• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

BCBC2018 - climbability of guards

Mac Moonfire

SAWHORSE
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
89
Location
BC
Hi,
The BCBC2018, depending on interpretation, allows horizontal wires on guards located less 4.2m from the adjacent surface. Talking with a couple of jurisdictions in BC, They still don't allow horizontal wires no matter what hight the guard is. I have heard of jurisdiction(s) asking for an engineer to sign off on such guards to be accepted.
The logic against them horizontal cables is that even when installed 4" o.c. and tighten up the wazou, when a vertical force is applied (ei: a kid climbing the guard), the cables flex apart. Plus, the cables loosen over time and need to be retightened.

Are you guys accepting them? is it different in other provinces? Any info would be welcome.


9.8.8.6. Design of Guards to Not Facilitate Climbing
1) Except for guards in industrial occupancies, guards required by Article 9.8.8.1. that protect a level located more than 4.2 m above the adjacent level shall be designed so that no member, attachment or opening located between 140 mm and 900 mm above the level protected by the guard facilitates climbing
 
It depends on how far apart the post are, or intermediate supports. IRC allows, commercial occupancy except for exception does not allow claimable
 
I have encountered the cable guard twice in my career. The easiest solution to the deflection of the cables is spacing them 3" apart rather than 4". They can be made tight enough to play a musical note. Deflection is negligible and there is an argument that deflection is not in the code. Here is a thread that deals with the deflection issue:
https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.co...deflection-pass-fail-and-or-compliance.27410/

As to climbable, that does not come into our code unless there is a body of water on the other side of the guard....or perhaps a gorilla.

 
The national code has similar language in the 2015 version. The code permits horizontal guards. That code is adopted by my elected officials as written, so that is what I enforce.

The problem is the "deflection over time". When I inspect a building, I am saying that at that moment in time, the building meets code. I cannot comment on what will happen as soon as I leave. Will the occupant remove handrails? Nail an egress window closed? Who knows. These officials who are hypothesizing about what may happen, while well intentioned, are exposing their employer and themselves to additional liability. If they are looking at what may happen for one thing, they should be looking at what may happen for all things. This is a standard of care item and not necessary for the official to perform to. Basically, they are buying extra liability that they don't need to.

The other issue I have is that these officials are saying something is prohibited based on what MAY happen. If you were to ask them where the code violation was, they could not point to a code section as it was in compliance at the time of inspection. There is some allowances for discretion in the delivery of your duties as an official, but this has to be evidence based. So, I would ask them what evidence they have that these will (not may) loosen over time.

On the practical side, The 4" spacing is so a toddler's head does not get stuck. what are the chances that a toddler sticks their head between the guards at the exact moment someone is attempting to climb the guards? The Supreme Court of Canada dictates that officials must evaluate the gravity of harm, likelihood of harm, and cost of repair before ordering a code violation be remedied. If I am looking at it through that lens, I can't justify anything in this situation.
 
This subject seems to always come back to what people think is climbable and what is really being climb.

IF you do some research of children falling from balconies in Canada, what I found and read noted solid half height walls or vertical balusters where in place as guards when climbing was involved, and the climbing was done on other items on the balcony, chairs, etc.....
Thus one is only guessing, but it happens the majority of the time when they can't see whats on the other side when you factor in a major portion being solid walls.

The vast majority of AHJ in the USA have allowed horizontal guards for decades and there is no evidence of any issue that this policy has created with injuries.

One can make the strong argument that when comparing issues and climbing, that mandating that all kitchen and utility cabinets be required to be installed with child safety locks, than not allowing horizontal guard infill.

Simply why one and not the other, when clearly the one has proven to reduce, the other has not.
 
This subject seems to always come back to what people think is climbable and what is really being climb.

IF you do some research of children falling from balconies in Canada, what I found and read noted solid half height walls or vertical balusters where in place as guards when climbing was involved, and the climbing was done on other items on the balcony, chairs, etc.....
Thus one is only guessing, but it happens the majority of the time when they can't see whats on the other side when you factor in a major portion being solid walls.

