Guardrail square tube as conduit?

[conarb]

Ice - If I am not mistaken' date=' the picture shows low voltage lighting.[/quote']I've put both low and high voltage in rails, in fact in the mid-70s I built a whole large home with all low voltage wiring.

Besides not being a listed conduit, I would be concerned that the insulation could be damaged at the welded connection. Just because the weld looks pretty on the outside doesn't mean it is smooth on the inside.

All kinds of things "could" happen, a comet could hit it, an elephant "could" walk on the deck and knock it over, more likely Robert is a "good" architect and if you tell him he can't run the wiring in the rail he'll eliminate the wall sconce altogether, some night someone "could" walk there, trip and fall because of the lack of light, end up a paraplegic and sue the AHJ for not allowing a practical way to install a light there, especially when everybody else has been doing it forever.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Conarb

I don't have a problem with the system in your picture. The lights are attached to the rail and part of a listed assembly.

The OP sounds like he wants to use a guardrail pipe as an electrical conduit feeding a fixture mounted on a wall. There would be no indication that the wire is inside a guardrail. Add some lights to the guardrail then no problem

 

[conarb]

I read a piece on Bloomberg View by Justin Fox this morning, it is about the high cost of housing and speaks to the costs of regulation, it made me think of this thread and the unreasonableness of the codes and inspection process, here are a few quotes:

The main barrier to housing construction in these places is local regulation -- zoning ordinances, environmental requirements, even affordable-housing rules. This problem has been getting a lot of attention lately.

That’s partly because restrictive zoning and overzealous building codes drive up the price. But it’s mostly because of the inherent cost of the basics: land, interest, materials, utilities.¹

Rules and regs cause most of the distortions. Once you take out land prices the rest is burdensome local governments. The Golden Gate bridge took 3 years, same for the Empire State Building and countless other projects back in and era of less regulation. All met their budgets. The same today takes decades and generally cost 3x as projected. Every house constructed in SF has to pay for about 30 other people paid to push paper. It takes years to get permits costing tens of thousands. Gut the process and streamline it nationwide and square foot prices will get a lot closer to $100.¹

You are the "burdensome local governments" the reader speaks of, in this instance a guy wants to run wiring in a perfectly safe "square conduit" when only a round conduit is approved, and you "go by the book" guys want to stop him, I'm old but remember the days when inspectors and contractors were friends and we all tried to help each other, I remember going to many inspector retirement parties and taking inspectors as my guests to home builder dinners. A few years ago a field inspector informed me that he was being rotated out of the district I where I was building, he told me his potential replacements were mostly good guys, but he told me there were two nit-pickers who delighted in turning contractors down then come back into the office and bragging to the other inspectors about what they were doing, he gave me their names, fortunately I got another good guy, at the end when I handed him the permit cards to sign off he asked: "Are you sure you want me to sign this, have you been paid yet?" I said: "No, but when you sign me off I get the last million dollars." He grabbed the cards asking: "Where do you want me to sign?" Another inspector told me during plan review when I was pushing limits: "I look at it like a speed limit, if the speed limit is 65 it is definitely all right to go 68, 70 is okay in most cases, 75 becomes questionable and 80 is definitely out."

¹ http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-18/what-makes-housing-too-expensive

 

[Robert]

The light fixture will be mounted directly to the vertical metal guardrail tube, just to clarify. It will be very obvious there is wiring inside as the fixture will be seen from both sides of the guardrail. For such a short run, maybe we can use a sheathed or armored cable. Will need a creative electrician and AHJ.

 

[rogerpa]

I read a piece on Bloomberg View by Justin Fox this morning, it is about the high cost of housing and speaks to the costs of regulation, it made me think of this thread and the unreasonableness of the codes and inspection process, here are a few quotes:

As I'm writing this the ICC is considering 2901 pages of proposed code changes for the 2018 code cycle. How can the code be so broken!!!?

 

[mark handler]

As stated time and time again we need to enforce the code, what it says and not for what we might think it should say/be. We cannot make up code

 

[conarb]

The light fixture will be mounted directly to the vertical metal guardrail tube' date=' just to clarify. It will be very obvious there is wiring inside as the fixture will be seen from both sides of the guardrail. For such a short run, maybe we can use a sheathed or armored cable. Will need a creative electrician and AHJ.[/quote']Robert:

I would just do it, at this point the square tube could be considered part of the fixture, yes not a UL approved fixture. In the past I can remember inspectors checking fixtures for UL labels but I don't see them checking fixtures anymore, probably because there are so many imported fixtures, I can remember back when they were checking an inspector looked up at a $90,000 antique Austrian crystal chandelier and asked: "What am I supposed to do about that?", I just smiled and said: "Nothing, you touch it, you own it.", and we continued to walk the house.

As I'm writing this the ICC is considering 2901 pages of proposed code changes for the 2018 code cycle. How can the code be so broken!!!?

Roger:

At this point it's is so broken that it needs to be completely rewritten from scratch, and I don't think the ICC is the agency that "can" do it. When they moved to Washington DC and rented "green" offices at three times the going rate it became obvious the fix was on.

