|
Author
|
Topic: Safety/tempered glass - 892 visits (1 today, 2 this week)
|
|
Susan Cieslewicz
Member
   
Posts: 1593
From:Lake Villa, Il
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted April 13, 2005 08:28 PM
  
Last week doing a final inspection, I notice that none of the windows have an etching or stamp in the corners (or stickers) to indicate safety glass. Well, there are certain areas that I automatically look for this (doors, by stairs, bath/shower enclosures, etc.).I wrote up the lack of safety/tempered glass on 2 living room windows (and told the superintendent that I'd have to read over the codes before I'd make a decision). Fast forward to IRC 2000, section 308.4 Glazing. These two windows had sill heights less than 18", were within 36" horizontally of one or more walking surfaces (living room area inside and porch outside), top edge of window was greater than 36" above the floor (and porch floor) but the exposed area of an individual pane was LESS than 9sf. While the total area of the glazing was more than 9 sf (it was a single hung window), the bottom portion had a glazed area of less than 9sf. The framing of the window is considered a "longitudinal break" in the glazed area. I strongly disagree with this code. I was envisioning someone vacumming and tripping on a cord or a small child running and going right through the window! While going through a window would be catastrophic at least having the safety glass there would hopefully lessen injuries or save a life. My house was built 4 years ago and every pane in every window is stamped and safety glass. Is this just another way to cheapen construction? Last month a different subdivision I noticed the same type of thing. Large picture type window above a tub is not stamped/etched. I call it out and sure enough the superintendent had to switch it with the one above the kitchen sink. So the one by the kitchen sink wasn't (and by code doesn't have to be) but they had put the one intended for over the tub in the kitchen. This code really is poorly written in my opinion. This is a very important issue and it appears as construction/building practices are cutting costs. Watch your windows in new construction and remodels. Ask for the cut sheets. Sue |
|
Mike Holloway
Member
Posts: 172
From:Austin, Texas
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted April 13, 2005 09:33 PM
Sue,I'd call it too. One should consider to meet all items of 308.4 1 thru 10 with exceptions, that does not mean you can meet all but one of the ten. The only time is when an Exception 1 thru 9 of R308.4 over-rules (if that is the word for it) the purpose of glazing. How about the window in the bay of the breakfast room adjacent to the back door of the family room. From the (exterior) porch side the glazing is within a 24" arc of the back door in the closed position. Maybe a little stretch but it is within 24". Mike
|
|
Susan Cieslewicz
Member
Posts: 1593
From:Lake Villa, Il
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted April 14, 2005 04:29 AM
Mike,Exactly!! Here's another one. A couple with a townhouse is adding a three season room. The company (a sunroom company) calls me (I did the plan review) and asks about safety glazing because the windows in this room will be just above floor level and will extend up then have a small walled area then larger windows directly above toward the ceiling. Well, 2 of the 4 windows at the bottom are less than 60" from grade/ground level (this room will be off a second story and has a sloped yard). There is a door, stairs etc. It got quite complicated to explain where the safety glass had to be installed based on the codes. The good thing is they were very willing and cooperative (and so were the homeowners) to make sure that the windows met the code. This particular room was an excellent example of needing the safety glazing yet only 2 of those 4 bottom windows required it by code. Sue |
|
Kevin Teitel
Member
Posts: 199
From:Alexandria, VA
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted April 14, 2005 04:59 AM
Susan,I agree, the code isn't worded very well. I have a problem with "Walking surface." To me the living room is a walking surface, but when ever I see the code explained in pictures, they always show a sidewalk on the outside. There is too much wiggle room. Just the other day I was inspecting a new house for another inspector and there was a large picture window in the dining room, from about 12" above the floor to the ceiling and about 8' wide. I looked and sure enough the window was tempered. Both myself and the inspector who was buying the house were surprised. Even though both of us would recommend it be tempered, neither expected it to be. This builder followed us through the entire inspection. He said he learned a lot. The house was very well built. It's nice to see builders willing to do the best and learn. Kevin Teitel
House-Pro Inspections
|
|
Mike Holloway
Member
Posts: 172
From:Austin, Texas
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted April 14, 2005 05:57 AM
Sue,In 97', I worked for a builoder and on two plans the front 1st floor windows (2860's & smaller))were 12" AFF. The City called for tempered and we complied. He came back and said the tops too! WHAAAAT! I pointed out that we met all conditions. He agreed to a point but said, (308.4 #7-7.3)..."The top edge of the window in an individual fixed or operable panel greater than 3' above the floor would have to be safety glazed". That means every window in the house... He only called out the fronts and the backs of the 1st floor and nothing about the 2nd floor. AS far as the Sunroom ...All windows must be glazed...at least that's how I see it. You can't just apply part of the code sections without including them all and the exceptions.
Here's one ...Remember the Trainng week in Austin... a 4040 Horiz. slider more than 60" above finished grade...doesn't meet egress and it's not safety glass! We installed that one twice...ouch!
Mike |
|
Susan Cieslewicz
Member
Posts: 1593
From:Lake Villa, Il
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted April 14, 2005 02:30 PM
Hi Mike,Yep,that makes sense but now with the IRC 2000 you must meet ALL 4 conditions of #7. The sunroom has various "hazardous location" issues. Today's argument was with a superintendent at a townhome development; no private walks, stoops or driveway plus a dryer vent with a 30' run and he brings me installation/specs for a Kenmore dryer saying he can go 37'. (No dryer there at the inspection so I can't use that; he couldn't get that through his thick skull). Had to go by the Mechanical code which says max. 25'. I also had to subtract out for (3) 45 degree bends!! He called yesterday for a final for a closing tomorrow. The buyer's mortgage company is not happy either and don't want to fund the loan without the drives etc. Not a problem there; it ain't happenin. This guy must have called me 6 times today leaving me messages that they're "trying to accomodate me"!!! It's not me they have to accomodate....hello!! Today was an adventure to be sure! I'm sick of the lies and being put on the spot. It's sad for the family that's thinking they're moving in tomorrow but it's not me that has to tell them they're not!! Sue |
|
Susan Cieslewicz
Member
Posts: 1593
From:Lake Villa, Il
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted April 14, 2005 02:43 PM
Mike,Your 4040 slider would not be ok for emergency egress because of the sill height (or was it grade to sill). Inside if it was 44" or less from floor to sill it'd be ok. Because of it's sq. footage(over 9 sf), it would have to be tempered. (Is the 40x40 the glazed area or area including framing?). I obviously like to see safety/temp. on all windows but it's not required by code. With the sunroom, I can't make them put in tempered/safety glass if the code doesn't require it. The way this particular one is only 2 of the 4 required it. Is there another code that I'm not aware of that I should cite for requiring all 4 windows be safety/tempered?? Always willing to learn!! Thanks,
Sue |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted April 14, 2005 05:39 PM
From the 2003 IRC.R308.4 Hazardous locations. The following shall be considered specific hazardous locations for the purposes of glazing:
- 1. Glazing in swinging doors except jalousies.
- 2. Glazing in fixed and sliding panels of sliding door assemblies and panels in sliding and bifold closet door assemblies.
- 3. Glazing in storm doors.
- 4. Glazing in all unframed swinging doors.
- 5. Glazing in doors and enclosures for hot tubs, whirlpools, saunas, steam rooms, bathtubs and showers. Glazing in any part of a building wall enclosing these compartments where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) measured vertically above any standing or walking surface.
- 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 or walking surface.
- 7. Glazing in an individual fixed or operable panel, other than those locations described in Items 5 and 6 above, that meets all of the following conditions:
- - 7.1. Exposed area of an individual pane greater than 9 square feet (0.836 m2).
- - 7.2. Bottom edge less than 18 inches (457 mm) above the floor.