The vast majority of AHJ in the USA have allowed horizontal guards for decades and there is no evidence of any issue that this policy has created with injuries.

One can make the strong argument that when comparing issues and climbing, that mandating that all kitchen and utility cabinets be required to be installed with child safety locks, than not allowing horizontal guard infill.

Simply why one and not the other, when clearly the one has proven to reduce, the other has not.
This evidence that children who fell from elevated platforms actually climbed other items placed adjacent to the guards, not the guards themselves, was presented to the National Research Council and drove the code change. I don't understand why local officials would take it upon themselves to reject the change.
 
I have also contacted BC building and Safety Standards and here's the answer:
the NBC changes were intended to allow greater design flexibility, and this
included horizontal cable guards as an example. They still have to meet the 100mm spacing, and the debate rages on
about deflection of the individual cables, and whether or not any pressure must be applied to the 100mm sphere to test
the cable deflection. The code does not provide specifics on this, simply stating the passage of that sphere must be
prevented.​
We are now allowing cable guards with cables 2"o.c. to account for the potential flex in the cables. We'll reassess when they figure it out.:)
Thank you again for all your helpful comments.
 
I'm in a "dig up old threads" frame of mind.
The deflection issue - specifically, that the cables allow passage of a 10cm sphere - is a huge issue.
I have yet to see one of those horizontal cable assemblies that has met that requirement. In other words, every single one I have observed has failed on 9.8.8.1(1).
Most of the "out of the box" cable systems come from south of the border, and I can only assume the U.S. has less restrictive guard standards.
I do have one designer/contractor who want to go with a cable system: they've told me they'll go with a tighter spacing, stronger posts, and bigger cables, all custom designed. I hope for their sake they get it right.
 
IG, when things are done based solely on price you normally end up with something else.

ASTM E935-91 & ASTM E935-00; PART D Cone Test.....

S102-22, Public comment #2
 
IG, when things are done based solely on price you normally end up with something else.

ASTM E935-91 & ASTM E935-00; PART D Cone Test.....

S102-22, Public comment #2
So American Codes have the same requirement.
Which leads me to be confused (a common state): 4"/10 cm is basically the same thing. So why do so many out-of-the-box cable systems have so much deflection? I'm thinking I can't be the only .... stickler ... for this.
 
Like most things under constant tension they need to be tightened regularly, at least a few times anyways. Reality is that when the installer walks away from the job they're usually good. If you're lucky they'll come back in a week or a month and tighten everything up. If they're tightened really well a few times (and nobody climbs on them) then they'll probably be ok, but they might need to be tightened once a year for a couple years. The few times I've seen them they were installed with a 3" space so they could theoretically deflect some and still be code compliant.
 
I have seen them many times, and I always give them the hairy eyeball. Here is what I have done, without guidance I just do the best I can. My fist is about 4" wide, so I push on or between two cables with a force equal to what I think is 50lb (I err on the heavy side). If the cable deflects enough to allow the passage of a sphere larger than 4", I am likely to not approve it. I know it is totally subjective, and even inconsistent with the 12" square inch directive, but that doesn't make sense to me. I am a little more lenient if there are easily adjusted systems, with turn-buckles that can be maintained, but I have seen a lot of home-grown messes that will never make the grade. There is a code change proposal in the 2024 IBC addressing this, but it still uses the 12" area rule, so I am not a fan of it. The issue for me isn't the climbability, because I think they are harder to climb than a fixed horizontal infill member would be. The issue is what all kids do: pull, tug and jerk the cables, see who can squeeze their head in... or their brother's head in. If a cable splays enough to let a head in, but then contracts when the force is no longer applied it is a different animal than a fixed infill member IMHO.
 
Note sure about north of the boarder, but here in the lower 48 technically there is no definitive method adopted in the model codes. However ASTM E935-1991 & 2002 have part D.

I have always looked to this when the manufacture did not have engineering documentation I could follow scoping out the information.

I am currently working with Feeney Inc., one of the largest cable infill manufactures in the USA.

