NBSIR 77-1246

Evaluation of the Egress

Provisions of the HUD Mobile

Home Construction and Safety

Standard

Sanford Adler

Building Safety Section

Center for Building Technology

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D C 20234

May 1977

Prepared for Office of Policy Development and Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D.C. 20410

NBSIR 77-1246

EVALUATION OF THE EGRESS

PROVISIONS OF THE HUD MOBILE

HOME CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY

STANDARD

Sanford Adler

Building Safety Section

Center for Building Technology

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D C. 20234

May 1977

Prepared for Office of Policy Development and Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D C 20410 '

o» H

U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. Juanita M Kreps. Secretary

Dr Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch. Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler. Acting Director
' ' 1 ' ' " ' ’ ' - ' - ' '• *"• ! '• ' ; : . >' 1 ? > ,r*i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract v

Executive Summary .... vi

I. Introduction 1

A. Background 1

B. Objective 1 C. Work Statement 2 D. Egress Requirements of the Standard 3

II. Demonstration Unit 6

A. Newly Manufactured Windows and Egress Devices 6

B. Original Equipment 8

III. Laboratory Tests 20

A. Procedure 20

B. Tests Required by Standard 21

C. Rack ing Teats 29

IV. Discussion of Results 52

A. Technical Basis of the Egress Provisions of the Mobile Home Standard 52

B. Adequacy of the Egress Provisions of the Mobile Home Standard 53

V. Recommendations 60

A. Establish Performance Goals ... 60

B. Expand Scope of the Standard 61

C. Support Applied Research . . 6 3

IV. References 68

A. Other Standards 68

B. Authored Reports 68

0. Other Written Sources 70

LI ST OF TABLES

Table 1. Egress Provisions of l he HUD Mobi le Home Standard . . 5 Table- 2. Windows and Egress Devices Insta] Led in the Demonstration Unit 9 Table 3. Laboratory Test Results 30

Table 4. Racking Test Results 31

Table 5. Background Information - Dimensions and Location of Egress Devices. . . 56 Table 6. Background Information - Egress D< vice Operating Forces 57 Table 7. Background Information - Location of Egress Device Operating Mechanisms 58 Table 8. Scope of Egress Requirements of Current HUD Standard 66

Table 9. Recommended Scope of Egress Requit ements for Mobile Home Standard ... 67

iii
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.Emergency Egress Demonstration Unit 10

Demonstration Unit.

Demonstration Unit.

Casement Window 11

Awning Window in Egress Frame 12 Figure 4. Demonstration Unit. Vertical Sliding Window in Egress Frame . 13

Figure 5. Demonstration Unit. Horizontal Sliding Window . 14

F igure 6. Demonstration Unit. Pop--out Awning Window . 15 Figure 7. Demonstration Unit. Vertical Sliding Window . 16

Figure 8. Demonstration Unit. Knock-out Panel . 17 Figure 9. Demonstration Unit. Awning Window in Piggyback Egress Frame . 18

Figure 10. Demonstration Unit. Non--egress Awning Window . 19 Figure 11. Rucking Test. Normal (level) Position . 32 Figure 12. Racking Test. Racked :Position . 33

Figure 13. Use of Force Gage. . . . 34 Figure 14. Egress Test

Spec i men 1: Removing Screen . 35 Figure 15. Egress Test

Spec imen 1: Pushing Window Open . 36 Figure 16. Egress Test

Specimen 1: Detail of Egress Handle and Retaining Clip. . . 37 Figure 17. Egress Test

Specimen 3: Releasing Storm Window Retaining Clip .... . 38 Figure 18. Egress Test

Specimen 3: Removing Screen . 39 Figure 19. Egress Test

Specimen 3: Operating Egress Mechanism . 40

Figure 20. Egress Test

Specimen 4: Pushing Window Open . 41

Figure 21. Egress Test

Specimen 5: Removing Storm Window . 42 Figure 22. Egress Test

Specimen 5: Unlatching Prime Window . 43

Figure 23. Egress Test

Specimen 5: Opening Prime Window . 44

Figure 24. Egress Test. Specimen 5: Removing Screen . 45

Figure 25. Egress Test

Specimen 6: Releasing Egress Latches . 46

Figure 26. Egress Test

Specimen 6: Opening Window . 47 Figure 27. Egress Test

Specimen 7: Opening Prime Window . 48

Figure 28. Egress Test

Specimen 7: Releasing Screen ' . . 49

Figure 29. Egress Test

Specimen 8: Unlatching Panel . 50

F igure 30. Egress Test

Specimen 8: Dropping Panel

Figure 31. Height of Egress Windows Above Ground . 59
A STUDY OF THE EGRESS PROVISIONS OF THE HUD MOBILE HOME CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY STANDARD

by

Sanford C. Adler

ABSTRACT

Evaluative tests were carried out to assess the adequacy and sufficiency of the HUD

Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards. Project activities included library research,

laboratory testing and construction of a Mobile Home Emergency Egress Demonstration Unit.

The study recommended: (1) establishment of performance goals to relate the desired objective

(safe egress) to the specific requirements of the standard; (2) expansion of the scope of the

requirements to assure that egress devices do not adversely affect the safety or security of

the mobile home under normal living conditions; and (3) support of applied research to interrelate egress requirements, device characteristics, and human capabilities.

KEY WORDS: Emergency egress; HUD; mobile home; racking; research; safety; standard; window

v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study was carried out to identify the technical basis of the emergency egress

provisions of the HUD Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standard, and to conduct evaluative tests to assess the adequacy and sufficiency of the egress provisions. There are two basic questions addressed by this study:

1. Is there readily available technical data that can be pointed out as the

technical basis for the current emergency egress provisions of the standard?

2. Are the emergency egress requirements of the standard adequate?

In general, the answer to both of these questions is "no."

The standard appears to adequately address the deficiencies which existed in mobile home

egress windows and appurtenances (screens and/or storm windows) in use at the time the

standard was written. However, it does not appear to adequately address the potential deficiencies which are inherent in some of the newly-designed egress devices.

Library research was carried out to identify the technical basis of the egress requirements of the standard. With the exception of limited studies concerned with the minimum

dimensions of an egress device, very little relevant data was found which addressed the

physical and sensory limitations of mobile home occupants or the behavior of adults and

children under emergency conditions. State-of-the-art research on tenability criteria and

maximum time for egress in a mobile home fire is currently under way at the National Bureau

of Standards.

Laboratory research to assess the current requirements and test procedures identified

several areas where the current requirements appear to be inadequate and conflicting.

These problems are discussed in detail in the body of the report.

A demonstration unit was constructed by installing new prototype egress windows in a 1972 mobile home obtained from the Disaster Housing Management Office, HUD. The unit contains nine different devices which can be compared as alternative methods of egress.

vi
The following recommendations provide a rational framework for future improvement of

the egress provisions of the Federal Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards.

1. Establish Performance Goals

The standard should establish performance goals which explicitly define the

potential hazards which justify the need for emergency egress (such as fire); the

population of mobile home occupants expected to be able to exit unassisted; and the

tenability criteria and appropriate safety factors which determine the maximum allowable time for egress.

2. Expand the Scope of the Standard

The scope of the standard should be expanded to assure that the introduction of an egress device does not reduce the livability of the mobile home by adversely

affecting safety or security under normal living conditions.

3 . Support Applied Research

Applied research should be supported which explicitly relates the emergency egress

requirements of mobile homes to the physical, sensory, and behavioral attributes of

representative mobile home occupants.

vii

EVALUATION OF THE EGRESS PROVISIONS OF THE HUD MOBILE HOME CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY STANDARD

Sanford C. Adler

I. INTRODUCTION

A . Background

In accordance with congressional legislation which mandated the development of

a national mobile home standard, the Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) published in the Federal Register (AO FR 58754) the final rules and regulations for the Federal Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards. The standard,

dated December 18, 1975, became effective June 15, 1976, and is in substantial measure based on previously existing National Fire Protection Association and American

National Standards Institute standards (NFPA-501B-1974 , ANSI, A119 . 1-1975 ) . In addition, parts of the HUD standard are derived from state standards, enforcing

agency standards, and the results of mobile home research conducted at the National

Bureau of Standards (NBS) and elsewhere.

An important segment of this standard is that part which contains the emergency

egress provisions. There has been concern among officials of HUD and building officials in general that there is no published or readily available technical data that can be pointed to as the technical basis for the current provisions. As a result,

the Division of Energy, Building Technology, and Standards of the Office of Research

and Demonstration, HUD, asked NBS to conduct evaluative tests to assess the adequacy

and sufficiency of the egress provisions of these standards.

B . Objective

The objective of this study is to provide a technical basis for judging the

adequacy and sufficiency of the emergency egress provisions (other than doors) of

the HUD Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards.

There are two basic assumptions (leading to four possible outcomes) underlying the use of standardized test procedures or requirements.

1 . Assumptions

(a) There are "good" devices and "bad" devices. (In simplest terms, a "good" device would permit rapid, safe egress in an emergency, while

a "bad" device might not.)
(b) The test procedures or requirements of the standard can distinguish

between "good" and "bad" devices.

2 . Possible Outcomes

(a) A device is "bad," and it fails the requirements of the standard.

This is a desirable outcome.

