the old single pane windows). The allowance for a slight reduction recognizes newer window designs for energy efficiency. The intent was not to allow a significant reduction in opening size.
> The 5.0 s.f. at grade recognizes that it is easier to get in and out of a window when standing on the ground versus working off a ladder, especially when assisting someone who is unable to respond.
> The 4 3/8" spacing on the run of the stairs is a geometry thing, it allows 2 spindles per tread for a uniform appearance.
> The 6" triangle is allowed because few small children will likely lay down on the stairs and try to fit their head through.



We were allowing some reduction but struggled with a definition of "significant reduction". We tried to keep it around 2" and .25 sq.ft. but that was even difficult. Usually required a casement in most cases, which was not always a popular choice. But I'm getting the idea that under 2015 IRC ANY reduction is acceptable as long as it is not a change of use and is of the same "operating style". I just don't think that's the intent. Unfortunately it was worded in such a way that benefits the replacement industry and not safety.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 4, 2016)

Buelligan said:


> Under 2015 IRC section I quoted? So you require replacement of any style to meet current egress compliance?


Yes. Life safety issue.


----------



## ICE (Oct 4, 2016)

mark handler said:


> Yes. Life safety issue.


Same here.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Oct 4, 2016)

Sooooo..if your requiring the residents to meet the Life Safety aspect of the code, (Window EEO 5.0 and 5.7 sf) then your issuing permits and doing inspections...right? That's how your getting compliance...Inspections. Framing & header changes included. Yes?


----------



## north star (Oct 4, 2016)

*$ ~ $ ~ $*


Buelligan,

Section 310.2.5 is applicable until you come to Section R101.3 - Intent
and Section R102.1 - General   [  i.e. - the most restrictive ( application )
shall apply !   ].

IMO, ...the most restrictive application in your scenario is to have the
5.7 sq. ft. be present when the replacement window is installed.

I am surprised that more of the Fire Fighting Community hasn't weighed
in on this, since they [ typically ] are the sacrificial lambs going into
to perform the rescue.

Did I miss something ?


*$ ~ $ ~ $*


----------



## JBI (Oct 4, 2016)

north star said:


> Did I miss something ?



You missed the first part of the section... Conflict between a general requirement (EERO at 5.0 or 5.7) and a specific requirement (the allowance for a replacement window), the specific requirement shall be applicable.

While I happen to agree that whenever possible replacement should not reduce level of safety, a specific exception has been provided. Poorly worded, but provided.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 4, 2016)

itcinspector1 said:


> Sooooo..if your requiring the residents to meet the Life Safety aspect of the code, (Window EEO 5.0 and 5.7 sf) then your issuing permits and doing inspections...right? That's how your getting compliance...Inspections. Framing & header changes included. Yes?


You got It


----------



## mark handler (Oct 4, 2016)

[QUOmissed ="JBI, post:155519, member: 23"]You missed the first part of the section... Conflict between a general requirement (EERO at 5.0 or 5.7) and a specific requirement (the allowance for a replacement window), the specific requirement shall be applicable.

While I happen to agree that whenever possible replacement should not reduce level of safety, a specific exception has been provided. Poorly worded, but provided.[/QUOTE]
You missed my earlier post
State of California did not adopt the lesser standard
There is no conflict in California


----------



## ICE (Oct 4, 2016)

We are too mellow to be conflicted.  For many years we allowed replacement windows that did not meet EERO regs. as long as the new window was no more restrictive than the previous window.  That made for plenty of conflict.  Now we require a code compliant EERO.  That also engenders conflict but that's a battle we win every time.


----------



## Keystone (Oct 4, 2016)

Pennsylvania does not require permits for window replacement unless there is a structural alteration. Although there is a section on egress, Hmmm, could a reduction be considered a change of egress??  I'll pick that battle when I look into the Pa UCC a bit more.

There are 2 municipalities I'm aware of that have amended the state Pa UCC and do require a permit. Those municipalities do require an EERO.


----------



## my250r11 (Apr 11, 2017)

Sorry to bring back an old thread, but we are going to the 2015 in July.  I was looking up the codes for windows in the 09 and 15 both as well as here. R310.2.5 is NOT in my 2015 IRC. Also notice it is a light shade in the Icodes. Does anyone know why?


----------



## JBI (Apr 11, 2017)

my250r11 said:


> Sorry to bring back an old thread, but we are going to the 2015 in July.  I was looking up the codes for windows in the 09 and 15 both as well as here. R310.2.5 is NOT in my 2015 IRC. Also notice it is a light shade in the Icodes. Does anyone know why?



Which printing of the 2015 IRC? 
First printing did NOT have it but third printing does and the text is the same black as the rest of the text. 
My guess is you have the second printing?


----------



## my250r11 (Apr 11, 2017)

Ahh, Forgot to check printing edition, guess they ordered the first editions.


----------



## my250r11 (Apr 11, 2017)

Guess it is just something with my view on the computer, that isn't the only place the text is shaded different.


----------