Though this something we are working on in the current 2024 as a public comment, it is what is coming in the future.

The following website will provide you with a basic understanding. Also, Sifu, loading other than the 1sqft area and them measuring in anyway is not correct, though you might think otherwise. The inspector can only not pass it and ask for an engineer to provide documentation and or test data, per the code that the guard infill does not comply. When that documentation is provided, you will not have anything done like you just did.

And dinging it for opening limitations is an incorrect violation note, the correct note would be for the structural load on the infill. The code provides not scoping or direction for your method.

https://www.feeneyinc.com/S102-22

See you in Louisville if there....Tom
 
I am of the opinion that a easily deflected horizontal cable guard is a hazard, and I have failed them in the past. Our local bylaw gives me the power to require the testing of methods and materials as I see fit, most people will choose a different system rather than have the cable guards tested by an engineer.
 
I read PC2 a little more closely, and it makes more sense now than the as submitted proposal. Does it not basically use the same methodology as what I described, only reducing it to 16.5lbs? This is only in the IBC, so to me this all about the design, and not the average inspection, but it does directly address the issue. So given a typical inspection, would there still be an inspector pushing on the cable, and if unsure asking for more testing, against the ASTM standard and/or the code? Or is the intent to provide a special inspection? If this were codified, I don't know how it could happen otherwise. I don't know how to provide a 16.5lb. horizontal force, and I don't carry a 5" cone. I guess I was more comfortable with my 50lb. fist than a 16.5lb cone, but now I wonder if PC2 is better than what we have now (nothing).

Now, about the IRC. What do we do with that? The vast majority of cable rails I have seen have been on IRC regulated projects. Is the idea to move to an engineered system, and forget the inspection arm? Don't get me wrong, if I never see a homegrown mess again I it would be too soon, but even with a system designed as the standard dictates, they would still need some practical way of verification.
 
I am of the opinion that a easily deflected horizontal cable guard is a hazard, and I have failed them in the past. Our local bylaw gives me the power to require the testing of methods and materials as I see fit, most people will choose a different system rather than have the cable guards tested by an engineer.
My experiences have been the same. They just wait for the final then put it back.
 
The decades old long established test standard E935-1991... used the 1.25 x opening limitation, thus the 5", the code officials we spoke with asked for the equivalent at 4", thus when the cables are tensioned to meet the 50 lbf for 5" cone, this translates to 16.5lbf at the 4" cone. It is the same.

As to field testing by inspectors, you don't, I don't know of a single inspector that field test for the 200 point load on the top of a guard, ever. If they question it, the owner needs to have an engineer come in and prove it. This is also no different than the 50 lbf on the 12"x12" square area on infill, as an inspector are you preforming these load test in the field for compliance with certified gages, or are you asking for the engineering documents when you question it?

The reason this is being proposed in the IBC and not the IRC, is it needs to first be in the IBC which requires engineer review and then later to the IRC.

Glad I am not north of the boarder where the inspector's opinion is code, not a specified standard. Sorry Plum-bob, I find that latitude more king like than code.
 
Read PC2 again, and I still can't determine the whether the proposal is intending to require a special inspection. Or is it an unintended result of the code? Or am I reading it all together wrong?
 
The decades old long established test standard E935-1991... used the 1.25 x opening limitation, thus the 5", the code officials we spoke with asked for the equivalent at 4", thus when the cables are tensioned to meet the 50 lbf for 5" cone, this translates to 16.5lbf at the 4" cone. It is the same.

As to field testing by inspectors, you don't, I don't know of a single inspector that field test for the 200 point load on the top of a guard, ever. If they question it, the owner needs to have an engineer come in and prove it. This is also no different than the 50 lbf on the 12"x12" square area on infill, as an inspector are you preforming these load test in the field for compliance with certified gages, or are you asking for the engineering documents when you question it?

The reason this is being proposed in the IBC and not the IRC, is it needs to first be in the IBC which requires engineer review and then later to the IRC.