(b) A device is "bad," but it does not fail the requirements of the

standard. This is a serious error which permits a high risk of

injury or loss of life in an emergency. (Type I error)

(c) A device is "good," and it passes the requirements of the standard.

This is a desirable outcome.

(d) A device is "good," but does not meet the requirements of the

standard. This kind of error leads to increased cost without

benefit. (Type II error)

In general, test procedures or requirements which tend to decrease the Type I error tend to increase the Type II error. Hence, every standard should strike a balance between benefit (increased public safety) and cost. A cost-benefit analysis

was beyond the scope of this study.

C. Work Statement

The work was carried out as three distinct but interrelated tasks.

1. Literature Search

A literature review was conducted to determine whether existing data

relating to physical and sensory limitations of mobile home occupants, behavior

of children and adults under emergency conditions, characteristics of egress

devices, and our knowledge of life-threatening elements of a hazardous situation

were or could be related to the specific egress requirements of the standard.

2. Demonstration Unit

A demonstration unit was constructed to test and demonstrate the

functional characteristics of typical emergency egress devices as they

are installed in a mobile home.

2
3 . Laboratory and Field Research

Laboratory studies were conducted to examine the general functional

characteristics of existing emergency egress devices and to determine the

feasibility and applicability of the physical test requirements of the

standard. Planned field studies to determine the effect of installation,

transportation and use on the functional characteristics of egress windows

could not be conducted at the time of the study, since mobile homes containing

new egress devices were not available.

D . Egress Requirements of the Standard

The emergency egress requirements (other than doors) are contained in

sections 280.106 and 280.404 of the HUD standard and are summarized in Table 1. The requirements cover construction, operation, and installation of windows, window appurtenances, and egress devices. Construction and operation requirements

include

:

1. Windows

2 2 (a) Size . Windows must have a clear opening of at least 5 ft (.46 m ), and

minimum horizontal and vertical dimensions of 22 in (56 cm).

(b) Latches - No more than two latches, permanently attached or requiring

special tools to remove, located no more than 60 in (152 cm) above the

floor of the mobile home. Rotary operation in excess of 180° not allowed.

(c) Operating forces . Operating forces on latches or for lifting or sliding

cannot exceed 20 lbs (89 N)

.

(d) Instruction . Instructions for operating windows and appurtenances must

be permanently attached to the window and contain the legend "do not

remove

.

2. Appurtenances (Screens and/or Storm Windows)

(a) Size . Same minimum dimensions and area as windows.

(b) Latches . No more than four latches, which cannot be misapplied with normal

household tools, located no more than 60 in (152 cm) above the floor of

the mobile home. Contact area of operating latch must be equal to or

2 2 greater than .25 in (1.61 cm ).

3
(c) Operating Forces . Operating forces on latches or for lifting or sliding

cannot exceed 5 lbs (22 N)

.

3. Egress Devices

(a) Latches

.

Latches cannot be more than 60 in (152 cm) above the floor.

4
EGRESS

PROVISIONS

OF

HUD

MOBILE

HOME

STANDARD

Device

Window GOGG

CO

X ac3 o o n

x e -h

w o j: o) a a x u x G o X C

CO 0)

-a

<DX

*H3

cr

<u pSo

53

<rx

>3- o §S

•HG

*h

g 0 GX

cd >

*h

x

-3G3O

a* m

<ro<3- o o o

oo oo oo

CM CM CM

O

O

00 oo

CM CM o m

00 CM

CM • o

oo

CM

G

U

GO

O Td

•h

g <r WHO a U <r c o o oo

CM

G

X

H d)

G ^ G

•HH -d

w o Q) G *H <r *H cm oGG

H

cd

G

U

g

G

g ^ > P- *H O G s ^ 4) H X G ^ x ^ G G X O H ^ U

G T3

v~' *H i—

<r

h o o a* x

<r a.

g • g g O G 3

00 -H

O

CM

g

X 3 G 5 G G O <f C 3 o

60 00G <*

•H

C

H •

(/) rl ^ O G > CO

TdGG CM

g

MG

G

G 0 X > X CM X 0 O G G O X X G X GE E G

Jo TJ

H 0 > X G X X O G G G a X X > X •H 0 G w 00 G X PQ G > z

*H

X

G

a

X

G

X cn

GO

O

XGO •H

X E O H X > 0 H G G H § X X H O X •H O X

00

OX

X 00 2 CM CM G 0 CM B

CM

MTO

<ro

00

CM

G>OXGOXaXOH

X • O O O

00 rH

CM CM

GGOz XGSOO

GXG3OaoCM

<ro

'd- o

00

CM IOG

CM3GGESo

T3C

•HO<3- O

00

CM

G

«x rH 3

PiG

Cu

G 3 0 G G G g X O G X X3 O 4-» X

13X *H OCX X G G G

*H— rH UGH> G

<3-

G 0 3 3

<rG

C • G iH o 00 g

00GG

CM

HM

CM

/-v CO X o

<r • o o <j- 00 • CM O

00 CM

CM

O 3 C U G G O >3- G X O

00 00 c <r

*H

C

H • G *H U O G > 00 X G G CM X g G G O 4-1 > 4-1 o O G G * ** g

•X

H

XG

H

X

GGG

U > X iH W OO G X C S GSO

•XG

*H5GG

•H

H-4 •HOG

acoXo G>oXGOX

cd GX

G ^ G O CJ X G O *H O H X > H G G . 4J X O X *H 00 o X x

CM 14-1G

O

O

00

CMGGO

XoH

X • O O O

00

H

CM M-l

00

U c o

•H

X 4_» H G

CdG iH

XX

U

G 4-4 G- O

g , o x

JoO • G X G G G GXT) M u C O

4-1 Cd G

G

HGG

X

G

cx

G

X

OG * O ‘ H G

G

G

X

G *H G XG Xa o

•HX

1* T3 5O

G

X

X

O

G

G

OG *H

XX 5 X

X 3 O

CO CM

JOX /-n G o X OO 00

PS

H

Co -3G G G Ga 00 X c O *H G * G G G *H O X X X O *H

cmOX

X

X

C

GG S X

GOCG0xo

CMXG

CX
II. DEMONSTRATION UNIT

A demonstration unit was constructed by installing prototype egress windows and

devices in a 1972 model mobile home obtained from the Disaster Housing Management

Office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The mobile home is a two- bedroom, 60 ft x 12 ft unit manufactured by Elcona Homes Corporation of Elkhart,

Indiana. (See Fig. 1.)

A list of egress window manufacturers was obtained with the assistance of

Associated Certification, Inc. (Dallas Labs.). Using this listing, manufacturers were contacted directly to obtain samples of egress windows. It is important to note that

the windows installed in the demonstration unit are representative of the types of windows being manufactured, but are not necessarily identical in construction. The devices

installed in the demonstration unit are described below and summarized in table 2.

A. Newly-Manufactured Windows and Egress Devices

1. Casement Window

Figure 2 illustrates a 24 in (61 cm) wide by 33 in (84 cm) high doubleglazed casement window with a clip-on inside screen. The window can be mounted

with the vertical hinge on either the left or right side. The latch mechanism

located on the right side of the window is used for normal operation or for

egress when the screen is first removed.

A similar, but larger casement window, 30 in (76 cm) wide by 39 in (99 cm)

high is also installed in the demonstration unit.

2 . Awning Window - Egress Frame

Figure 3 illustrates a 30 in (76 cm) wide by 39 in (99 cm) high awning

window mounted in an egress frame. The window was supplied with a separate

interior frame for mounting either a storm window or screen. A rotary crank near the lower right side of the frame is used for normal operation of the

window. The egress latch is a vertical bar on the left side of the window

frame which can be reached after the storm window or screen is removed. When

the egress latch-bar is displaced vertically a few inches, it releases the

frame and the entire window assembly can be pushed open like a casement window.

6
3. Vertical Sliding Window - Egress Frame

Figure 4 illustrates a 30 in (76 cm) wide by 39 in (99 cm) high vertical

sliding window mounted in an egress frame. The window has an outside screen

and was supplied with a separate interior frame for mounting a storm window.

For normal operation, the bottom half of the window slides up and down. The

egress frame and mechanism operates the same as the awning window described

in 2. above.

4. Horizontal Sliding Window

Figure 5 illustrates a 46 in (117 cm) wide by 39 in (99 cm) high horizontal sliding window with an inside double track storm window and an outside

screen. During normal operation or egress, the right-most window and storm window

are pushed to the left. To egress, the screen must also be removed.

5. Awning Window, Pop-out Panes

Figure 6 illustrates a 30 in (76 cm) wide by 53 in (135 cm) high awning

window with pop-out panes. No appurtenances were supplied with the window.

During normal use, a rotary crank located mid-way along the right side of the

window opens and closes the top two lights. To egress, a latch located on each side of the window (near the top of the bottom pane) is lifted, permitting

the bottom two panes to fold out and down.

6 . Vertical Sliding Window

Figure 7 illustrates a 30 in (76 cm) wide by 59 in (150 cm) high vertical

sliding window with an inside double track storm window and an outside screen. Normal and egress operation of the window are identical except for the additional step of removing the screen for egress. To operate either the prime

window or the storm window, you must simultaneously disengage latches at both

sides of the bottom of the frame and lift the window.