- - 7.3. Top edge greater than 36 inches (914 mm) above the floor.
- - 7.4. One or more walking surfaces within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally of the glazing.
- 8. All glazing in railings regardless of an area or height above a walking surface. Included are structural baluster panels and nonstructural in-fill panels. intervening wall or other permanent barrier between the door and the glazing.
- 9. Glazing in walls and fences enclosing indoor and outdoor swimming pools, hot tubs and spas where the bottom edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above a walking surface and within 60 inches (1524 mm) horizontally of the water's edge. This shall apply to single glazing and all panes in multiple glazing.
- 10. Glazing adjacent to stairways, landings and ramps within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally of a walking surface when the exposed surface of the glass is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the plane of the adjacent walking surface.
- 11. Glazing adjacent to stairways within 60 inches (1524 mm) horizontally of the bottom tread of a stairway in any direction when the exposed surface of the glass is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the nose of the tread.
- Exception: The following products, materials and uses are exempt from the above hazardous locations:
- - 1. Openings in doors through which a 3-inch (76 mm) sphere is unable to pass.
- - 2. Decorative glass in Items 1, 6 or 7.
- - 3. Glazing in Section R308.4, Item 6, when there is an intervening wall or other permanent barrier between the door and the glazing.
- - 4. Glazing in Section R308.4, Item 6, in walls perpendicular to the plane of the door in a closed position or where access through the door is to a closet or storage area 3 feet (914 mm) or less in depth. Glazing in these applications shall comply with Section R308.4, Item 7.
- - 5. Glazing in Section R308.4, Items 7 and 10, when a protective bar is installed on the accessible side(s) of the glazing 36 inches +/- 2 inches (914 mm +/- 51 mm) above the floor. The bar shall be capable of withstanding a horizontal load of 50 pounds per linear foot (74.5 kg/m) without contacting the glass and be a minimum of 11/2 inches (38 mm) in height.
- - 6. Outboard panes in insulating glass units and other multiple glazed panels in Section R308.4, Item 7, when the bottom edge of the glass is 25 feet (7620 mm) or more above grade, a roof, walking surface, or other horizontal [within 45 degrees (0.79 rad) of horizontal] surface adjacent to the glass exterior.
- - 7. Louvered windows and jalousies complying with the requirements of Section R308.2.
- - 8. Mirrors and other glass panels mounted or hung on a surface that provides a continuous backing support.
- - 9. Safety glazing in Section R308.4, Items 10 and 11 is not required where:
- - 9.1. The side of a stairway, landing or ramp has a guardrail or handrail, including balusters or in-fill panels, complying with the provisions of Sections 1003.3.12 and 1607.7 of the International Building Code; and
- - 9.2. The plane of the glass is greater than 18 inches (457 mm) from the railing. Kevin, The reason they say "walking surface" in addition to "floor" is that there are many "walking surfaces" which are not "floors", but, because they are "walking surfaces" and people will be walking on them, the same protection needs to be provided at those walking surfaces. Sue, "
Last week doing a final inspection, I notice that none of the windows have an etching or stamp in the corners (or stickers) to indicate safety glass. Well, there are certain areas that I automatically look for this (doors, by stairs, bath/shower enclosures, etc.). I wrote up the lack of safety/tempered glass on 2 living room windows (and told the superintendent that I'd have to read over the codes before I'd make a decision). Fast forward to IRC 2000, section 308.4 Glazing.
" I'm confused - "there are certain areas that I automatically look for this (doors, by stairs, bath/shower enclosures, etc.)", but then in "I wrote up the lack of safety/tempered glass on 2 living room windows" you did not state if these windows were, or were not, within or near the above locations or if they were just "windows anywhere in the wall"? Then, in another post, you said "asks about safety glazing because the windows in this room will be just above floor level and will extend up then have a small walled area then larger windows directly above toward the ceiling.", what are the dimensions of those bottom windows (height above floor, top, width, etc.). Then, don't forget about "8. All glazing in railings regardless of an area or height above a walking surface", those windows serve as the safeguard railing for the area above 30" to grade outside. I just skimmed through the above posts because I have to get busy on a report, but did not want to get too far behind on this. ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Susan Cieslewicz
Member
Posts: 1593
From:Lake Villa, Il
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted April 14, 2005 06:32 PM
Hi Jerry,Sorry for the confusion. My first post was about the low living room windows. The other post (second one I made here), I was talking about a three season room in a different house. Sue edited for this: the 2000 and 2003 IRCs differ on this glazing section. My jurisdiction is currently under the 2000 version. [This message has been edited by Susan Cieslewicz (edited April 14, 2005).] |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted April 14, 2005 07:34 PM
Sue,I understood that part, but not about the particulars of the window sizes, locations, etc. in the first one. Those things make a difference as to the answer. Nor did I understand about the clearances to ground outside the second one. If the sunroom is off a second floor, the glass would be serving as the 'safeguard' from walking out and falling off, and that alone would required safety glass for them. ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Susan Cieslewicz
Member
Posts: 1593
From:Lake Villa, Il
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted April 14, 2005 08:05 PM
Jerry,Refer back to the original post I made here, 3rd paragraph for window details. According to the 2000 IRC 308.4 Hazardous locations, the windows and glazing in the house I questioned met only 3 of the 4 criteria for requiring safety tempered glass. The code specifically says 308.4 #7 that it must meet all of the following conditions:
7.1 Exposed area of an individual pane greater than 9 sf. (these were less than 9 sf) therefore this whole #7 section is irrelevant. 7.2 Bottom edge less than 18 inches above the floor. 7.3 Top edge greater than 36 inches above the floor. 7.4 One or more walking surfaces within 36 inches of the glazing. The windows in this living room satisfied 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 but not 7.1; therefore I couldn't require safety glass because all four sections didn't apply. The 2003 version is somewhat different on the glazing section. Like I said, we're on the 2000 version. Hope that helps clarify. SC |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted April 14, 2005 08:26 PM
Got that, but were they close to the door?How about the sunroom window height above grade? Just things to consider. ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Phillip Smith
Member
Posts: 415
From:Samantha, Alabama
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted April 29, 2005 03:12 AM
This is a dumb question. What does the sticker on the window suppost to look like?
Is it this? Click for photo (50976 Bytes)
This is a window at the interior stairs. The rest of the windows hade a marking in them.------------------
Have a good day inspecting.
Phillip Smith
Samantha, (Tuscaloosa) Al. |
|
Kevin Teitel
Member
Posts: 199
From:Alexandria, VA
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted April 29, 2005 04:47 AM
Phillip,The glass needs to be permemnantly marked. A sticker doesn't count. You will usually see a "bug" in one fo the corners (16 CFR 1201). Kevin Teitel
House-Pro Inspections
|
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted April 29, 2005 05:37 AM
Phillip,It is a permanent etching in the glass, usually in or very near a corner. Tells you the type of safety glass, i.e., 'Tempered', 'Laminated', etc., manufacturer, and the standard it meets. The codes down here have always required that the mark "be visible after glazing", meaning that if the builder or glass company says 'Yes, it is tempered, the mark is just hidden.' you can respond 'Good, now replace it where the mark is visible after glazing'. The 2003 IRC says the same thing (exceptions do not apply to the areas we will be looking at). [B] R308.1 Identification. Except as indicated in Section R308.1.1, each pane of glazing installed in hazardous locations as defined in Section R308.4 shall be provided with a manufacturer's or installer's label, designating the type and thickness of glass and the safety glazing standard with which it complies, which is visible in the final installation. The label shall be acid etched, sandblasted, ceramic-fired, embossed mark, or shall be of a type which once applied cannot be removed without being destroyed.
