Building Code question?

[Thehardway]

Just wondering if any of you have run into this before.

The Building code calls for two separate means of egress for a bedroom.  Typically one of them would be an interior door and the other would be an exterior door or window.  In the case of a window it must be 5.7 cu/ft clear space if above grade and 5.0 cu/ft clear space at grade.

That's all great.  My question is, does a second interior door in the bedroom (leading to a different room and eventually outside) qualify as the second path or must it be an exterior door/window.  I know I can ask the LAHJ but thought I would get your take first.

There are two windows in the bedroom but both are two small to meet the requirements.

[Thehardway]

I think I found my answer in another web search. Looks like I will have to enlarge one of the windows.

[Raider Bill]

OUCH!  With ICF that will be a real pain!
How much do you need to cut out?

[Thehardway]

I'll have to cut 4" from one side of one window. Time to rev up the saw.

[Raider Bill]

Of course you will have a vertical rebar right there too :'(

[Sawmant]

I happen to be a building inspector enforcing the International Building Code. It does require the egress window for sleeping rooms or a door leading directly outside. The "egress" designation is kind of a misnomer since the size is to accommodate a fire fighter coming into the space with a scott pack on. The sill height max of 44" is so that the fire fighter doesn't break his ankles when dropping to the floor from the window. With gear on, a fire fighter can weigh an extra 100 lbs or so and to drop any farther can break bones.

[Thehardway]

Sawmant,

Thanks for your response.  The problem I had is I built off of the 5.0 Sq/ft clear area spec found in the code summary. A 24"X48" window provides this but it doesn't give you a 20" minimum width clear space which is found in the finer print when I actually read the whole code.  I understand the fireman getting in, but how is he going to get the average obese American out after he gets in? . :D

Fortunately I found this myself before I had ordered the windows or had it inspected or it would have cost me more than just time.

Stuff like this gives me fits. I have gone through the same thing with stair codes.  Summary calls for a max height of 7 3/4" IBC and 7" by some other codes.  There are special codes, however, for special stairs.  Spiral staircases fitting into that category allowing as much as a 9 1/2" rise.

I trip on a 7" step although I may appreciate it when I am 90.  I know plenty of people who have tripped on 6" steps or people who try to take them 2 at a time because they are so small.

It's a shame that folks can't build what suits them as long as it is structurally sound.  It sure would simplify your job

It seems even inspectors can be baffled by the exceptions and revisions and most of the time inspect based on the summary's rather than the actual written code unless you can show it to them.

I understand there are currently some arguments about dead bolts and thumb latches in the code enforcement community as well.

I am currently being informed that it is likely that new residential homes built after Jan.1, 2011 will be required to have a sprinkler system installed.  Although I see the value of sprinklers the idea of installing sprinkler systems in  rural homes and remote cabins that have well water supplies goes against all common sense.  At some point the NFPA needs to back off.  Please do not take offense at my venting, I very much appreciate inspectors and the work you do, I just wish your job was much simpler and there was a little less government involvement in our daily lives.

 

[Raphael]

Indeed, Dickens put it best, "Then Sir, The law is an ass!" ;)

I've seen it the other way round as well.
Snow loads for engineering were set here at the state level, and very obviously not by someone who'd ever experienced winter in our little corner of the state.  I took the 'code' snow load and wound up doubling it for the roof of the office.

Code amounts to a lot of really good ideas with a somewhat obsessive and skewed perspective on implementation.

[jdtuttle]

I am currently being informed that it is likely that new residential homes built after Jan.1, 2011 will be required to have a sprinkler system installed.  Although I see the value of sprinklers the idea of installing sprinkler systems in  rural homes and remote cabins that have well water supplies goes against all common sense.  At some point the NFPA needs to back off.  Please do not take offense at my venting, I very much appreciate inspectors and the work you do, I just wish your job was much simpler and there was a little less government involvement in our daily lives.