7 . Knock-Out Panel

Figure 8 illustrates a 22 in (56 cm) by 22 in (56 cm) wall panel mounted a few inches above the floor. The panel is used only for emergency egress which

is accomplished by opening the two latches (in either order) and pushing the

panel out

7
B. Original Equipment

1. Awning Window, Piggyback Egress Frame

Figure 9 illustrates a 30 in (76 cm) by AO in (102 cm) high awning window

mounted in an egress frame with a piggyback design."^ A rotary crank at the

lower right side of the frame is used for normal operation of the window. To egress, two latches located along the left side of the frame are released and

the window is pushed open. The entire window assembly, including the attached

storm window or screen, opens like a casement window. The mobile home had one

of these windows installed in each of the two bedrooms.

2 . Non-Egress Awning Window

Figure 10 illustrates a 30 in (76 cm) wide by AO in (102 cm) high awning

window of conventional (non-egress) design. The window was installed with an interior frame for securing an inside clip-on screen or storm window. A rotary crank near the lower right side of the frame (missing in Fig. 10) is

used for normal operation of the window. There are two of these windows re- maining in the demonstration unit.

Piggyback design - A window design which includes a frame within a frame. The inner frame

contains all of the functional components for normal window operation, including storm windows

or screens. If the outer frame is released for egress, the entire window assembly moves as a unit.

8
TABLE 2

WINDOWS AND EGRESS DEVICES INSTALLED IN

DEMONSTRATION UNIT

New Windows and Egress Devices

1. Casement window, double glazed,

inside screen (two specimens)

30 in (76 cm) wide x 39 in (99 cm) high and

24 in (61 cm) wide x 33 in (84 cm) high

2. Awning window, egress frame,

inside clip-on screen/storm window 30 in (76 cm) wide x 39 in (99 cm) high

3.

Vertical sliding window, egress frame,

inside clip-on storm window, outside

screen 30 in (76 cm) wide x 39 in (99 cm) high

4. Horizontal sliding window, inside double

track storm window, outside screen 46 in (117 cm) wide x 39 in (99 cm) high

5. Awning window, pop-out panes, no appurtenances 30 in (76 cm) wide x 53 in (135 cm) high

6. Vertical sliding window, inside

double track storm window, outside screen 30 in (76 cm) wide x 59 in (150 cm) high

7. Knock-out wall panel (two specimens) 22 in (56 cm) wide x 22 in (56 cm) high

Original Equipment (1972 Mobile Home)

1. Awning window, conventional design,

clip-on inside screen/storm window 30 in (76 cm) wide x 40 in (102 cm) high

2. Awning window, egress frame,

piggyback inside screen/storm window 30 in (76 cm) wide x 40 in (102 cm) high

9
10

Figure

1.

Emergency

Egress

Demonstration

Unit

Side

view

of

the

Mobile

Home

Emergency

Egress

Demonstration

Unit

showing

several

of

the

egress

devices

installed

in

the

unit.
CASEMENT WINDOW

DOUBLE GLAZED

INSIDE CLIP-ON SCREEN

townnimnwu wnmwr«i nii urn n 1

Figure 2. Demonstration Unit.

Casement window

11
Figure 3. Demonstration Unit.

Awning window in egress frame

12
VERTICAL sliding window

EGRESS FRAME

INSIDE CLIP-ON STORM

OUTSIDE SCREEN

Figure 4. Demonstration Unit.

Vertical sliding window in egress frame

13
HORIZONTAL

SLIDING

WINDOW

INSIDE

DOUBLE

TRACK

STORM

OUTSIDE

SCREEN

Figure

5.

Demonstration

Unit.

Horizontal

sliding

window
Figure 6. Demonstration Unit.

Pop-out awning window

15
Figure 7. Demonstration Unit.

Vertical sliding window

16
Figure 8. Demonstration Unit.

Knock-out panel

17
Figure 9. Demonstration Unit.

Awning window in piggyback egress frame

18
Figure 10. Demonstration Unit.

Non-egress awning window

19
III. LABORATORY TESTS

Laboratory tests were conducted on eight egress devices in accordance with the

test procedure described in section 280.404(d) of the HUD standard. Two windows and

an egress panel were tested in the mobile home demonstration unit and five windows

were tested in the Building Safety Laboratory. After completing the basic tests re- quired by the standard, the five windows tested in the laboratory were subjected to mild and severe racking,'*' such as might occur due to the foundation settlement or physical displacement of a mobile home. Data was collected on forces required to operate the racked windows.

A. Procedure (general)

A large steel test frame was constructed in the Building Safety Laboratory to conduct tests as specified in the standard and also permit controlled racking of

window specimens as large as 75 in (190 cm) wide and 66 in (168 cm) high. (See Figs

11 and 12.)

Windows were prepared in the following manner:

1. For tests in the Safety Laboratory, the steel test frame was leveled and

locked in position.

2. A wooden frame was constructed of standard 2x4 lumber, and secured inside

the steel test frame or built into the wall of the mobile home. The dimensions of the window frame opening were determined from the manufacturer's

installation instructions or by adding 1/4 in (64 mm) to the measured

dimensions of the window.

3. After carefully leveling and squaring the wooden frame, the window unit

was installed and attached using the manufacturer's pre-drilled screw holes

4. All shipping clips were removed and the window was checked for proper

normal and egress operations.

5. Appurtenances which required separate mounting frames were tested in the

mobile home demonstration unit. (Mounting them in the laboratory test

frame would have interfered with the racking tests on the prime windows.)

Racking - a vertical force was applied to the framed window to cause the window and frame

to be displaced relative to their original position.

20
6. Operating forces were measured by pushing or pulling the window mechanisms

with a Chatillion DPP-50 Force Gauge. Prior to testing, the accuracy of

the gauge was verified using dead weight loads up to 25 lbs (11.3 kg).

When the window configuration permitted, a crank was used to pull the

gauge at a uniform rate of approximately 15 in/min (38 cm/min) . Otherwise,

the laboratory technician applied the gauge manually at a uniform but

somewhat faster load rate. (See Fig. 13.)

B . Tests Required by Standard

The general procedure for testing each device is described above. It is important to remember that these tests were carried out to evaluate the test procedure rather than the test specimens. Since the specimens were not randomly

selected, but were specially prepared for shipment to the National Bureau of

Standards, the test results have no statistical significance.

Eight egress devices were subjected to physical testing. The devices are identified and the results described by the following format:

Description - identification of the device tested.

Egress Procedure . Test data are reported for each step of the procedure

required to utilize the device for egress. Force values reported are the

highest and lowest value of three or more consecutive readings.'*'

Comments . Discussion of the device and/or specific omissions or requirements

of the standard.

The test results are summarized in table 3.

1. Specimen 1 . (See Figs. 2, 14, 15, and 16.)

Description

Double-glazed casement window with inside clip-on screen. Nominal dimensions 24 in (61 cm) wide by 33 in (84 cm) high.

*"Technical footnote: References to the 'weight' of the window or appurtenance in "lbs"

are properly to be interpreted as the mass in pounds (lbm) avoirdupois, converting to kilograms. References to forces in "lbs" are properly to be interpreted as pounds force (lbf)

avoirdupois, converting to newtons. Where convenient, the weight can be interpreted as gravitational force in lbf, but the kilogram equivalent then must be interpreted as given in

kilograms force (kgf), a non-SI unit.

21
Egress Procedure

(a) Unlock screen by turning latch (located on left side 16.5 in (42 cm)

above bottom of window) 90° up or down. Contact areas of latch equalled

.25 in^ (1.61 cm^) . Operating force, 3. 5-4. 5 lbs (15.6-20.0 N)

.

2 2 (b) Remove screen by pulling on .62 in (4.0 cm ) tab (located on left side

16.5 in (42 cm) above bottom of window) and lifting screen out. Force

required to release .6 lb (.27 kg) screen ranged from 2. 8-3.0 lbs

(12.5-13.3 N)

.

(c) Bend clip to release egress handle located on right side 9 in (23 cm)

above bottom of window. Force required to disengage egress handle ranged

from 2. 8-3.0 lbs (12.5-13.3 N)

.

(d) Lift egress handle to horizontal position (17 in (43 cm) above bottom of

window) and push window open. Force required to push open window ranged

from 0. 4-4.1 lbs (1.8-18.2 N)

.

(e) Exit through clear opening 23 in (58 cm) wide by 32 in (81 cm) high

(area = 5.1 ft^ (.47 m^)).'*'

Comments

This specimen was tested in the mobile home demonstration unit using a hand-held Chatillion DPP-50 Force Gauge.

The appurtenance does not appear to meet the egress requirements of the

mobile home standard. A Phillips head screw is used to retain the latch which

secures the screen. This screw may be misapplied (made too tight) with normal

household tools (section 280 . 404 (c) (2) (iii) )

.

The operating instructions which are on the window cannot be read because

the screen is mounted inside the window and obscures the label. This is not a violation of the standard. In all other respects, this is an acceptable egress

device. It required five distinct sequential operations to egress through this

window

.

Actual egress was not attempted during this study.

22
2. Specimen 2 . (larger, but otherwise identical to specimen 1)

Description

Double-glazed casement window with inside clip-on screen. Nominal dimensions 30 in (76 cm) wide by 39 in (99 cm) high.