- Exceptions:
- - 1. For other than tempered glass, labels may be omitted provided the building official approves the use of a certificate, affidavit or other evidence confirming compliance with this code.
- - 2. Tempered spandrel glass may be identified by the manufacturer with a removable paper label. I have a sure-fire test I offer to builders who insist that their glass IS safety glass and the label is not visible: 'I'll strike it with a hammer, if it shatters into thousands of small pieces, it WAS safety glass, if it breaks into larger pieces, it WAS not.' Either way, what it WAS no longer matters.  ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Susan Cieslewicz
Member
Posts: 1593
From:Lake Villa, Il
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted April 29, 2005 06:02 PM
Phillip,The sticker can be just that...I have seen bright yellow stickers that say "TEMPERED" in bold, black letters that are just stuck to the window. They would come apart if removed. If they do get removed (by the crew hired to clean new construction prior to closing), the builder can get the cut sheets. This obviously is not the best way to determine the type of safety glazing. The etching or embossing is right there in a corner and makes it a whole lot easier for us!! Sue |
|
Rick Hurst
Member
Posts: 3581
From:Rockwall, TX
Registered: Oct 2003
|
posted April 29, 2005 06:43 PM
Throw a hammer through it. If it breaks into a million pieces then it probably is safety glass.If it breaks into larger shards of glass, it probably is not safety glass. Rick |
|
Mike Holloway
Member
Posts: 172
From:Austin, Texas
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted April 29, 2005 08:34 PM
Phillip,Here are pics of the Tempered Etched/Stamp on glass. Keep Looking! Mike Click for photo (139929 Bytes) Click for photo (154679 Bytes)
|
|
Phillip Smith
Member
Posts: 415
From:Samantha, Alabama
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted April 30, 2005 04:46 AM
I found the stamp in the window after it was cleaned.
I was asking about the stickers after I had read Susan post and looked it up in the 2003 IRC.
I have not seen a sticker, I have seen many of stamps and etchings------------------
Have a good day inspecting.
Phillip Smith
Samantha, (Tuscaloosa) Al. |
|
Russel Ray
Member
Posts: 2642
From:San Diego, California
Registered: May 2002
|
posted April 30, 2005 07:00 AM
I've seen stickers on brand new glass at construction sites because the corners and edges of the glass typically are covered by cardboard during transportation. The stickers are usually removed once the glass is installed. |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted May 01, 2005 01:57 PM
Sue,"The sticker can be just that...I have seen bright yellow stickers that say "TEMPERED" in bold, black letters that are just stuck to the window." And you guys allow that? I thought you were under the IRC? The IRC does NOT allow that - with but ONE exception - Tempered spandrel glass (see exception 2). R308.1 Identification. Except as indicated in Section R308.1.1, each pane of glazing installed in hazardous locations as defined in Section R308.4 shall be provided with a manufacturer's or installer's label, designating the type and thickness of glass and the safety glazing standard with which it complies, which is visible in the final installation. ...
- Exceptions:
- - 2. Tempered spandrel glass may be identified by the manufacturer with a removable paper label.
------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida
[This message has been edited by Jerry Peck (edited May 01, 2005).] |
|
Susan Cieslewicz
Member
Posts: 1593
From:Lake Villa, Il
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted May 01, 2005 03:29 PM
Jerry,I've only seen one window with the sticker on it. All others have had the etching/embossing in the corners. What I have seen happening frequently in final new construction inspections is that the windows above the tub are not etched/embossed and the intended window is in another room's window!! Has happened about four times in the last 10 days. If you're doing new construction; watch for this!! Sue [This message has been edited by Susan Cieslewicz (edited May 01, 2005).] |
|
Jeff G. Hooper
Member
Posts: 668
From:Palm Beach Gardens, FL
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted May 01, 2005 06:13 PM
Sue,Jerry and I find that all of the time. Find it on the other side of the house. Jeff |
|
Gunnar Alquist
Member
Posts: 922
From:Santa Rosa, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 04, 2005 04:32 PM
I have a related question regarding mirrors on closet doors. Recently, I have seen several swing closet doors with mirrors permanently attached. I know that the standard bypass closet door has a plastic backing that is supposed to hold it together if it is broken, but this can't be seen when attached to a swing door. In addition, I have seen no "bug" in the corner of the mirror identifying tempered or laminated. These doors are typically in newer or recently remodeled homes. If you look closely at the two pics, you will see that surface of the door inside the closet is a pressed/raised panel and the mirrored side is flat, presumably to allow a mirror to be attached. Click for photo (59145 Bytes)
Click for photo (37129 Bytes) I am not sure exactly how to report this. I usually note that safety glass is required in doors and that I cannot verify its presence. Then I recommend the builder or seller provide documentation to verify safety glass. What do you think? Oh yeah. Let's see if we can refrain from commenting on the items hanging from the doorknob. ------------------
Gunnar |
|
Mike Schulz
Member
Posts: 292
From:Fuquay Varina, NC
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted May 04, 2005 04:40 PM
Heck with the mirror I like the tassel on the door knob.......... |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted May 04, 2005 04:48 PM
Gunnar,You picked a very good door for that question. A mirror on a wall does not need to be tempered as there is a wall behind it, which both keeps one from falling through and keeps it from breaking as much. A mirror on a regular flat slab door does the same. However ... that is a raised panel door, which means it is not fully supported behind the mirror (the recesses could allow the mirror to break up even though the door would keep you from falling through the mirror). The 2003 IRC says (as an exception to safety glazing) "8. Mirrors and other glass panels mounted or hung on a surface that provides a continuous backing support." Hmmmmm ... does that raised panel door, with its recesses, provide "continuous backing support"? What say you? ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Susan Cieslewicz
Member
Posts: 1593
From:Lake Villa, Il
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted May 04, 2005 05:16 PM
Can I jump in?I'd say that the door itself(in back of the mirror) provides continuous support. I'd say that it "meets code". I still don't like the IRC glazing code section (the 2003 seems a little less ambiguous than the 2000). Good topic Gunnar. Sue [This message has been edited by Susan Cieslewicz (edited May 04, 2005).] |
|
Gunnar Alquist
Member
Posts: 922
From:Santa Rosa, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 04, 2005 05:23 PM
Jerry,The mirror side of the door did not have the raised panels (as near as I can tell), so it just might be supported. I am going to have to check the UBC (we ARE in CA and tend to run a few years behind) to see what is said about these doors. I had thought any door with glass needed to be safety. I didn't realize that if applied over backing, ordinary glass was ok. Sue, Thanks for your input. ------------------
Gunnar |
|
Russel Ray
Member
Posts: 2642
From:San Diego, California
Registered: May 2002
|
posted May 05, 2005 03:33 AM
I don't think "any door with glass" needs to be safety glass here. An example would be a swinging door with many small panes of glass.A lot of the higher-end properties here are going to swinging doors with several panes of glass rather than tempered glass sliding doors because of the cost of the big pieces of tempered glass. [This message has been edited by Russel Ray (edited May 05, 2005).] |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted May 05, 2005 04:34 AM
Russel,"I don't think "any door with glass" needs to be safety glass here. An example would be a swinging door with many small panes of glass. A lot of the higher-end properties here are going to swinging doors with several panes of glass rather than tempered glass sliding doors because of the cost of the big pieces of tempered glass." That would depend on how big the "many small panes of glass" are. More likely than not, those "many small panes of glass" are required to be tempered. Now, if you had said "small pieces" of decorative glass, then there is an exception for some of them, depending on the size of the "pieces". For this you need to think of 'leaded stained glass' panels. And this is an oxymoron " ... higher-end properties ... because of the cost ..." ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Russel Ray
Member
Posts: 2642
From:San Diego, California
Registered: May 2002
|
posted May 05, 2005 07:44 AM
-----
And this is an oxymoron " ... higher-end properties ... because of the cost ..."