Glad I am not north of the boarder where the inspector's opinion is code, not a specified standard. Sorry Plum-bob, I find that latitude more king like than code.
I think an inspector should have an opinion regarding whether a building system is a hazard or not. The codes do not spell out direction for every scenario we encounter, such as the one being discussed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICE
I happen to believe we are required to provide opinions and make judgement calls, especially in performance based codes. I don't have a way to test a handrail for a 200lb load in every direction, performance codes like those are inherently unenforceable with the tools we have. But I can lean on a guard, and if I fear it will fail and take me with it, I make a judgement call. The ball is in their court now, the burden is now theirs to rectify it. On the other hand, I can return to the same guard and lean on it, and step back and say wow! that is a solid rail, I can happily move along.

As I understand it, BCC is more performance based, so you may be more comfortable than me in a performance code, but they do exist in the ICC, and whether we like it or not we have to deal with them. If the ICC codes don't expect us to make these judgement calls, then they better get a whole lot more prescriptive, and recognize the limitations of what can be enforced/tested in the field.
 
Read PC2 again, and I still can't determine the whether the proposal is intending to require a special inspection. Or is it an unintended result of the code? Or am I reading it all together wrong?
No special inspection, its a load requirement just like the 200 point load along the top of the guard in any direction.

The hope is to add it to the AC-273 test standard along as with the 1sqft on infill, but that is why the IBC for now, as engineers will be required to verify the infill will comply with the required load.
 
I think an inspector should have an opinion regarding whether a building system is a hazard or not. The codes do not spell out direction for every scenario we encounter, such as the one being discussed.
Plumb-bob,

I can't speak for north of the boarder, but in the IBC it lays out the requirements for measurements in chapter 10 and structural requirements in chapter 16. The ICC has noted that the 4" requirement is a measurement and not a load requirement. The load requirements are in chapter 16.

Thus, engineers certify that a guard's design and can provide a report upon inspection that a specific installation meets all the requirements of the adopted IBC enforced by the local AHJ. An inspector may not like it, but the reality of it is, if it complies and they have proof it does in the form of an engineers report with all the proper stamps and certs, failing because you don't "Think" it's safe other personal opinion is not an option that is going to keep you employed long.

My point is, applying force without certified testing equipment and being qualified to run that equipment and or preform the calculations and provided them in a report allows the inspector to question if it complies and request proof of compliance, if does not allow them to take a personal stand and just say I don't like it.

That leads to appeals and overturns, and from what I have seen to many of those leaves an inspector looking for another place to work and eventually looking into another career.

Interpretation is everything, but finding out what you don't like complies and just not approving it is not how the code and the law work.

You don't like what the code allows, then get it changed, but don't make it up as you go along.
 
Plumb-bob,

I can't speak for north of the boarder, but in the IBC it lays out the requirements for measurements in chapter 10 and structural requirements in chapter 16. The ICC has noted that the 4" requirement is a measurement and not a load requirement. The load requirements are in chapter 16.

Thus, engineers certify that a guard's design and can provide a report upon inspection that a specific installation meets all the requirements of the adopted IBC enforced by the local AHJ. An inspector may not like it, but the reality of it is, if it complies and they have proof it does in the form of an engineers report with all the proper stamps and certs, failing because you don't "Think" it's safe other personal opinion is not an option that is going to keep you employed long.

My point is, applying force without certified testing equipment and being qualified to run that equipment and or preform the calculations and provided them in a report allows the inspector to question if it complies and request proof of compliance, if does not allow them to take a personal stand and just say I don't like it.

That leads to appeals and overturns, and from what I have seen to many of those leaves an inspector looking for another place to work and eventually looking into another career.

Interpretation is everything, but finding out what you don't like complies and just not approving it is not how the code and the law work.

You don't like what the code allows, then get it changed, but don't make it up as you go along.
Plumb-bob didn't even come close to stepping out of bounds. He fails to approve what should fail and you send him to the trash heap of lousy inspectors? If what he has described deserves bannishment, I should face a firing squad.
 
Top