Egress Procedure

(a) Unlock screen by turning latch (located on left side 19 in (48 cm) above

2 bottom of window) 90° up or down. Contact area of latch equalled .25 in

(1.61 cm

2 ). Operating force, 7.0-10.4 lbs (31.1-46.3 N)

.

2 2 (b) Remove screen by pulling on .62 in (4.0 cm ) tab (located on left side

19 in (48 cm) above bottom of window) and lifting screen out. Force re- quired to release 1.1 lb (.5 kg) screen was less than 0.1 lb (.4 N)

.

(c) Bend clip to release egress handle located on right side 12 in (30 cm)

above bottom of window. Force required to disengage egress handle ranged

from 0. 3-4.1 lbs (1.3-18.2 N)

.

(d) Lift egress handle to horizontal position 1.9 in (4.8 cm) above bottom of

window) and push window open. Force required to push open window ranged

from 1.4-4. 9 lbs (6.2-21.8 N)

.

(e) Exit through clear opening 29 in (74 cm) wide by 38 in (97 cm) high,

(area = 7.6 ft

2 (.71 m2 )).

Comments

This specimen was tested in the Building Safety Laboratory using a handheld Chatillion DPP-50 Force Gauge.

See specimen 1 for additional comments.

3. Specimen 3 . (See Figs. 4, 17, 18, 19, and 20.)

Description

Vertical sliding window in egress frame with inside clip-on storm window

and outside screen. Nominal dimensions 30 in (76 cm) wide by 39 in (99 cm) high.

23
Egress Procedure

(a) Rotate three clips (located 20 in (51 cm) above bottom of window on left

and right sides of frame, and in center of bottom of frame) 90° to release

2 2 storm window. Contact area of each latch equalled .28 in (1.8 cm ). Forces required to open clips ranged from 0.6-7. 3 lbs (2.7-32.5 N)

.

(b) Lift out storm window and set aside. Weight of window equalled 8.4 lbs

(3.8 kg).

(c) Pull down on vertical bar located on left side of window to release egress

mechanism. The 34.5 in (88 cm) bar mounted 2.5 in (6 cm) above bottom of

window required forces ranging from 11.4-13.6 lbs (50.7-60.5 N) to operate.

(d) Push hinged window out (force range 5. 0-6.0 lbs (22.2-26.7 N)).

2 (e) Exit through 29.5 in (75 cm) wide by 40 in (102 cm) high opening (8.2 ft (0.76 m

2 )).

Comments

The egress frame and egress mechanisms are identical on specimens 3 and 4.

This specimen was tested in the Building Safety Laboratory using a crankdriven Chatillion DPP-50 Force Gauge.

The force required to remove and lift the storm window exceeds 5 lbs (22.2 N)

which appears to be a violation of section 280 . 404 (c) ( ii ) of the standard.

The large storm window (8.4 lbs (3.8 kg), 30 in (76 cm) x 40 in (102 cm))

is difficult to handle. it requires seven distinct sequential opt rat ions to egress through this window.

4. Specimen 4 . (See Figs. 3, 17, 18, 19 and 20)

Description

Awning window in egress frame with inside clip-on screen (or storm window)

.

Nominal dimensions 30 in (76 cm) wide by 39 in (99 cm) high.

24
Egress Procedure

(a) Rotate three clips (located 20 in (51 cm) above bottom of window on left

and right sides of frame and in center of bottom of window frame) 90° to release screen or storm window. Contact area of each latch equalled

2 2 .28 in (1.8 cm ). Forces required to open clips ranged from 0.6-7. 2 lbs

(2.7-32.0 N)

.

(b) Lift out storm window and set aside. Weight of window equalled 9.6 lbs

(4.4 kg)

.

(c) Pull down on vertical bar located on left side of window to release egress

mechanism. The 34.5 in (88 cm) long bar mounted 2.5 in (6 cm) above

bottom of window required forces ranging from 14.8-17.4 lbs (65.8-77.4 N) to operate.

(d) Push hinged window out (force range 12.4-15.9 lbs (55.2-70.7 N)).

2 (e) Exit through 29.5 in (75 cm) wide by 40 in (102 cm) high opening (8.2 ft (.76 m

2 )).

Comments - See comments under specimen 3.

5. Specimen 5 . (See Figs. 5, 21, 22, 23, and 24)

I Description

Horizontal sliding window with inside double track storm window and outside screen. Nominal dimensions 46 in (117 cm) wide by 39 in (99 cm) high.

Egress Procedure

(a) Simultaneously disengage two latches (located on left and right sides of

window, 3.25 in (8.26 cm) above bottom of frame) to release storm window.

2 2 Contact area of each latch equalled .47 in (3.03 cm ). Forces required

to operate latches ranged from 3.6-6. 7 lbs (16.0-29.8 N)

.

(b) Lift out storm window and set aside. Weight of window equalled 8.6 lbs

(3.9 kg).

25
(c) Unlock window by lifting latch handle (in center of left side of window

18.5 in (47 cm) above bottom of window) upward approximately 90°. Operating force ranged from 5. 4-8. 4 lbs (24.0-37.4 N)

.

(d) Slide window to left as far as it will go. Operating force ranged from

5. 8-9. 6 lbs (25.8-42.7 N)

.

(e) Simultaneously pull tabs (located 5.5 in (14 cm) and 33.5 in (85 cm) above

bottom of window) on screen to the left and push screen out. Tab contact

2 2 area equalled 1 in (6.45 cm ). Force required to release tabs ranged

from 0. 1-5.1 lbs (.4-22.7 N)

.

(f) Exit through 22 in (56 cm) wide by 37 in (94 cm) high opening (5.7 ft

2

(.53 m

2 )).

Comments

The window and appurtenances did not appear to meet the egress requirements of the mobile home standard. The force required to remove the storm window exceeds 5 lbs (22.2 N) (section 280.404(c) (ii) ) . The top tab on the screen

is located 69 in (175.3 cm) above the floor when the window is mounted with the

bottom 36 in (91 cm) above the floor (section 280.106(c)). The operating instructions placed on the window describe a clip-on storm window which is different from the double track storm wihdow supplied (section 280.404(c) (4) (i))

.

The window also has two design deficiencies. Installation of the double

track storm window obscures from view the locking latch on the prime window,

and makes it physically difficult to reach and operate. The large storm window

cannot be easily held by the two latches on the bottom of the window (recommended egress procedure) . During initial evaluation of this window, a laboratory staff member lost control of the storm window, resulting in broken glass

and a minor cut.

This window requires two distinct simultaneous operations and five additional distinct sequential operations to egress.

6. S pecimen 6 . (See Figs. 6, 25, and 26)

Desr r iption

Awning window with pop-out panes. Nominal dimensions SO in ( .6 < u, ) wide

by 53 in (135 cm) high. No appurtenances were available at time ol test..

26
Egress Procedure

(a) Lift latches (mounted 13 in (33 cm) above bottom) on both sides of window.

Force required to lift latches ranged from 0.9-3. 6 lbs (4.0-16.0 N)

.

(b) Push hinged window (lower two lights) out. Force required ranged from

0.4-0. 8 lbs (1.8-3. 6 N)

.

2 2 (c) Exit from 29 in (74 cm) wide by 25 in (64 cm) high opening (5 ft (.46 m ))

Comments

This window meets the requirements of the mobile home standard. It require

four distinct operations to egress from this window. This device permits very

fast egress, but it is likely that it would be damaged during use, since the

hinged window falls against the side of the mobile home.

7. Specimen 7 . (See Figs. 7, 27, and 28)

Description

Large vertical sliding window with inside double track storm window and

outside screen. Nominal dimension 30 in (76 cm) wide by 59 in (150 cm) high.

Egress Procedure

(a) Simultaneously pull in two latches located on sides of storm window near

2 2 bottom. Contact area of each latch equalled .12 in (.77 cm ). Force

required to operate latches ranged from 1.0-1. 5 lbs (4. 4-6. 7 N)

.

(b) Slide window up until latched in fully open position. Force ranged from

12.6-12.8 lbs (56.0-56.9 N)

.

(c) Simultaneously squeeze latches located at bottom left and right of

prime window. Forces required to operate ranged from 5. 0-6. 3 lbs

(22.2-28.0 N).

(d) Slide window up until latched in fully open position. Force range

16.0-17.4 lbs (7L.2-77.4 N)

.

27
(e) Pull down on two tabs located on top of screen (27 in (69 cm) above bottom

of window) and push screen out. Force required ranged I rom 8.9-12.1 II.., (37.8-53.8 N)

.

(f) Exit from 28 in (71 cm) wide by 28 in (71 cm) high opening (5.5 fL~

(.51 m

2 )).

Comments

The appurtenances do not appear to meet the egress requirements of the

mobile home standard. Both the force required to lift the storm window and that

required to release the tabs of the screen exceeded 5 lbs (22.2 N) (section

280. 404 (c) (2) (ii) ) . The surface area to which an operating force is applied on

2 2 the storm windows is less than the required 0.25 in (1.61 cm ) (section

280.404 (c) (2) (iv))

.

This window requires three distinct simultaneous operations and three

additional distinct sequential operations to egress.