-----Isn't it? But that's not the only oxymoron concerning real estate here. Ah to be back home in the Great Nation of Texas. Kind of. We did a PREMIUM inspection a couple of weeks ago which had swinging doors with many panes of glass. An employee of mine questioned whether the swinging doors with many panes of glass had to have tempered glass. We found the answer for that house in that area to be no. So either it is not required by the CBC, or the local AHJ does not require it for that area. I got to walk around some magnificant mansions that were under construction. Since I have built and renovated homes myself, and with my knowledge as a home inspector, I was not impressed with the construction. By the way, the house we inspected had five furnaces and five condensers. No gas meter installed yet, circuit breakers were shut off, furnace gas valves were shut off, and everything was unplugged. So we couldn't test them. Client was furious. He and I walked out to consult with the seller, who bought and developed the property, and is one of Prudential's top agents here. Mr. Realtor said, "The gas meter hasn't been installed," turned his back on me and his buying Client, and walked away. Great customer service for the buyer of a $4.795 million house. If I had been my Client, I would have turned my back and walked away from the purchase. We went back out to re-inspect (at a cost of $599, which the buying and selling agents split). One furnace and four condensers did not work. And this was brand new construction that, according to what had been fed to my Client by the seller and buyer Realtors, was "ready to move into." Un-huh. Great workmanship. And those weren't the only problems for that "ready to move into" house. [This message has been edited by Russel Ray (edited May 05, 2005).] |
|
Jerry McCarthy
Member
Posts: 1077
From:San Mateo, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 09, 2005 03:13 PM
The first rule of home inspection is "assume nothing."For those practicing in CA I would "assume" (violating rule #1) that you would have a copy of the 2001 CBC.
"Assuming" you do, (second violation of rule #1) check Chapter 24, and in Gunner's case, 2406.5; Wardrobe Doors. I agree with Susan regarding the lower (near floor) level window as a dangerous glitch in the code which hopefully will be rectified in the next code cycle?
(note my diagram) Jerry Click for photo (32712 Bytes) |
|
Gunnar Alquist
Member
Posts: 922
From:Santa Rosa, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 09, 2005 09:40 PM
Jerry Mc,Thanks for the reference. I actually was aware of it. The problem is that most homeowners tend to object when I use the UBC "impact test" on their wardrobe doors. Regarding Jerry Peck's reference, CA is not using the IRC. As a result, I still don't know if the doors are acceptable. ------------------
Gunnar |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted May 10, 2005 05:18 AM
Gunnar,I don't have the CBC, however, *I would think* (meaning "assume") that the CBC has a section which covers glazing in hazardous locations listed, and that glazing in those hazardous locations need to be safety glass. Then, I would further "assume" that there "may" be a similar exception to those requirements when "Mirrors and other glass panels mounted or hung on a surface that provides a continuous backing support." (the applicable exception wording found in the IRC). Is there a section which lists hazardous locations for glazing? Is there an exception to the safety glass requirement when mounted on a wall or similar surface (that "continuous backing support")? ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Jerry McCarthy
Member
Posts: 1077
From:San Mateo, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 10, 2005 09:26 AM
Gunner, I’m shocked that you don’t employ the impact test while inspecting glazing in wardrobe doors! It only takes a few minutes to perform the Standard 24-2, Part II where you drop a 26 ounce framing hammer anywhere from 6 to 48 inches above the mirrored door after laying it flat on its back at the driveway or rear patio.Seriously, CBC Wardrobe Doors 2406.5: since this is the only mention of mirrors in the CBC it should be known that all responsible wardrobe mirror manufacturers use safety backed mirrors on their doors and basically identifying such is beyond the scope of practice for members of both CREIA and ASHI in addressing this issue. The IRC hazardous locations is defined and shall comply with CPSC 16 CFR, part 1201 whereas the CBC requires glazing subject to human impact to comply with section 2406 including OSPD regs. After years of teaching both codes I much prefer the IRC as it’s simpler to understand with less political implications. The only problem I have with the I Codes in general is they have the fingerprints of the NAHB all over them, i.e.; R305.1 (minimum ceiling height 7 feet)
This was their sly way of legalizing all those previous non-code complying basement or attic “in-law” rooms/units.
CA will be adopting the IRC within the next year and at least we will have chapters 1 to 10 to make our lives simpler, but I’m afraid we will still be stuck with IAPMO’s UPC and UMC.
At least the 2005 NEC is a nice improvement. although we just adopted the 2002. Oh well? Jerry
San Mateo, CA |
|
Gunnar Alquist
Member
Posts: 922
From:Santa Rosa, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 10, 2005 07:13 PM
Jerry PThe communities around here use the UBC. That said, I have not been able to find any exceptions (at least any that are painfully obvious) regarding continuous backing support for mirrors, etc. It may be there, and I have not worked hard enough to find it.  Jerry Mc, Recognizing that it is generally regarded to be the responsibility of the manufacturer, it is not always possible to determine if the wardrobe door has been modified by the homeowner or builder without considering the safety issue. (*Gasp* "Someone might have done something to a house without considering whether it was safe?" you say.) As a result, in my reports I note that I am unable to determine if safety glass is present (refer to the pictures that I posted somewhere above) and refer them to the manufacturer (whoever that might be). I realize that it is the standard HI out, but at some point I need to get on with the rest of the inspection. Regarding the IRC. I am sure that it is much easier to reference. The one problem that I can see is that the majority of homes that I will be inspecting for years to come were built to the UBC. As a result, it will be necessary to refer to both and hope that I can find common references. (But that's why we pay J.P. the big bucks!) ------------------
Gunnar |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted May 10, 2005 08:14 PM
Gunnar,From the 1994 UBC (the newest one I have): 2406.4 Hazardous Locations. The following shall be considered specific hazardous locations for the purposes of glazing:
- 1. Glazing in ingress and egress doors except jalousies.
- 2. Glazing in fixed and sliding panels of sliding door assemblies and panels in swinging doors other than wardrobe doors.
- 3. Glazing in storm doors.
- 4. Glazing in all unframed swinging doors.
- 5. Glazing in doors and enclosures for hot tubs, whirlpools, saunas, steam rooms, bathtubs and showers. Glazing in any portion of a building wall enclosing these compartments where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches (1525 mm) above a standing surface and drain inlet.
- 6. Glazing in fixed or operable panels adjacent to a door where the nearest exposed edge of the glazing is within a 24-inch (610 mm) arc of either vertical edge of the door in a closed position and where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches (1525 mm) above the walking surface.
- 7. Glazing in an individual fixed or operable panel, other than those locations described in Items 5 and 6 above, that meets all of the following conditions:
- - 7.1 Exposed area of an individual pane greater than 9 square feet (0.84 m2).
- - 7.2 Exposed bottom edge less than 18 inches (457 ram) above the floor.
- - 7.3 Exposed top edge greater than 36 inches (914 mm) above the floor.
- - 7.4 One or more walking surfaces within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally of the plane of the glazing.
- 8. Glazing in railings regardless of height above a walking surface. Included are structural baluster panels and nonstructural in-fill panels.
- EXCEPTION: The following products and applications are exempt from the requirements for hazardous locations as listed in Items 1 through 8 above:
- 1. Glazing in Item 6 when there is an intervening wall or other permanent barrier between the door and the glazing.
- 2. Glazing in Item 7 when a protective bar is installed on the accessible sides of the glazing 34 inches (864 mm) to 38 inches (965 mm) above the floor. The bar shall be capable of withstanding a horizontal load of 50 pounds per linear foot (729 N/m)without contacting the glass and be a minimum of 1 1/2 inches (38.1 mm) in height.