 

[Msradell]

As I'm writing this the ICC is considering 2901 pages of proposed code changes for the 2018 code cycle. How can the code be so broken!!!?

The ICC in many of the other code ready organizations have gone completely off the deep end when it comes to code. We all recognize the need for building codes to keep homeowners as well as others safe but codes have become so complex that I doubt even the people who write them can understand them fully. They have so many small groups writing so many small sections without talking to each other that in many cases a portion of a construction project may be covered by multiple sections and each one is telling you something different! All building codes and many other codes such as the ADA need to be rewritten starting from scratch and they should look to make them as short as possible if that are making them something so huge that nobody can understand or interpret.

 

[conarb]

As I'm writing this the ICC is considering 2901 pages of proposed code changes for the 2018 code cycle. How can the code be so broken!!!?

The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus AD 79 - AD 117

 

[MASSDRIVER]

When you pay someone to write codes and regulations, they will oblige you. It is work never to be completed.

Brent.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I doubt even the people who write them can understand them fully

Anybody in the world can submit a code change. The codes as developed over the years have not been written by groups of people they have been written by individuals. Over the last 20 - 25 years we have had code changes submitted by various organizations with specific agendas and code officials voting on how they "feel" versus the facts.

 

[Msradell]

Anybody in the world can submit a code change. The codes as developed over the years have not been written by groups of people they have been written by individuals. Over the last 20 - 25 years we have had code changes submitted by various organizations with specific agendas and code officials voting on how they "feel" versus the facts.

The biggest problem is that things are continually added to the codes but nothing is ever removed! Thus the codes continue to grow and grow to the point that they are becoming totally ineffective at doing anything. Maybe one of these code cycles should go back to a clean sheet of paper and start over again!

 

[conarb]

The biggest problem is that things are continually added to the codes but nothing is ever removed! Thus the codes continue to grow and grow to the point that they are becoming totally ineffective at doing anything. Maybe one of these code cycles should go back to a clean sheet of paper and start over again!

An interesting thing to ponder, a state could throw out the entire code and adopt a new one. It almost happened here in California, in 2003 the Department of Building Standards voted unanimously to adopt the NFPA 5000 Building Code replacing the ICBO Codes, there were all kinds of allegations that the NFPA bribed the entire commission, Governor Gray Davis was recalled by the voters, the Commission tendered their resignations to the new Governor Schwarzeneggar, he accepted them and appointed a new Commission, the new Commission's first act was to rescind the adoption or the NFPA 5000 and adopt the latest versions of the ICC Codes.

I use this example of what could be done with these out-of-control codes, maybe we could write a new set of reasonable codes?

Picking up on this theme, Donald Trump has promised, if he's elected, to throw out all kinds of regulations and entire departments like the EPA, with the DOJ he won't throw it out but he'll most certainly appoint a new Attorney General who could throw out all ADA regulations written by that department, in that event the ADA law as passed by Congress would stand but the DOJ would have to write all new regulations, should that happen perhaps we could take the original law and write a reasonable set of simple regulations and present them to the DOJ for adoption. We'd then be in a position that the disability provisions of the ICC and state adopted disability provisions would be in conflict with federal law and they will have to be rewritten to conform with the new federal regulations.

A clean slate is possible but not probable, there are too many very wealthy criminal activist groups like hundreds of environmental and disability activist groups, they are litigation machines that make money settling every action they bring, they can also marshal rioters on the ground to protest, almost like foot soldiers.

 

[tmurray]

It took us 10 years to completely overhaul our codes. It's not an easy process, but very rewarding at the end. We endind up pulling out things like a requirement for a window in the living room and doors on bathrooms.

 

[mark handler]

The biggest problem is that things are continually added to the codes but nothing is ever removed! Thus the codes continue to grow and grow to the point that they are becoming totally ineffective at doing anything. Maybe one of these code cycles should go back to a clean sheet of paper and start over again!

Not totaly ccorrect. If you actually read the code you will see bars in the margins where text and complete sections have been removed.and in CA each state department or agency can include or exclude sections and chapters that do or do not pertain to that agency or department. There are sections that just pertain to one department jurisdictional projects. But that is CA.

many don't know, including inspectors, that just because something is written in the code it does not pertain to every project

BY THE WAY THESE NOTES DO NOT SHOW UP ON MOST ELECTRONIC VERSIONS of the code

 

[Paul Sweet]

I think more requirements are moved around to different sections of the code than actually removed.

After a few cycles they usually wind up back where they were, except they have doubled in size, and have exceptions to exceptions, so it's like saying "you can't not never do this".

 

[SCBO1]

When you pay someone to write codes and regulations, they will oblige you. It is work never to be completed.Brent.

The Brentster has something hear an example is:

Code use to be 4" spacing on the stair rail and guardrail, now its 4-3/8" because the new measurement allowed less spindles and saved someone $$$.

The 4-inch rule I've been told resembles a child's head. I guess we can throw that concept out!

 

[mtlogcabin]

The average length of full-term babies at birth is 20 in. (50 cm), although the normal range is 18 in. (45.7 cm) to 22 in. (60 cm). In the first month, babies typically grow 1.5 in. (4 cm) to 2 in. (5 cm).