8. Specimen 8 . (See Figs. 8, 29, and 30)

Description

Egress panel mounted in wall 5 in (13 cm) above floor. Nominal dimensions

22 in (56 cm) wide by 22 in (56 cm) high.

Egress Procedure

(a) Release two latches mounted on left and right sides 11 in (28 cm) above1 bottom of panel. Forces required to operate latches ranged from 2. 3-4. 5 lbs

(10.2-20.0 N)

.

(b) Push out panel. Force range 9.6-10.1 lbs (42.7-44.9 N)

.

(c) Exit through 22 in (56 cm) wide by 22 in (56 cm) high opening (3.3o ft

2

(.31 m

2 )).

Comments

This egress device appears to meet the requirements ol i he mobile home

standard. However, if it was the intent of the standard to n quire egress

- . . ) 1 devices to meet the minimum area requirements for windows (:, f

t " (.46 m ),

28
section 280. 404 (b) (3) (ii) ) , this device would fail the standard. It requires

four distinct sequential operations to egress through this device.

Due to its location (5 in (13 cm) above floor) and ease of operation,

this device permits very fast egress. However, this could present a potential

hazard to a very small child capable of operating the latch mechanism.

C . Racking Tests

Measurements were made of forces required to unlock and open egress wLndows

after simulated racking loads (frame distortions) were applied. Such loads might

occur due to foundation settling or physical displacement of a mobile home following

an accident or natural disaster.

1 . Racking Test Procedure

Using a hydraulic ram attached to the test frame, angular distortions of

the following magnitude were applied to test specimens 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6:

2 . Racking Test Results

The lightweight construction of the windows permitted them to function

even after being severly racked. Operating forces generally increased with

increased racking and some specimens could not be closed after being opened in

the racked position. The numerical results of the racking tests are summarized

in Table 4.

Angle between base of frame

and

horizontal reference point

Equivalent vertical displacement

of the floor at one end of a 60 ft (18.29 m) mobile home

2.5 in (6.4 cm)

5.0 in (12.7 cm)

10.1 in (25.7 cm)

18.8 in (47.8 cm)

37.7 in (95.8 cm)

1.5°

3.0°

29
TABLE 3

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Test Results

Device Tested Window Appurtenance

1. Casement window (small) Pass Fail - Section 280.404(c) (2) (iii)

Phillips head screw

2. ^Casement window (large) Pass Fail - Section 280 . 404 (c) (2) (iii)

Phillips head screw

3. *VerticaL sliding window, Pass Fail - Section 280.404(c) (2) (ii) Storm

egress frame window weight greater than 5 lbs (2.27 kg)

4. *Awning window, egress frame Pass Fail - Section 280.404(c) (2) (ii) Storm

window weight greater than 5 lbs (2.27 kg)

5. horizontal sliding window Fail Fail - Section 280 . 404 (c) (2) (ii) Storm

window weight greater than 5 lbs (2.27 kg)

Section 280.106(c) Screen tab over 60 in

(152 cm) from floor. Section

280 . 404 (c) (4) (i) Incorrect instructions

on window.

6. *Awning window, pop-out panes Pass Appurtenances not available at time of test

.

7. Vertical sliding window Pass Fail - Section 280 . 404 (c) (2) (ii) Storm

window weight greater than 5 lbs (2.27 kg)

8. Knock-out wall panel Pass N/A

^Subjected to racking tests in addition to and following tests required by standard

30
specimen 0

in /

60ft

2.5

in/60

ft

5.0

in/60

ft

10.1

in/60

ft

18.8

in/60

ft

37.7

in/60

ft

No.

Description/Mechanism 0

cm/18.29 m

6.4

cm/18.29 m

12.7

cm/18.29 m

25.7

cm/18.29 m

47.8

cm/18.29 m

95.8

cm/18.29 i6

d) dl

'Si di

co vo

vO CM

<r oo

rH CM

d] *

d| 1 m

m cm

vO CO vO

3,cm

«—i o o mo> vO <r co

vo

vO CTn

rH CM

O

(O

MO

vo

m

CM vO

oo

m

m ctn

oo co o H H CM

cm o m

<r o m

00d

•Ha

cdu

as vo

co

cm co o m

mm

vo CM

r". oo

CM CM

as o

iH

<r co

oom

n cm o

00 vo vo

CM vD M H CO odd

Q) 42

co

m

«H

O

CO VO d <r

oo

cm 'qT| vO«—I

'aTl

n 'Si

x) ^ m <

<r

r co cm co m vo

CM CM <3- i—I rH O CO vO

vo

m co

d

0)u

00d

*Hdcd

a)u§SHX

tfl B

d

dd

rH as vo o as VO vO CM 00 cr (U rH • • • • • • • • • • • a> 4-) O o <r CO vO «n CO <7\ CO rH 0 H cd 42

rH rH rH

u

co cu 4-J <U a O a 0 d

cu 0 (U

d

B IH 42 *H

cd <U

d

M 6 £ d 4-< cd d rH (U u 0 d 00

CO 4-4 *H 0 d

<D CO 4-J

X 0 cd 00 <u CO d cd 0 M v-l CO 0 0 d cd 00 <U 1 <u rH (0 U PH (U 4-J • w d OO O CO cu

0) * <u 0) PH cd <u

d s CU u S S d £ 42 £ 4-J rH o >-l o <U o O •H P

•« 42

a 0 CO cd

d o d

dd £ d iH

d & U 4-Jd <U CO > d CO d H d 0 d CO d O 4-* cd d d £

•H *H rH •H

d •H •H

d cd «—1

•H tH

Od £ 0) £ CO S d & rH £ d rH £ cd d <u > X •H X «d X *H 4-) > d 4-J

4-1 o 42 iH o 4:

u 42 4-J o 42 £ 4-> 42 42 iH cd

d e CO cd 4-1 CO 4-1 COd 4-J CO IH 00 CO cu £ B

<U 0)

d o cd

d 00 cd

d 0 cd

d 00 <U *Hd rH *H e Pi PH *H hJ PH d X PH N X d4 d X Pi PH 42 iH 4-J Q) u •H *H *H cd >—1

CO

CO V4 rj

H c w cd u

0) > <3

O

32 < "nil 'Si

Latch

and/or

window

popped

open

due

to

racking —

no

force

was

required

to

operate

device.
Figure 11. Racking Test. Normal (level) position.

32
Figure 12. Racking Test. Racked position.

33

••
Figure 13. Use of Force Gage.

Procedure used to measure force required to open window latch.

34
Figure 14. Egress Test. Specimen 1. Removing screen

35
Figure 15. Egress Test. Specimen 1. Pushing window open

36
Figure

Detail of

16. Egress Test. Specimen 1. egress handle and retaining clip

37
Figure 17. Egress Test. Specimen 3. Releasing storm window retaining clip

Releasing one of three clips which retain inside clip-on storm window.

The same storm window frame is used on specimen 4.

38
Figure 18. Egress Test. Specimen 3. Removing screen

The same procedure is used on specimen 4.

39
Figure 19. Egress Frame. Specimen 3. Operating egress mechanism

Pulling down on vertical bar to release egress mechanism.

The same procedure is used on specimen 4.

40
Figure 20. Egress Test. Specimen 4. Pushing window open

The same egress frame is used on specimen 3.

41
Figure

21

.

Egress

Test.

Specimen

Removing

storm

window
Figure 22. Egress Test. Specimen 5. Unlatching prime window

Note that latch mechanism is blocked by remaining storm window.

43
Figure 23. Egress Test. Specimen 5. Opening prime window

44
Figure

24

.

Egress

Test.

Specimen
Figure 25. Egress Test. Specimen 6. Releasing egress latches

46

-
Figure 26. Egress Test. Specimen 6. Opening window

When dropped, hinged window falls flat against side of mobile home.

47
Figure 27. Egress Test. Specimen 7. Opening prime window

48
Figure 28. Egress Test. Specimen 7. Releasing screen

49
50
Figure 30. Egress Test. Specimen 8. Dropping panel

51
IV. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

A. Technical Basis of the Egress Provisions of the Mobile Home Standard

The egress requirements of the Mobile Home Standard are based in substantial measure on earlier voluntary standards, in particular NFPA 501B-1974 (Ref. 7) and

MHMA Specification 2-73 (Ref. 4).

Library research was carried out to identify, through existing standards and

other documents, the technical basis of the egress requirements of the standard.

With the exception of limited studies concerned with the minimum dimensions of an egress device, very little relevant data was found. Where research data was found,

it did not appear to support the specifications contained in the standard. These

findings are discussed below.

1. Dimensions and Location

Table 5 summarizes the information found relating to the dimensions and

location of egress devices. A review of the available data suggests the following:

(a) Dimensions should be related to the anticipated method of egress. Openings

close to the floor, which permit egress by crawling, will require different

dimensions than openings mounted at higher levels, requiring the occupant

to climb out for egress.

(b) For mobile home occupants of average size, the following dimensions appear

to be adequate for emergency egress. If the mobile home occupant is expected

to crawl through the egress device, minimum dimensions should be approximately 22 in (56 cm) wide by 22 in (56 cm) high. If the mobile home occupant

is expected to climb through the egress opening, minimum dimensions should

be 18 in (46 cm) wide and 32 in (81 cm) high.