- 3. Outboard pane in insulating glass units and in other multiple glazed panels in Item 7 when the bottom exposed edge of the glass is 25 feet (7620 mm) or more above any grade, roof, walking surface or other horizontal or sloped (within 45 degrees of horizontal) surface adjacent to the glass exterior.
- 4. Openings in door through which a 3-inch-diameter (76.2 mm) sphere will not pass.
- 5. Assemblies of leaded, faceted or carved glass in Items 1,2, 6 and 7 when used for decorative purposes.
- 6. Curved panels in revolving door assemblies.
- 7. Doors in commercial refrigerated cabinets.
- 8. Glass block panels complying with Section 2110.
- 9. Glazing in walls and fences used as the barrier for indoor and outdoor swimming pools and spas when all of the following conditions are present:
- - 9.1 The bottom edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches (1525 mm) above the pool side of the glazing.
- - 9.2 The glazing is within 5 feet (1525 mm) of a swimming pool or spa deck area.
- 10. Glazing in walls enclosing stairway landings or within 5 feet (1525 ram) of the bottom and top of stairways where the bottom edge of the glass is less than 60 inches (1525 mm) above a walking surface. (Jerry's note: The exception in the IRC is not in there, but ... see below.) 2406.5 Wardrobe Doors. Glazing in wardrobe doors shall meet the impact test requirements for safety glazing as set forth in U.B.C. Standard 24-2, Part II. Laminated glass must also meet the boil test requirements of U.B.C. Standard 24-2, Part II.
- EXCEPTION: The impact test shall be modified so that if no breakage occurs when the impacting object is dropped from the height of 18 inches (457 mm), the test shall progress in height increments of 6 inches (152.5 ram) until the maximum of 48 inches (1219 mm) is reached. U.B.C. Standard 24-2 then refers:
Uniform Building Code Standard 24-2 Safety Glazing
- Safety Standard for Architectural Glazing Materials (16 C.F.R., Part 1201) of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission and Performance Specifications and Methods of Test for Transparent Safety Glazing Material Used in Buildings. ANSI Z97.1-1975 of the American National Standards Institute, Inc. (Jerry's note: which would be the Standard Impact Test, then modified as shown above.) Then here is the same catch all for my PATENTED safety glazing test (if it shatters, it WAS tempered and if it breaks into large pieces it WAS NOT tempered). 2406.2 Identification. Each light of safety glazing material installed in hazardous locations as defined in Section 2406.4 shall be identified by a permanent label which specifies the labeler, whether the manufacturer or installer, and state that safety glazing material has been utilized in such installation. For additional identification requirements and for limitation on size and use by category classification, see U.B.C. Standard 24-2, Part I. Each unit of tempered glass shall be permanently identified by the manufacturer. The identification shall be etched or ceramic fired on the glass and be visible when the unit is glazed. Tempered spandrel glass is exempted from permanent labeling but such glass shall be identified by the manufacturer with a removable paper label. If you ignore spandrel glass (which is not what is being discussed here), then the glass MUST have the mark where it IS *VISIBLE* *AFTER* glazing. ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Gunnar Alquist
Member
Posts: 922
From:Santa Rosa, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 10, 2005 08:57 PM
Jerry,Once again, I think that we are on the same page. The major difference is that I say it in less than 1000 words and you find it necessary to write a novel. Should be interesting when we move to the IRC, though. Then, the mirrored doors that I have mentioned will be OK as long as they have the continuous backing. Pretty goofy, huh? ------------------
Gunnar |
|
Russel Ray
Member
Posts: 2642
From:San Diego, California
Registered: May 2002
|
posted May 10, 2005 09:03 PM
-----
The major difference is that I say it in less than 1000 words and you find it necessary to write a novel.
-----
duh. |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted May 10, 2005 09:08 PM
Gunnar (and Sue & Jerry M.),"continuous backing" That is an issue which I think needs to "contemplating" and discussion. The *reason* for allowing glazing which has "continuous backing" to not have to be safety glass is because, with "continuous backing", you fall against it and it does not flex or move and thus does not break. If it does not break, it does not need to be "safety glass". Here, though, is the problem as I see it: Let's say we take a wall (the "continuous backing" and mount a mirror on it. The wall, being a "continuous backing" for the mirror, does not allow the mirror to flex or break. HOWEVER, we all know that mirrors are not held to the wall by magic, but by Black Magic (the most popular brand of mirror adhesive wherever I've been). Now, you have "spaced" globs of Black Magic holding the mirror to the wall, with the mirror being held out from the wall as much as 1/2", and sometimes even more. Now, we no longer have "continuous backing", right? It is "spaced" globs of adhesive. There is now room for the glass to flex and break, meaning that is now needs to be safety glass. Right? I wish. What do you say? Not addressing what the code says, but what the code is trying to accomplish with that exception (when the exception is present, such as in the IRC). ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Gunnar Alquist
Member
Posts: 922
From:Santa Rosa, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 10, 2005 09:31 PM
Jerry,Your logic seems reasonable to me. Whenever I see a fixed mirror installed over a tub (one of them thar fancy houses), I will give them the shards/guillotine speech and recommend installation of razor blades instead (it's quicker). ------------------
Gunnar |
|
Jerry McCarthy
Member
Posts: 1077
From:San Mateo, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 11, 2005 09:37 AM
I concur with the idea that glued mirrors have been know to fall off for various reasons and when they hit the floor or any object on the way down it's not a pretty sight.
(not to mention the 7 years of bad luck)Wardrobe mirrors is definitely a disclaim and defer item and their so-called continuous backing leaves much to be desired.
Solid wall is one thing, but most of what I've seen is basic cardboard made to look like it "may" be substantial. Note to Jerry P: why not give folks the code number and have them look up the appropriate code themselves?
This way they may even have to purchase a code book and therefore learn and not be so dependent on you.
The building codes are our roadmaps and without knowing them home inspectors really are not qualified to perform a professional inspection. Note to Gunner: California goes by the current CBC, not the UBC.
The 1997 UBC has been designated a "legacy" code and no longer used.
(however, much of our current CBC & the old 97 UBC is still identical)
As I've said before, the IRC is the best thing that ever happened to the home inspection profession. Jerry M
San Mateo, CA |
|
Russel Ray
Member
Posts: 2642
From:San Diego, California
Registered: May 2002
|
posted May 11, 2005 09:43 AM
-----
Note to Jerry P: why not give folks the code number and have them look up the appropriate code themselves?
This way they may even have to purchase a code book and therefore learn and not be so dependent on you.
The building codes are our roadmaps and without knowing them home inspectors really are not qualified to perform a professional inspection.
-----What a wonderful idea. Would save wear and tear on Jerry's fingers or, if he uses voice recognition software like I do, would save his voice. |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted May 11, 2005 10:08 AM
Jerry M.,"Note to Jerry P: why not give folks the code number and have them look up the appropriate code themselves?" Because they probably do not have the code book? "This way they may even have to purchase a code book and therefore learn and not be so dependent on you." What? (  ) Then HIs would have more code books than builders and municipal inspectors do. "The building codes are our roadmaps and without knowing them home inspectors really are not qualified to perform a professional inspection." I fully and completely agree, but, by providing that code and discussing it, we know they are AT LEAST on the right page and headed in the right direction. Give them just the number and they may come up with something like (sorry to use you as an example Jeff P., but it does apply here) 'panels are not allowed in bathrooms ... but there are exceptions'. No, 'panels are not allowed in bathrooms' (not anymore) PERIOD. The correct statement would have been 'overcurrent devices are not allowed in bathrooms ... with exceptions'. That is because panels contain overcurrent devices, but overcurrent devices are not panels. I think it just help clarify things better. Does that mean they should 'not' buy code books? Of course not, but they would not be expected to read them all, or even understand what is being said, without some help. Help like we have all received over the years. I try to be helpful. Russel thinks of it as "overbearing" and me trying to beat him over the head with the code until he uses it. That is not the case, I am just trying to get THE OTHERS (Russel is beyond help on this) to understand the importance of using code as a back up. ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Russel Ray
Member
Posts: 2642
From:San Diego, California
Registered: May 2002
|
posted May 11, 2005 10:23 AM
-----
Russel thinks of it as "overbearing" and me trying to beat him over the head with the code until he uses it. That is not the case, I am just trying to get THE OTHERS (Russel is beyond help on this) to understand the importance of using code as a back up.