Your baby's head will grow at its fastest rate during the first 4 months after birth than at any other time. This increase is due to rapid brain growth. The average head circumference at birth is about 13.5 in. (34.5 cm). By the end of the first month, it increases to about 15 in. (37.6 cm).

By the time they have the strength to crawl up a step the head has grown to 40 to 50 cm

 

[ICE]

The average length of full-term babies at birth is 20 in. (50 cm)' date=' although the normal range is 18 in. (45.7 cm) to 22 in. (60 cm). In the first month, babies typically grow 1.5 in. (4 cm) to 2 in. (5 cm).[/color']Your baby's head will grow at its fastest rate during the first 4 months after birth than at any other time. This increase is due to rapid brain growth. The average head circumference at birth is about 13.5 in. (34.5 cm). By the end of the first month, it increases to about 15 in. (37.6 cm).

How big is the kid's head when he is finally able to lift it? Way more little kids drown in toilets than expire on faulty stairs. The majority of the guardrails in use today are from another era. Dachshunds were dropping out of the sky chasing a butterfly but kids were safe.

 

[mark handler]

How big is the kid's head when he is finally able to lift it? Way more little kids drown in toilets than expire on faulty stairs. The majority of the guardrails in use today are from another era. Dachshunds were dropping out of the sky chasing a butterfly but kids were safe.

http://www.woollywormhead.com/sizing/

Priemie- mid ear to mid ear 5.75"

 

[tbz]

It seems book cover readers always forget to read the book.

First, 4" was pulled from the air when first proposed because it fit well for the 99% of the smallest head and body, they looked at and settled on reviewing the following, that when the average child can start crawling and get in to danger on raise living surfaces and balconies what can keep them in check, in most common situations.

The 4" is based on (2) balusters spaced less than 4" apart, set normally from floor to the underside of the top of the guard, thus the opening lets say is 3.875 wide by 34" high which brings up an area of aprox 131 sqr inches. Thus this area of opening is quite large, but proven to work for the intent.

When stair treads were allowed to be 9" and not 10" you could install 2 massed produced balusters to a step and comply, once you moved the stair size to 10" you now were forced for a 1/4" to add a baluster on each step and now do 3. and this was only at the top 1/3 of most wood spindles or simply only when setting balusters directly down to the step surface.

Upon presenting proper and complete information the 4-3/8" was vetted and approved in to the code for stairs.

Why, well stairs are a hazard alone, thus the additional opening size was presented and reviewed and produced that by the time a child was able to negotiate the stairs to place themselves in that location that the 99% would be protected with a 4-3/8" spacing.

But what people over look everyday is that a 6" square opening in a guard would still work, why you ask because the long height with the width is the issue creating a large space, not the 6 inches, that is why the 6" sphere is allowed on stair treads. The geometry works for 6" with tread and riser configurations, if the the T&R was proven to need 6.25" that would be the number because the Triangle shape and location limits the access and complies with the need for the intent.

Some of the overseas countries have specific shape sizes allowed within the design which are more than 100mm because in reality a 5" sphere opening is safe for a guard.

The 4" and 100mm sizes were settled on because of being easy reads under what has proven to be a good working number.

The 4" is not just based on the children heads alone, it is based on head and body, what good was allowing the body to pass and not the head?

The 4-3/8" opening exception allows people the choice without compromising the intent of the opening limitations duty, to stop fall through.

The fact of the matter is it really only comes in to play on 10" treads, when people go with larger treads or use 9" treads in those jurisdictions that modify to 9" the 4-3/8" just becomes a non-issue.

Sorry for the hijac - I am protective of that code change - Tom

Regards

 

[mark handler]

First, 4" was pulled from the air

Tom
I do not believe that justification was used by the ICC when making the code change. I will need to talk with the ICC.
And I do read the "BOOK"

 

[tbz]

Oh I forgot,

Never, ever run electrical lines through metal guards not designed to carry the cables from day one.

Example, guards and handrails with lighting built in to them.

Reasons are simple, when welding it produces sharp needle spikes in tubes that can cut wires and dig in , also the interior of the tubing was more than likely not prepared for the wire to run though so if seemed welded you have a rough burr many times in the square tube or even round tubes. Its only when they use pipe for the construction that the interior is looked at differently. (aluminum extruded materials would be another example of smooth interior)

Then you have the 90 degree bend more than likely producing a sharp edge like a razor for when pulling around it.

In simple terms if not specifically designed to be done from day one, I would not recommend it.

Tom

 

[tbz]

Tom
I do not believe that justification was used by the ICC when making the code change. I will need to talk with the ICC.
And I do read the "BOOK"

The 4" was done in the late 80's by Elliot, the 4" was a whole number under what was considered safe, thus pulled from the air.

It's not a magic number or a hair pin trigger, just a number that he used to justify the reduction that was needed from the more common 6" spacing being used at the time widely.

That reduction to the 4" from the 6" has seen great reduction, the studies published show and the Injury safety data shows it.

The CTC reviewed all that same information and you can more than likely find all that information on the committees website including Elliots work on the ICC website along with the rest of the information for the climbable guards study.