I too am a code officer & agree there are many codes that are not practical. They are usually developed due to an incident, usually a tragedy involving a death.
I'm not sure how far along you are on your project but I know there are plan review checklist forms available for free that will catch things like egress from bedrooms and light & ventilation requirements for habitable spaces. Ask your code officer if he can help. I always do a plan review for building permits to avoid costly changes during the building process.
Good Luck,
jim

[stonebroke]

In western NY we had a problem with some Amish. Seems their religion only allows windows to be so big. Not big enough for the code. Building inspector took the fire cheif out to the house and the fire cheif agreed that the windows were large enough for his men. Buiding inspector gave a variance. State took notice and threatened to take away the county's ability to do building inspections. Don't you just love Bureaucrats at work.

Stonebroke

[Sawmant]

Regarding the sprinkler issue, I was at the ICC Code hearings on the day of the sprinkler voter and voted on the change. On a normal day in the hearings there were probably 300-400 people voting on an issue at any given time. On the day of the sprinker vote about 1000 fire fighters showed up to vote on the issue. The building inspectors were out voted.

[stonebroke]

I think that the fire chiefs won't be satified until we all live in caves without electricity or heat, eating cold food.

Stonebroke

[PineNut]

Then they would not have a job.

[Jim_Rogers]

I heard a story a while back about a similar situation with the fire departments. It seems that when the truss companies where trying to cut corners they went to a press on plate to join the truss parts together instead of the air gun nailed on plates.

And I was told that in a fire these pressed on plates expand in the heat and pop off the truss, meaning that the truss falls apart.

Now I don't personally know if any of this is true or not. But the fire departments raised a big stink over this and in my opinion rightfully so. Who wants the roof to come caving in on them while they're in the building trying to put the fire out. So they complained to some code agency or something like that. And the truss companies fought back saying you can't do that to us, we live in a free enterprise system of business.

It was my understanding that the truss companies won, but they are required now to place a notice outside the building made with these trusses warning the fire departments that they are made with these types of trusses. And that the fire departments won't enter a burning building made with these because of the risk of roof failure.

Again I don't know if any of this is true or not, just something I heard.

[bill m]

I heard a story a while back about a similar situation with the fire departments. It seems that when the truss companies where trying to cut corners they went to a press on plate to join the truss parts together instead of the air gun nailed on plates.

And I was told that in a fire these pressed on plates expand in the heat and pop off the truss, meaning that the truss falls apart.

Now I don't personally know if any of this is true or not. But the fire departments raised a big stink over this and in my opinion rightfully so. Who wants the roof to come caving in on them while they're in the building trying to put the fire out. So they complained to some code agency or something like that. And the truss companies fought back saying you can't do that to us, we live in a free enterprise system of business.

It was my understanding that the truss companies won, but they are required now to place a notice outside the building made with these trusses warning the fire departments that they are made with these types of trusses. And that the fire departments won't enter a burning building made with these because of the risk of roof failure.

Again I don't know if any of this is true or not, just something I heard.

I don't think any of what you heard is true. I have been a volunteer firefighter and officer for over 25 years and have not heard of this. I have also set many trusses with my crane for contractors and no one has ever mentioned this. Also has anyone ever tried to pull one of those plates off?  I have and nails come apart a lot easier.

[3Dog]

Folks-

My 2cents are as follows based on my 20+ years as a career firefighter/EMT and a 10 year Chief...

I will be the first to agree with most of the frustration issues with some of the restrictive  building codes but, not most of the "statements" above other than most originate in tragedies. Egress issues seem like "no brainers" in the daylight but, during the night when individuals or children are panicking and smoke is thick (it builds from the ceiling down in minimal time and make a daylight room literally black) then all of these "ounce of prevention" laws  make sense.  I have seen too many fires claim lives and family members cried the statement " if I had only".  Very sad but true.  Hindsight is very painful.  Not trying to be godlike but rules about seat belts and safety feature in cars are no different. They are based on facts that are based in tragedies.