----What you fail to understand is that I am perfectly capable of using the code as a back-up. It's not necessary, though, which you also fail to understand. I have created my business and inspection protocol, and my report, so that I don't have to use a back-up. Therein lies the difference between us, I think. Mileage in other areas might be different, so, as usual, work with your attorneys, insurance providers, and any other relevant counselors to set up your business, inspection, and reporting protocols. And then be consistent in using those protocols. That, more than anything else, probably is the best bet to keep one out of trouble. |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted May 11, 2005 10:29 AM
Russel,"What you fail to understand is that I am perfectly capable of using the code as a back-up." No, I do not "fail to understand" that you are capable OF using it, *I* just "fail to understand" WHY you do not use it. "It's not necessary, though, which you also fail to understand." Close, but no cigar. While it may "not be necessary", it can be very helpful. See, *I DO* understand more than you think I do, but *I DO NOT* understand why you think 'Russel says this' provides the same backup as 'this is the minimum required'. So be it. That is YOUR way. Many others think differently, as well they should and is their right. And, yes, before you start jumping up and down and throwing a hissie fit, there are ALSO many who think like you do. So is life. ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Russel Ray
Member
Posts: 2642
From:San Diego, California
Registered: May 2002
|
posted May 11, 2005 10:37 AM
Yes, so is life.I don't use it because I'm a home inspector, not a code enforcement official and not a municipal code inspector or building inspector. That seems to be a major difference between California (or at least San Diego) and Florida. Citing and interpreting codes here are best left to the appropriate licensed individuals, and that ain't home inspectors since we are licensed at absolutely nothing in this state. I work under the guidance of my attorneys, insurance providers, and CPA. That's why it is very important for others to do the same. All states are not equal. What works for you in Florida does not work for me here in California. And it is important that the masses here understand that what Jerry Peck says about citing codes is not absolute truth. That also is part of life. So be it. |
|
Jerry McCarthy
Member
Posts: 1077
From:San Mateo, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 11, 2005 02:57 PM
I've heard that excuse before, I (we) are not code enforcement folks so I (we) don't need to know no stinkin building codes."It's that kind of thinking that makes me allot of money performing expert witness testimony in home inspector litigation. (besides construction defects)
Show me a home inspector who does not know the residential building codes appropriate for the area they work in and I guarantee they will certainly need a attorney, on a full retainer no less.
The jurisdictional guys and gals are legally protected by the jurisdiction they work for so if they miss or overlook something, oh well?
Home inspectors run naked and require E&O insurance for protection and can and will be held legally responsible for missing just about "anything." There are two types of home inspectors; those that know they don't know and continually strive for education (codes being a large factor) and those that think they know either enough or all there is to know. Those folks invariable wind up as legal road kill and are certainly not providing a first class service to their clients in my opinion.
As Vince Lombardi once said, "strive for perfection and accept excellence along the way." If this sounds a bit harsh or opinionated I'm sorry, but having been around this business from the late 70s I think I know of what I speak.
(at least I hope so?) Jerry M
San Mateo, CA. PS: Guys like Jerry P who are willing to take the time and effort to share their knowledge are one of the chief reasons this profession is so dam interesting............ and rewarding. |
|
Russel Ray
Member
Posts: 2642
From:San Diego, California
Registered: May 2002
|
posted May 11, 2005 03:10 PM
Hey, Jerry.As an expert witness, I would certainly expect you to read better. I never said that "(we) don't need to know no stinkin building codes." So I have no idea who you are quoting there. I said that I don't cite codes, nor do I interpret them like Jerry Peck does. Big, big difference. If you really do act as an expert witness, you should know the difference. And if you cannot read or comprehend what someone writes, I'd love to have you on the other side of the courtroom if I'm ever there. There are home inspectors who do not know the residential building codes appropriate for the area they work in, I'm sure. I'm not one of them; nor are my inspectors. We simply don't cite them or interpret them, and we do that with the guidance of our attorneys and insurance carriers. So make all the money you can; it just won't be off of me. -----
Home inspectors run naked and require E&O insurance for protection and can and will be held legally responsible for missing just about "anything."
----- Key words there are "just about." Unfortunately, too many home inspectors don't go to the lengths that I go to to protect myself, my employees, and my company. I believe that one should not go into business for oneself unless one has the money to pay for guidance from attorneys, insurance carriers, and CPAs. Just my way of doing business. Those are three areas where I never skimp; they are the first things I set up with any new business venture of mine.
|
|
Mike Schulz
Member
Posts: 292
From:Fuquay Varina, NC
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted May 11, 2005 04:07 PM
J.M
I have the current code book and reference often. But there are times things are not clear and we post it on the board or we can't find what we are looking for. And yes sometimes we just don't get it until someone like Jerry shines a light on it. Code books are allmost like the Bible, allot of people interpet it diffrently and that is why it is discussed.
Jerry I for one hope you don't just post the numbers because from time from time we all can use some help. Even you J.M.
Heck even Jerry doesn't know it all and I'm sure he bounces things off other people to.( Just not here). Even the simplest things can be discussed such as Jerry finding out where his spare bulb is in his flash light.
I hope that all inspectors have a general idea how things work and if not post it here and someone will help.
I tell you right now I have been in the roofing buisness for 25 years or so.(ball park). We do new construction and I have always been interested in how things are installed. I can tell you now I have spoke to many builders about how things are installed and how they should of been installed over the years. It use to upset me because I seen it every day how Brick masons, siding men, plumbers electricians, etc make a mess and don't give a flip.I would come down off the roof and go talk to the builder and they would appreciate it and some it went out the other ear. Then in 1989 someone said you should be a builder or a home Inspector. The light lit and I was off. Till this day I still can't believe what I have seen on some of the homes I inspected. And code has no play, just basic common sense would have solved the problem.
Now I am going to say something that I will probablly here grief about. There are alot of home inspectors out there that has never been in the field and seen how systems work and what doesn't work. I believe if you haven't lived it how can you inspect it. Books that others wrote helps but acutally seeing over the years , lets say siding material for instance.How can you no how its suppose to be installed and does it hold up. Back in the 80's they installed allot of masonite (cardboard) around here and put it directly against the roof. This was installed like that for years and I would tell the builder it not going to last low and behold they then held it up an inch, nope did not work, Now its 2". I've seen this stuff installed and no how it should be installed for years.