(c) No data was found which established the height above the floor at which

occupants generally would shift from a crawling to a climbing method of

egress. The method of egress may also be affected by the height of the

egress device above ground level. (Note Fig. 31.)

2 . Operating Forces and Location of Operating Mechanisms

Tables 6 and 7 summarize the information found relating to operating forces

and the location of latches. These two factors are interrelated and should be

studied together. A review of the available data suggests:

52
(a) Maximum allowable forces should be determined on the basis of anticipated

occupant strength and stature, height at which the device is mounted, and

method of operation (push, pull, squeeze, twist).

(b) Young children can generally exert forces in excess of 10 lbs (44.5 N) on operating devices which are mounted at or below their shoulder height.

However, almost all children under 9 years of age cannot reach or operate

devices 60 in (152 cm) above the floor.

(c) No data was found which established the relationship between forces which

could be applied as a function of the individual’s basic strength and the

difference between the individual’s height and the height of the operating

device.

3. Tenability Criteria

Tenability criteria relate to specific elements of a hazardous environment

which are capable of incapacitating an individual attempting escape or rescue. Examples include critical factors such as oxygen, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide levels, temperature, and smoke density. Determination of tenability criteria and maximum allowable time for egress is a state-of-the-art research

activity currently under way at the Center for Fire Research at the National

Bureau of Standards.

B. Adequacy of the Egress Provisions of the Mobile Home Standard

In addition to the specific shortcomings discussed below, the egress requirements of the standard appear to be too narrow in scope. (See recommendations)

Laboratory research to assess the current requirements and test procedures identified

areas where the current standard appears to be inadequate, inconsistent, and conflicting. With respect to the comments which follow, it is assumed that the reader

is familiar with Table 1 of this report and sections 280.106 and 280.404 of the

Mobile Home Standard.

1 . Inconsistency

(a) Dimensions (280.404(b) and (c))

2 2 Windows and appurtenances must provide a 5 ft (.46 m ) opening with

a minimum dimension of 22 in (56 cm)

.

Egress devices are not mentioned.

53
(b) Location (280.106(a))

Bottom of window opening must be within 36 in (91 cm) of floor.

Egress devices are not mentioned.

(c) Number of Latches (280.404(b) and (c))

> Windows may have two latches.

Appurtenances may have four latches.

Egress devices are not mentioned.

Surface Area Where Force is Applied (280.404(c))

2 Latches on appurtenances must have a contact area of at least .25 in

(1.61 cm

2 ).

I Windows and egress devices are not mentioned.

!'

Rotary Operation of Latches (280.404(b))

I Not permitted on windows.

|

i Appurtenances and egress devices are not mentioned.

i

I

| Maximum Operating Forces (280.404(b) and (c)) I

I Twenty lbs (89.0 N) for windows.

Five lbs (22.2 N) for appurtenances.

Egress devices are not mentioned.

2. Conflict

There is a direct conflict between section 280.404(b) (3) (ii) (minimum area

2 2 of 5 ft (.46 m ) and section 280.404(c) (ii) (maximum lifting force of 5 lbs

2 2 (22.2 N) for appurtenances). A storm window which is 5 ft (.46 m ) in area weighs more than 5 lbs (2.27 kg). It is impossible to simultaneously meet both

requirements

.

(d)

(e)

(f)

54
3 . Incomplete Specification of Test Methods

(a) Test Methods A and B - Dimensions (280.404(d)(1) & (2))

It is not clear how to calculate dimensions when latches or operating

handles protrude into the egress area.

(b) Test Methods C and D - Operating Forces (280.404(d)(3) & (4))

The rate at which the force is applied is not specified and only a single reading of the gauge is required. This is likely to generate a situation in which different techniques will yield significantly different

force readings on the same device or mechanism.

In test method C, the requirement that the window be subjected to five

opening and closing cycles before testing should be deleted, since it

creates a test condition which is unrealistic with respect to actual use of an egress device.

55
TABLE 5

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

DIMENSIONS AND LOCATION OF EGRESS DEVICES

Information Source Recommendation or Requirement

Fed. Standard 217 - Bus windows Nominally 20 in (51 cm) wide x 13 in (33 cm) high for

(Ref. 2) each egress window.

MHMA Spec. 2-73 Minimum dimension 22 in (56 cm). Minimum area 5 tt- (Ref . 4) (.46 m^) . Maximum height from floor to bottom of opening is 36 in (91 cm) .

NFPA 101 - Life Safety Code 1973 Edition - 22 in (56 cm) minimum dimension, 5 ft^

(Ref. 5) (.46 m2) minimum area, maximum height from floor to bottom of opening is 32 in (81 cm)

.

1976 Draft - Minimum 20 in (51 cm) wide, 24 in (61 cm)

high, minimum area 5.7 ft2 (.53 m2), maximum height

from floor to bottom of opening, is 44 in (112 cm).

NFPA 501B-1974

ANSI A119. 1-1975

(Ref. 7)

Minimum dimensions 22 in (56 cm). Minimum area 5 ft2

(.46 m2). Maximum height from floor to bottom of opening is 48 in (122 cm).

NFPA 501C-1974

(Ref. 8)

Nominally 20 in (51 cm) wide x 13 in (33 cm) high for

each egress window.

McCormic

(Ref. 22)

Minimum dimension for a crawl through opening with nor- mal clothing is 22 in (56 cm)

.

Van Cott

(Ref. 33)

Minimum dimension for crawling or sliding through is

20-22 in (51-56 cm).

Woodson & Conover

(Ref. 35)

Minimum dimension for crawl through opening is 22 in

(56 cm), step or climb through opening is 20 in (51 cm)

wide x 32 in (81 cm) high.

Safiredoor Corp.

(Ref. 38)

Opening 22.5 in (57 cm) square near floor permits

ingress by fire fighter with breathing apparatus.

Hunt Co. Height more important than width for climb through egress.

(Ref. 42) Opening 16 in (41 cm) wide x 28 in (71 cm) high is

acceptable for climb through egress. Openings 16 in (41 cm) wide x 42 in (107 cm) high or 18 in (46 cm)

wide x 32 in (81 cm) high, acceptable for egress and

ingress by fire fighter with backpack.

56
TABLE 6

Information Source

Fed. Standard 217 - Bus window

(Ref. 2)

MHMA Spec. 2-73

(Ref. 4)

NFPA 101 - Life Safety Code

(Ref. 5)

NFPA 501B-1974

NASI A119. 1-1975

(Ref. 7)

Brown, Buchanan, and Mandel

(Ref. 11)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

EGRESS DEVICE OPERATING FORCES

Recommendation, Requirement or Comment

Low force, less than 20 lbs (89 N) , within 71 in (180 cm)

of floor, rotary or straight force application. High force,

less than 60 lbs (267 N) , within 52 in (132 cm) of floor,

straight force application perpendicular to exit.

Locks, latches, lifting and sliding operational forces

shall not exceed 20 lbs (89 N), window appurtenance operating forces shall not exceed 5 lbs (22 N)

.

Windows for rescue must be readily openable from inside

without use of tools. Panic hardware shall cause door

latch to release when a force not to exceed 15 lbs (67 N)

is applied.

Window which can be opened from the inside without the use

of tools.

Figure 4 shows that essentialy all of the 5-year-olds

tested could squeeze, push, pull, or twist with forces in excess of 10 lbs (44 N) on devices mounted at or below

their shoulder length.

57
TABLE 7

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

LOCATION OF EGRESS DEVICE OPERATING MECHANISMS

Information Source Recommendation, Requirement or Comment

Fed. Standard 217 - Bus windows Low force window release within 71 in (180 cm) of floor.

(Ref. 2) High force window release within 52 in (132 cm) of floor.

MHMA Spec. 2-73 No latch, lock or operating handle be located in excess

(Ref. 4) of 72 in (183 cm) from the finished floor.

NFPA 101 - Life Safety Code Releasing bar on door shall be not less than 30 in (7b cm)

(Ref. 5) nor more than 44 in (112 cm) above the floor.

Diffrient, et al 97% of all 8-year-old children cannot reach a device

(Ref. 16) located 60 in (152 cm) above the floor (estimate based on human scale la)

.

58
Figure 31. Height of Egress Windows above Ground

Egress windows installed in the demonstration unit with the bottom of the

window opening 36 in (91 cm) above the floor place the bottom of the window

approximately 70 in (178 cm) above the ground. Note that the bottom of the

egress panel (behind the model) is only 39 in (99 cm) above the ground.

59
V. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Establish Performance Goals

In the absence of available data to the contrary, it is assumed that the most

critical need for emergency egress occurs during a nighttime fire when sleeping

occupants of a mobile home are jarred awake by an alarm or by sensing the smoke,

flame, or noise of a fire.

Emergency egress devices should be located and operable in such a manner that

essentially all occupants capable of independent movement can safely evacuate unassisted.

With these two assumptions in mind, the following goals are recommended:

1. Primary Goal

Provide a device with an opening large enough and so placed and operated

as to permit 95 percent of all mobile home occupants wearing normal clothing to

exit from a darkened room unassisted within 30 seconds without significant risk

of serious injury.