Another unfortunate fact is many of these are based on another tragedy...lawsuits!!!
I have actually put out a garage fire that was burning through the roof when we arrived (4 minutes after my department was paged, located only a couple of blocks from our station).  We managed to stop the fire before any significant damage to the living portion of the home, and got out the homeowners pets (not very friendly pets either).  I was very pleased with my crews performance. The homeowner was screaming at me and threatening me with a lawsuit since we didn't get his boat and 4 wheelers out of the garage....and we broke his front door.....  I am fully aware that folks like this are not all that common but, most of these folks have the desire to have someone else to blame for their misfortune.  And, many attorneys will follow suit.

Trusses- wrong info on nails coming out before truss plates.  The issue isn't that these plates don't hold like an SOB, it science.  The expansion coefficient of heated wood is is less than that of the metal truss plates.  When heated, as in a fire, the truss plates will expand and back themselves out of the wood.  A truss failure is major for the safety of occupants and rescuers.  One of the first fire operations tasks, after or simultaneously with search and rescue is ventilating the roof to let out the hot gases and smoke. You can imagine what a weak roof means to a firefighter.

Enough said, I don't want to seem like I am preaching, just giving some information. Thanks for not kicking the can back at me.

Dave

[jdtuttle]

When trusses fail they fail in series, like dominoes.
jim

Part 1264

IDENTIFICATION OF BUILDINGS UTILIZING TRUSS TYPE CONSTRUCTION

1264.1 Introduction. Section 382-a of the Executive Law provides that commercial and industrial buildings and structures that utilize truss type construction shall be marked by a sign or symbol that informs persons conducting fire control and other emergency operations of the existence of truss construction. Section 382-a further directs the State Fire Prevention and Building Code Council to promulgate rules and regulations it deems necessary to carry into effect the provisions of the statute. This Part establishes certain requirements pertaining to the identification of buildings and structures that utilize truss type construction.

[Thehardway]

I would never want to see a firefighter perish trying to save someone from a fire.  That would indeed be a tragedy, however, we all should have the right to live in the housing of our choice and built within our financial reaches, whether that be a cardboard box or a stone mansion.  As such, I think the fair remedy would be for people to sign a legally binding waiver which exempts the fire dept. from search, rescue and extinguishing.  I know it is against the grain but people do have a right to be dumb if they so choose.

There was a fire at a rural home in a nearby county recently.  The man called the local fire dept. and they responded. They arrived to find that the home could only be reached by crossing a nearby bridge which would not support their new fire trucks.  They stood and watched the home burn to the ground.  This is not an isolated case. Fire departments (especially volunteer) are prone to oversize equipment when opportunity is had. In many cases this adds precious minutes to response times and limits accessibility.

In other cases fires are put out that should be allowed to continue burning.  I now live next to a fire-gutted, abandoned house which the fire department "saved" only to be condemned for demolition which will cost the owner several thousand dollars in permits, demolition labor and tipping fees at the landfill. It now is infested with rats and poses a danger to the neighborhood not to mention being unsightly. The owner, after being burned out can't afford the demolition cost so it sits there waiting for another fire to occur or to collapse, hopefully without killing anyone.

I guess the only truism in the event of fire is that there is little time for decision making and questions. 

Most laws do more pocket lining than pocket protecting or life saving.

Example.  If the NTSB was truly interested in preventing deaths and head injuries in automobile accidents, we would see helmets, 5 point harnesses and and full roll cages required, not shoulder belts and airbags that have about a 50/50 chance of protecting vs. injuring.

If the NFPA was truly interested in saving lives, they would mandate non-combustible construction materials or even mandate an FM 2000 fire suppression system.

Let's think about this, the common procedure in a house fire is to  break through the front door and

 

One of the first fire operations tasks, after or simultaneously with search and rescue is ventilating the roof to let out the hot gases and smoke.

These two standard operations essentially turn the whole house into a giant chimney.

Is it no wonder we need to install sprinklers. 

Dave, the info is appreciated and please take no offense personally or professionally, I support the brave work of firefighters.  I mean only to point out how far we have strayed from a constitutional form of limited government in in the name of "preventing tragedies" and saving the masses from themselves.  Perhaps April 15 has my ire a little artificially high ;D towards government.

[3Dog]

No offense taken. All valid concerns and comments. 

Dave