Done rambling. But heres my point. I just did an Inspection for a client that was buying a home from a seller that bought it a year earlier and had it inspected. The seller said the Inspector said the house was in great shape and there where no items that need attention......nada......nothing. He did comment on the condensation line that was dripping against the foundation but it would be ok since it has a steep grade. Now I inspect the home and there where 3 field repaired web joist in the crawl space. All three where cracked and the triple 2 X 12 girder was split. It appeared to me that something droped(heavy) during the construction that landed on the floor and did the damage. The webs where repaired by nailing 2x4 along the bottom of the cord, width nailed to the sides. The girder had 2-2x10's about 4' long nailed to the sides where the crack was and the crack was between the piers. The girder was rotating and had 3/8 of gaps between the boards that where nailed to the sides along the bottom and about 1/4 seperation along the bottom of the orignal 3 2x12's. They where litterly pulling apart.( Im' not spell checking so live with it). This looked like a failure waiting to happen. This was a walk in crawl space and it just couldn't be missed.I then walked around to the back of the house which was on a steep grade and there was a deck, 2 storys high. The stringers to the first landing was about 12' high and the stairs where never anchored to the ground with post. Just sitting on the soil, it slanted to the side and I could push the stairs from side to side and it would move. You could walk up them and it would wobble. The landing was toe nailed to 4x6 support post. No notching to inset, no anchoring brackets, no bolts just toe nailed 12 ' high. The landing was also tilting. The seller said it was like that when he purchased the home. It looked like they used one bag of concrete around each post and that was it. It was sinking because of compaction of the soil from settlement from the steep grade of when it was new construction. ( steep grade, soil brought into lot). Then I went on the roof and There was a 16-D nail sticking up out of the shingles that the siding guys usally put there to hold there siding nmaterial from sliding off. The chimney cap where it folds over the corners where never sealed and the 2x4 rim was rotted. All roofing nails in the apron metal on the porches was never caulked and there where several that had the nails pulled back out for some reason and never caulked. Split ridge cap on the gable end from when the siding was installed they shoved there gable trim metal through the peak. Mortar joints where washed out on the front steps that would of took years. Air blowing out of the condensation lines and around where they enter the air handler. The pan under the unit was corroded from the secondary overflow. ( Granted that could happen in a year). So I don't know if this Inspector did not know what he was looking for or just did a drive by. I get his from alot of sellers that tell me well my inspector never told me that. I don't know how these guys sleep at night. Mike |
|
Russel Ray
Member
Posts: 2642
From:San Diego, California
Registered: May 2002
|
posted May 11, 2005 08:03 PM
-----
I believe if you haven't lived it how can you inspect it?
----- |
|
Susan Cieslewicz
Member
Posts: 1593
From:Lake Villa, Il
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted May 11, 2005 09:25 PM
Well guys, obviously I've been watching this topic since I started it.To address Jerry Peck on the "continuous backing" with the mirrored glass. In short, my opinion (and that's all it is) is that a wall is a wall and provides continuous backing whether or not it has globs of Black Magic or not. If mirrored glass takes impact from a human body, is there continuous backing there to break a fall? Through window glass there certainly isn't. Did what I say make sense?? Long day!!
Now for the other thread drift here which is kind of close and personal to me (everyone already knows that I'm a licensed home inspector and a municipal building inspector; just letting people new to the board know so they understand my post a little better).
When I went through all my HI training and studied for the NHIE to obtain my license, I realized that I wasn't getting into this for the money only; I was doing this and LOVING and ENJOYING every little thing I was learning and seeing. I became a municipal building inspector strictly by fate (another story I won't go into here). But I truly believed and NO ONE will ever convince me different that I'd be a much more knowledgable home inspector if I literally spent time in the "trenches" as a building inspector. I'm not a veteran inspector by a long shot but I'll tell you one thing....any inspector that has a passion for the profession, can work with all types of people and be humble about their inspection knowledge will be one heck of an inspector in my eyes!! There's an HI near me who owns a major HI franchise. Been in the business for 15 years. Now, I'm not patting myself on the back, but I could out inspect him any day of the week, and that is the truth!!! To be a success in this business it's not about the quantity of inspections that you do or how much you make; it's about what you are and what you have to offer the public. And I have to say someone with code knowledge, an understanding of the construction of buildings from the inside out and foundation to roof who loves what they do will be successful (and the monetary part will come)!! Call it marketing or whatever you want...there's always a need for something that the "average consumer" doesn't know! Ok, so a building inspector doesn't have the same legal issues as a home inspector. A building inspector doesn't make what a home inspector does either. A building inspector takes as many (probably more) physical endangerment risks than a home inspector. It would be ridiculous to list all the differences, pros/cons etc. It's all a matter of opinion, but I truly think that when I'm wearing my "home inspector" hat I'm a better HI because of my building inspector experience. My opinion for what it's worth this late.... Sue P.S. Mike S. I thoroughly enjoyed your post!! I agree with much of what you said.
Thank you!! |
|
Mark Jones
Member
Posts: 233
From:Fremont, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 11, 2005 10:04 PM
I liked "hearing" what you wrote, Susan. It's the "walk in another's shoes" point of view. As a contractor, I've met a couple of building inspectors that I really admired. We can't all be great, but with some passion and knowledge behind us we can keep getting better, and you've got "heart". Thank you for your input.------------------
Safe Haven Mark |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted May 12, 2005 05:26 AM
Sue,"If mirrored glass takes impact from a human body, is there continuous backing there to break a fall? Through window glass there certainly isn't." I disagree on the reason for the wall being there. If it is there to stop you from going through when you fall, and that is why it does not need to be safety glass, then why does a window in a shower which is 48" above the shower floor need to be safety glass, or glass in a door which does not have to be safety glass if it does not allow the passage of a 3" sphere, why not 12" - one would not fall through that. I believe the reason is that, if there is continuous backing, the glass has additional support and not be as subject to breaking as if there is no support behind it. When it breaks, the glass itself is a hazard, and thus needs to be safety glass breaking into thousands of small pieces, not large knives flying through the air. With that being the reason (humor mer here for a minute) then the lack of a "continuous backing", such as glass placed across studs on 6 inch centers (not going to fall through that, right) would also not need to be safety glass - because you are not going to fall through the wall behind it. That would make sense for the 'not falling through' reason. But glass on 6" O.C. studs would need to be safety glass, in fact, glass on 4" O.C. studs would need to be safety glass, so it is 'obviously' not the 'falling through reason - agreed? Then the globs of Black Magic create the same installation situation. (you can quit humoring me now and beat me up) "It's all a matter of opinion, but I truly think that when I'm wearing my "home inspector" hat I'm a better HI because of my building inspector experience." Absolutely agree with that. Do you also think that being a "home inspector" makes you a better "building inspector"? I'll bet it does. ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Susan Cieslewicz
Member
Posts: 1593
From:Lake Villa, Il
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted May 12, 2005 05:44 AM
Hi Jerry,The mirrored glass being against a wall (non safety glass), would shatter against the wall and fall to the floor. In a shower with safety glass, the glass breaks in a million pieces but is supposed to "hold together". The 3" sphere thing I'd have to believe would maybe have to do with limb impact (fist, elbow, foot etc.) ? That's just my guess....... Does that make any sense? Like I said before, I'm not in agreement with the glazing codes in many respects. I've seen tempered glass break into a million pieces and still cut...my car accident last year. But that impact was more forceful (getting hit by another car) than I'd think body impact would be. Still have small shards of glass in my fingers and upper arm after 5 months but that's better than taking large pieces of flying glass! SC |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted May 12, 2005 06:09 AM
Sue,Me thinks you are mixing terms here. There are many types of "safety glass", tempered is one of them. But it sounds like you are also referring to "laminated" glass. "Laminated glass" can be "laminated" and not "tempered" or "laminated" and "tempered". The laminate sheet between the two glass panes is there to stop one from going through, as in the windshield of your car, and, yes, it is intended to "stay in place'. However, the safety glass in your side windows are "tempered" and NOT laminated, they are intended to break into thousands of small piece and be LESS dangerous (but you can still get cut and injured on them). I've seen "tempered" and not "laminated" glass used where "laminated" glass should be used (because they are both "safety glass"). This would be at a large window which extends down to floor level on a sun deck, railing to the rear yard overlooking the Olympic size pool and overlooking into the family room inside. I explained to my client that, should someone fall against this window, and should it break, being "tempered" would mean that, instead of falling through the opening and land on the floor in a pile of large pieces of glass falling on top you cutting you into pieces, you now get to fall through the opening and land on the floor in a pile of very small pieces of glass. But - you still get to fall through the opening to the floor. "Laminated" glass would have stopped you AT THE WINDOW. ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Mark Jones
Member
Posts: 233
From:Fremont, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 12, 2005 06:47 AM
I have a healthy respect for broken glass "first hand." In my younger days (about 20) I put my hand through a plate glass window. A dagger cut into the hand and severed the tendons to 2 fingers, before I could say "Ah Sh--!" Blood was flying. The stuff they do in movies is BS, and a dangerous example. Maybe a stunt person can fly though a plate glass window and land on the other side unscathed, but not a regular person. That would be unlikely.