Comments

A design goal of 95 percent is suggested by Henry Dreyfuss Associates

(see reference 16) as desirable for civilian environments. It is however, a subjective number which is based on what society is willing to accept as a reasonable level of risk. Whatever level is selected, to design for it re- quires a detailed knowledge of the age distribution of mobile home occupants.

It is anticipated that this data will be available from the Bureau of the Census

in early 1977.

The design goal of 30 seconds to egress is also subjective. It represents

the average time it took the author's 9-year-old daughter to exit from a locked

bedroom window in a conventional single family home and includes unlocking the

prime window, raising the prime window, unlocking the storm window, and raising

the storm window. Egress time must be kept to a minimum, since preliminary fire

studies indicate that untenable conditions can be reached in a mobile home in

less than four minutes (see reference 13)

.

60
2 . Secondary Goal

The egress device should not reduce the safety or security of the mobile

home under normal living conditions.

3 . Complementary Goals

(a) Without compromising the primary goal of egress, the dimensions of the

egress device should consider standard mobile home construction practices.

(b) Without unduly increasing the cost of construction, the dimensions of the

egress device should consider ingress by fully equipped rescue personnel.

Acceptance of these goals necessarily requires expanding the scope of the

egress requirements of the Mobile Home Standard.

B. Expand Scope of the Standard

1 . Size and Location of Egress Opening

(a) Placement

Every room designed for sleeping should have an egress device or door.

(b) Relationship Between Height Above Floor and Minimum Dimensions

The review of the published data on minimum dimensions for egress

suggests that there should be different acceptable dimensions for egress

devices installed near the floor of a mobile home and egress windows installed at higher levels (see references 2, 4, 5, 7, 22, 33, 35, 38, & 42).

Table 5 summarizes published requirements/recommendations for egress dimensions and heights above the floor.

The dimensions should be based on the anticipated method of egress;

i.e. climb vs. crawl. In general, openings placed so that the occupant must

climb through them require a greater vertical dimension than openings which

permit the occupant to exit by crawling through them.

2 . Operation of Egress Devices

(a) Number of Operations Required

There are two questions which shouLd be addressed in the standard.

61
(i) The maximum total number of operations which are permitted, including

unlocking, lifting, pushing, etc. (the present standard allows 13).

(ii) The maximum number of simultaneous operations (if any) which are permitted. If simultaneous operations are permitted, separate specifications may be needed relating to their operating forces, method of

operation, and distance from each other.

(b) Allowable Maximum Operating Forces and Location of Operating Devices

The allowable maximum operating force of a latch or other mechanism

must be related to the operation involved (push, pull, squeeze, twist) and

the height of the mechanism above the floor.

3 . Security

The egress window or device should offer the same resistance to forced entry

as any window, door or other opening into the mobile home.

4. Practice

The egress window or device should be designed to permit occupants to practice all of the steps necessary for egress. This implies that there should

be minimal risk of personal injury or damage to the device during operation.

5.

Safety

The egress window or device should not reduce the safety of the mobile home

during normal conditions. Design features such as the following might be con- sidered .

(a) Operating forces large enough so that latches are not inadvertently operated

by very young children, pets, or normal household activities, such as cleaning.

(b) Shields which prevent small fingers from reaching operating mechanisms.

(c) Operating devices placed outside the reach of crawling infants.

(d) Latches which combine two distinct movements to operate, i.e. a latch with

a button that must be depressed before the latch will turn.

62
6 . Operating Instructions

The operating instructions should be visible, easy to read, and easy to understand. Proposed operating instruction labels should be pretested by

children. The use of nonverbal, pictorial instructions should be encouraged.

7 . Time to Egress

This is the basic test of an egress device and in a sense, it incorporates

all of the other criteria. A statistically valid procedure should be developed

for applying this criteria as a performance test.

C . Support Applied Research

Tables 8 and 9 summarize and compare the existing standard and the recommended

requirements for emergency egress devices for mobile homes. The actual levels for

these criteria can best be established by supporting additional research in the

following areas :

1 . Occupant Analysis - Physical

The objective of this research is to identify the physical and sensory

limitations of mobile home occupants which are relevant to the use of emergency

egress devices. This program should include the following activities, which

were beyond the scope of the present study.

(a) Request a special tabulation based on the 1970 Census of Population to determine the frequency adjusted age and sex distribution of mobile home

occupants

.

(b) Utilize existing anthropometric information sources or, if necessary, con- duct additional research to determine typical body dimensions, strength

(push, pull, twist, squeeze) and reach capabilities of mobile home occupants.

2 . Occupant Analysis - Behavioral

Research models should be developed and tested to gain an insight into predictable behavior modes of adults and children under emergency conditions. In particular, studies should be carried out to determine whether behavior under

emergency conditions can be modified through experience (such as fire drills) and

education

.

63
3. Device Characteristics

The objective of this effort is to utilize human engineering principles to assure that the location and physical characteristics of egress devices art con- sistent with the physical capabilities and behavior of mobile home occupants.

Research should be carried out to determine:

The minimum dimensions necessary to permit average (50 percentile) and large

(95 percentile) occupants to egress by crawling through an opening.

The minimum dimensions necessary to permit average and large o< cupants lo egress by climbing through an opening.

The maximum height above the floor that small (5 percentile) and average

size occupants can egress by crawling through an opening.

The maximum height above the floor that small and average size occupants can egress by climbing through an opening.

With respect to operating mechanisms, the maximum height-force that can be

applied for each type of operation (push, pull, twist, squeeze) for small

and average size mobile home occupants.

Egress Tests

A statistically valid procedure should be developed for estimating the time

to egress utilizing an egress device. There are two basic approaches:

(a) Develop a single test which would be uniformly applied to every type of

egress device manufactured. This approach is direct, but might be difficult

to implement if there are a large number of different egress devices manufactured .

(b) Explore the feasibility of developing a computer model to predict the average egress time of an egress device based on factors such as size, location,

number of operations, and forces required to utilize the device, as well as physical characteristics of mobile home occupants. The model parameters

would necessarily be based on a series of egress tests conducted with representative mobile home occupants and devices. This approach is initially

more difficult, but may be easier to implement.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

64
5 . Hazard Analysis

Research (such as the activities currently being carried out in the Center

for Fire Research at NBS) to categorize the specific elements of a hazardous

situation which are life-threatening would be continued in order to develop

estimates for maximum acceptable egress time.

Section 280.1(b) of the Federal Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standard

summarizes the overall intent of these recommendations and is quoted herewith

without further comment.

"These Federal Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards seek, to the maximum extent possible, to establish performance requirements.

In certain instances, however, the use of specific requirements In the

Standard is necessary because, at this time, that is the best available

means of identifying the desired performance. The use of specific re- quirements is not intended to prohibit the utilization of any material,

piece of equipment, or system which cannot meet the precise specifications, but which upon evaluation provides equivalent or superior performance .

65
TABLE 8

SCOPE OF EGRESS REQUIREMENTS OF CURRENT

HUD MOBILE HOME STANDARD

Requirement

1. Location

2. Size of opening

3. Operation

4. Security

Criteria

1.1 Every sleeping room

1.2 Bottom within 36 in (91 cm) of floor

2.1 Minimum dimensions of 22 in (56 cm)

2.2 Minimum area of 5 f

t ^ (.46 m^

)

3.1 Up to 13 operations allowed for egress (3 for

prime window, 5 for each appurtenance)

3.2 No restrictions on simultaneous operation

3.3 Maximum operating forces must be less than 20 lbs

(89 N) for windows, 5 lbs (22 N) for appurtenances*

3.4 Rotary operations not permitted on windows

3.5 Latches no more than 60 in (152 cm) above floor

4.1 No requirement

5. Practice 5.1 No requirement

6. Safety during non-emergency 6.1 No requirement

7 . Operating instructions 7.1 Instructions on window for operation of window and

appurtenance

8. Time to egress 8.1 No requirement

^Conflict - 5 ft^ (.46 m^) of window glass weighs more than 5 lbs (2.27 kg). Hence, the

weight of the window and frame exceeds the maximum force allowed to lift the window out.

66
TABLE 9

RECOMMENDED SCOPE OF EGRESS REQUIREMENTS FOR

MOBILE HOME STANDARD

Requirement Criteria

1. Location 1.1 Every sleeping room

1.2 Bottom within ** of floor

2. Size of opening 2.1 If bottom of opening is within ** of floor, minimum of

22 in (56 cm) wide x 22 in (56 cm) high (crawl)*

2.2 If bottom of opening is more than ** above floor, minimum of 18 in (46 cm) wide x 32 in (81 cm) high (climb)*

3. Operation 3.1 No more than ** operations required for egress

3.2 Simultaneous operations permitted if distance between

operating devices is less than ** inches and the operating forces are less than ** or simultaneous operations not permitted.

3.3 Operating forces less than ** pounds

3.4 No rotary operations required for egress

3.5 Latches no more than ** above floor

4. Security 4.1 Same resistance to forced entry as other openings in

mobile homes

5. Practice 5.1 To encourage practice, design should minimize risk of

injury or damage to device during operation

6. Safety during non- 6.1 Infant-proof design

emergency 6.2 Minimum force requirement to prevent accidental

operation

7. Operating instructions 7.1 Should be simple and easy to understand by children

8. Time to egress

and adults, placed in easy to see/read location

8.1 Most occupants, including children and elderly, should

be able to egress within 30 seconds

*Additional research required to establish "best" values.

**Specific recommendation cannot be made without additional research.

67
VI. REFERENCES

A. Other Standards

1. CSA Z240. 2-1976 Structural Requirements for Mobile Homes , Canadian Standards Association

2. Fed. Std. No. 217 Bus Window Retention and Release , National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

3. MHMA Spec/Rev 1974 Window Specifications for Utilization in

Mobile and Factory Built Housing , Mobile Home Manufacturers

Association

4. MHMA Spec. 2-73 Egress Window Standard for Mobile Homes , Mobile

Home Manufacturers Association

5. NFPA 101-1973 (ANSI 9.1) Life Safety Code , National Fire Protection

Association, Boston, Massachusetts

6. NFPA Std. No. 257 Fire Tests for Window Assemblies 1970, National Fire

Protection Association, Boston, Massachusetts

7. NFPA 501B-1974 (ANSI A119. 1-1975) Mobile Homes , National Fire

Protection Association

8. NFPA 501C-1974 (ANSI A119. 2-1975) Recreational Vehicles , National Fire Protection Association

B. Authored Reports

9. Belcher, Steven W. Oregon's Mobile Homes : Housing By Any Other

Name , 1974 Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education,

Boulder, Colorado

10. Benjamin, Fred B. (Ed) Compendium of Human Responses to the

Aerospace Environment, 4 volumes, 1968 NASA CR-1205 (I, II, III, IV)

11. Brown, W. C., Buchanan, C. J., Mandel, J. A Study of the Strength

Capabilities of Children Ages Two Through Six, NBSIR 73-156

August 1973, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

12. Budnick, Edward K. and Klein, David P. Evaluation of the Fire

Hazard in a Mobile Home Resulting from an Ignition on the Kitchen

Range , NBSIR 75-788 Interim Report, February 1976, National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

13. Budnick, Edward K. Fire Spread Along a Mobile Home Corridor , NBSIR 76-1021 Draft, May 1976, Interim Report

14. Busby, D. E. and Garner, J. D. Emergency Evacuation of Handicapped

Passengers from Air Carrier Aircraft , Fed. Aviation Administration

Civil Aeromedical Institute, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

15. Butcher, E. G. and Bedford, G. K. Fire Tests in Two Caravans , Fire Research Note No. 835, September 1970, Joint Fire Research

Organization, U.K.

16. Diffrient, N. , Tillet, A. R. , and Bardagjy, J. C. Human Scale 1/2/3 , Henry Dreyfuss Associates, 1974

68
17. Garner, J. D. and Blethrow, John G. Emergency Evacuation Tests

of a Crashed L-1649 , August 1966, Fed. Aviation Report AM-66-42

18. Garner, J. D. and Blethrow, John G. Evacuation Tests From an SST

Mock-Up , December 1970, Fed. Aviation Report AM 70-19

19. Halpin, Bryon M. , Radford, E. P. "A Fire Fatality Study," Fire

Journal , May 1975, pages 11-13, and 98-99

20. Kroemer, K. II. Eberhard Human Strength: Terminology, Measurement

and Interpretation of Data , May 1970, Report No. AMRL-TR-69-9

,

Aerospace Medical Research Lab Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio

21. Maier, Peter Proposals to Upgrade Mobile Home Fire Safety by

Revising the ANSI A119.1 Construction Standard , Center for Auto

Safety, November 10, 1974

22. McCormic, Ernest J. Human Factors in Engineering and Design , 4th edition, 1976 McGraw-Hill, New York

23. Ottoson, John " Three Residential Fires - the Human Factor," Fire

Journal, May 1975 page 5-7

24. Owings, Clyde, Chaffin, Don B. , Snyder, R. G., and Norcutt, R. H. Strength Characteristics of U.S. Children for Product Safety

Design , University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Oct. 1975, Report FDA-73-32

25. Phillips, Anne Wright "Human Behavior in High Rise Fires," May 1974

Fire Chief

26. Phillips, Anne Wright "The Physiological and Psychological Effects

of Fires in High-rise Buildings"

27. Rubin, Arthur I. and Cohen, Arthur Occupant Behavior in Building

Fires , NBS Tech. Note 818, February 1974, Washington, D.C.

28. Rubin, Arthur I. and Glass, Robert A. Human Behavior in Fire

Emergencies - A Research Plan for Health Care Facilities , November 1975, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

(Summary of workshop held at NBS on October 17-18, 1975)

29. Snow, Clyde C., Reynolds, Herbert M. and Allgood, M. D. Anthropometry of Airline Stewardesses , Report FAA-AM-75-2,

March 1975, Fed. Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.

30. Snyder, R. G., Spencer, M. L., Owings, C. L. and Schneider, L. W. Physical Characteristics of Children as Related to Death and

Injury for Consumer Product Safety Design , Highway Safety

Research Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 1975, Report No. UM-HSRI-BI-75-5

31. Tichauer, E. P. Occupational Biomechanics , 1975, Institute of

Rehabilitation Medicine, New York University Medical Center,

New York, Monograph No. 51

32. Tryon, George H. A Talk on Mobile Homes and Fire Safety , presented

to 101st Annual Convention of the Firemen's Association of the

ftate of New York, August 1973

33. Van Cott, Harold P. and Kinkade, Robert G. (Eds.) Human Engineering

Guide to Equipment Design , (1974, U.S. Government Publ. J-556-940)

69

i
34. Watrous, Laurence D. "Protecting Living Units for Handicapped,"

Fire Journal . May 1975, page 80-81

35. Woodson, Wesley and Conover, Donald W. Human Engineering Guide

for Equipment Designers , 2nd edition, 1964, University of California

Press, Los Angeles 7 CA

36. Yanowitch, Robert E. and Sirkis, Joseph A. "Air Travel and the

Handicapped," Clinical Aviation and Aerospace Medicine , August 1974,

page 879-882

C. Other Written Sources

37. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Epidemiologic In-depth

Investigation Reports, FY 76, Mobile Homes

38. Letter to Sanford Adler, NBS from James Nylander, Safiredor Corp.

39. "Certified Product Directory," Associated Certification, Inc. Volume 5,

March 1975

40. "Procedural Guide, Emergency Exit Windows and Devices," Associated

Certification, Inc.

41. Center for Auto Safety, Mobile Homes; The Low Cost Housing Hoax,

Grossman Publishers, New York, 1975

42. "Results of a Study to Evaluate Various Size Openings for Use as Emergency Egress in Residential Housing", August 1972, Report No. G179, Robert W. Hunt Co., Chicago, Illinois

43. "Manufactured Housing Industry Paces the Nation in Fire Safety,"

Mobile Home Life , Volume 7 No. 4, April 1976

44. "Federal Controls Loom Nearer for the Mobile Home Industry," Mobile

Home Life , Volume 5 No. 5, May 1976

45. Weight, Height, and Selected Body Dimensions of Adults: United

States 1960-1962, National Center for Health Statistics, Series

11, No. 8, June 1965, Washington, D.C.

46. Height and Weight of Children: United States , National Center

for Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 104, September 1970,

Rockville, Maryland

47. The New Mobile Home Market: Facts About the Mobile Buyer and the

Mobile Home Dealer , 1974 Survey, Owens - Corning Fiberglass Corp.

Toledo, Ohio

48. Research on Housing Needs for the Severely Handicapped, Interim

Report, August 1975, St. Andrews Presbyterian College, Laurinburg,

North Carolina (HUD Contract H-2110R)

49 Mobile - Modular Housing Industry Directory , October 1975, Trailer

Dealer Publishing, Chicago, Illinois

50. Mobile Homes , Subject Report HC(7)-6, 1970 Census of Housing, U.S.

Census Department

51. 1972 Census of Manufacturers-Mobile Homes (SIC 2451), U.S. Census

Department

70
NBS-1 14A (REV. 7-73)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLIC A VION OR REPORT NO.

NBSIR 77-1246

2. Gov’t Accession

No.

3. Recipient’s Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Evaluation of the Egress Provisions of the IIUD Mobile Home

Construction and Safety Standard

5. Publication Date June 1977

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

Sanford C. Adler

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PEREORMINCi ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract /Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street , City, State, ZIP)

Office of Policy Development & Research

Department of Housing & Urban Development

451 7th Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20410

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final 7/30/76

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less (actual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

Evaluative tests were carried out to assess the adequacy and sufficiency of the

HUD Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards. Project activities included library

research, laboratory testing and construction of a Mobile Home Emergency Egress Demonstration Unit. The study recommended: (1) establishment of performance goals to relate

the desired objective (safe egress) to the specific requirements of the standard; (2)

expansion of the scope of the requirements to assure that egress devices do not adversel

affect the safety or security of the mobile home under normal living conditions; and (3)

support of applied research to interrelate egress requirements, device characteristics,

and human capabilities.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons

)

Emergency egress; HUD; mobile home; racking; research; safety; standard; window

18. AVAILABILITY BF Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS 21. NO. OF PAGES

(THIS REPORT)

For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

UNCL ASSIFIED

Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office 20. SECURITY CLASS 22. Price Washington, D.C. 20402. SD Cat. No. Cll (THIS PAGE)

v

f Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151 UNCLASSIFIED

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74