On the other hand, who's going to throw themself against a mirror on a bathroom wall hard enough to break it? (even if it is glued unevenly.)
------------------
Safe Haven Mark
[This message has been edited by Mark Jones (edited May 12, 2005).] |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted May 12, 2005 06:54 AM
Mark,"On the other hand, who's going to throw themself against a mirror on a bathroom wall hard enough to break it?" The person who slips in the tub. By the way, that is not real glass they go through in movies. I've heard (have no idea how correct it is) it called something like 'sugar glass'. Like one big, flat, see through piece of candy. I'm sure that if there is anyone out there who knows what they use, they will correct me, and that is good, because I've always wondered if what I was told was correct (maybe I will finally find out?). ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Mark Jones
Member
Posts: 233
From:Fremont, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 12, 2005 02:11 PM
I've heard that, too, Jerry.
But you can imagine a horny teenage boy might not realize that what he's seen in the movies was sugar glass, and decides to try it in his girlfriend's home when Dad comes stomping down the stairs at 3AM??? I wonder if that's just as likely as the slip in the shower and throw yourself over to the mirror above the vanity, maybe even more so. Neither one a pleasant situation...------------------
Safe Haven Mark |
|
Jerry McCarthy
Member
Posts: 1077
From:San Mateo, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 12, 2005 02:35 PM
Nice post Susan and your emotional dedication to your job plainly shows through. There's all kinds of inspectors, which reminds me of the old saying;
Those that do, do.
Those that cannot do teach.
And those that can neither inspect. Well, in my life span I've covered all three and have enjoyed every minute of it. For those that are interested the California Glass Association has a publication called "The Source", which is an interpretation of the Codes and Standards for Safety Glazing. I purchased it years ago from ICBO (now ICC) and they may still have it in their product store.
If not, write The California Glass Association, P.O. Box 2550, Placerville, CA 95667-2550. They pretty well covers and clearly explains what Jerry P has been speaking too.
(excellent graphics) Home inspectors should be very familiar with either the (UBC) 2001 CBC Chapter 24 Glass & Glazing and Chapter 10 Means of Egress or the 2003 IRC's R308 Glazing & R311 Means of Egress. It is not enough to know the "how, why and where" systems and components (code compliant), but also occupant safety because that's what the codes are really all about. Jerry Jerry McCarthy
San Mateo, CA [URL=http://inspectionnews.com/ubb/uploads/the Source.JPG]Click for photo (158187 Bytes)[/URL]
|
|
Jerry McCarthy
Member
Posts: 1077
From:San Mateo, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 12, 2005 02:55 PM
SorryClick for photo (230370 Bytes)
|
|
Susan Cieslewicz
Member
Posts: 1593
From:Lake Villa, Il
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted May 12, 2005 07:44 PM
Jerry M and Jerry P.,Thanks for the info.! Jerry M. and Mark, Thanks for the nice words!! |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted May 12, 2005 07:55 PM
Mark,"I wonder if that's just as likely as the slip in the shower and throw yourself over to the mirror above the vanity" I'm not specifically referring to the mirror on the wall over the vanity. I'm referring to the mirror on the wall at one end of the tub. ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Mark Jones
Member
Posts: 233
From:Fremont, CA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted May 12, 2005 09:11 PM
Oh, yeah... I forgot about THAT one Jerry!------------------
Safe Haven Mark |
|
Mike Schulz
Member
Posts: 292
From:Fuquay Varina, NC
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted May 26, 2005 06:00 PM
OK guys did a new construction house that had stickers with there backing half attached so the owner could remove them. The windows had no pernament markings or etchings? I guess thay are trying to make our job harder.
Click for photo (243765 Bytes)
Mike |
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted May 26, 2005 06:13 PM
Mike,"The windows had no permanent markings or etchings?" Not allowed, "must have" the permanent etched markings. ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Kevin Teitel
Member
Posts: 199
From:Alexandria, VA
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted May 26, 2005 06:56 PM
Inspected a Pulte modular home today, even the basement was precast and trucked in. ALL of the windows are tempered. I guess they use tempered because they are stonger and can with stand shipment better.Kevin Teitel
House-Pro Inspections
|
|
Mike Schulz
Member
Posts: 292
From:Fuquay Varina, NC
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted May 28, 2005 03:58 AM
I guess they are allowed around here. It was a completed new home construction that the CI wrote off on. The stickers where huge 2" X 2" that could not be missed.
Mike |
|
Karen Vissage
Member
Posts: 113
From:Plano, TX
Registered: May 2004
|
posted June 06, 2005 08:57 AM
Mike,
Llumar is a manufacturer of various glass film. Tints,etc. The Magnum product is made with polyester and special adhesives. It is supposed to hold the glass together, if the glass is struct by flying debris from various causes or accidental breakage. It has the ANSI standard on it, so it meet the requirement for safety glass, that probably fall into the exception #1, cited in the previous post.
http://www.llumar.com/na-eng/Safety/safety-security.html
|
|
Jerry Peck
Member
Posts: 7321
From:Pembroke Pines, FL
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted June 06, 2005 10:19 AM
Karen,Care should be used when using those films and expecting the advertised results. When applied after-the-fact to existing windows (as those films are also applied), the films may, and usually do, hold the glass together, however, because the films stop just short of the window frames, there is no real strength added to the window glass to stop much. Sure, the glass stay attached to the film, but the entire pane, film and all, can be knocked out of the frame. True impact windows are laminated with the film between two pieces of glass, like auto windshields are. The frames hold the glazing in place, so that when the pane is hit, it is restrained from moving and can resist a very serious blow without coming out of it frame. Under the same conditions, the object hitting a film covered window would keep right on going, with the broken glass pane wrapped around the projectile. Admittedly, the film and glass would slow the projectile down, reducing its speed, force, and distance traveled after impact. I've observed actual wind borne debris tests, and they are phenomenal - 9 pound 2x4 hits the impact window right on target at 34 mph, breaks the glass (but does not penetrate the glass and film) and bounces back from the window. Very impressive. I then was there when the test was repeated on a window with the film on its inside, the 2x4 went right through. Granted, the window broken and stayed in place, except for about a 4" circle, which broke out hinge like and flopped down on the inside of the wind. Yes, in both cases the glass was essentially intact with the film - making clean up easy and reducing the damage from flying glass. But ... in the film case, the 2x4 went right on through, it was barely even slowed down. That could be why (I just checked again) that film is not on the Miami-Dade Product Approval list. ------------------
Jerry Peck
South Florida |
|
Michael Thomas
Member
Posts: 134
From:Evanston, IL
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted November 11, 2005 07:24 PM
Came across these in a non-HI context just now, and thought of this thread:
http://www.vreo.com/image_base/13072__scene1.jpg
http://www.vreo.com/image_base/13072__scene2.jpg
[This message has been edited by Michael Thomas (edited November 11, 2005).] | |
Residential Inspections [all categories]
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
