I am designing a ramp that rises only 15" to the entrance. My understanding is that for this rise (less than 30"), guardrails are NOT required; only handrails are required with edge protection. However, for aesthetics, I want to put in balusters at 6" spacing. I know that if a guardrail was required (which it is not here), that the clear spacing must not exceed 4". So, can I install the balusters at 6" spacing in this case?
-
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
ADA ramp balusters
- Thread starter Joool
- Start date
Inspector Gift
Sawhorse - Made in USA
Yes.
instantmessenger
Registered User
Yes you are allowed, but you might want to show them at 12" and label as "decorative". They might be concerned about trapping a kids head in there. My little ones do some "interesting" things at times.
tbz
Silver Member
1st off do not label them anything other than a handrail, and foot note below the edge protection on whatever you are using to form the protection.
As to the infill, if you note it as anything, I suggest (NON-REQUIRED ORNAMENTAL INFILL)
Don't list anything as a guard, especially "Guardrail" as those are found on highways not inside buildings unless you are in a parking garage...
just my 2 cents
instantmessenger
Registered User
Guardrails are both inside and outside of buildings and are located 42" min height, when required. Guardrails are sometimes referred to as secondary handrails. Handrails are located 34" to 38" height, when required. Ornamental and decorative are pretty much the same thing.
tbz
Silver Member
Guardrails are not required by model ICC code(s) for ramps, guardrails are for highways and parking garages to stop vehicles, the model code requires GUARDS for elevated open sided walking surfaces.
Terminology is everything within the codes.
instantmessenger
Registered User
Context is important, I would ague more-so than exact terminology. Refer to: 201.4 Terms Not Defined - Where terms are not defined through the methods authorized by this section, such terms shall have ordinarily accepted meanings such as the context implies. As I was saying, guardrails, guard-rails, or guards are required per ICC in several instances. Refer to 1015 for the exact context.
I don't think anyone was talking about parking garages, highways, or vehicles.
I don't think anyone was talking about parking garages, highways, or vehicles.
ADAguy
Registered User
Semantics are what the "suits" like to pick apart, be wary of the words you chose to use.
tbz
Silver Member
The issue is all about the wording, very much so, because the OP is talking about ramp handrails, edge protection and non-required guards.
By interjecting in "slang" and assuming the correct terms are being understood is a large issue of what I get paid to untwine each day, when they say one thing and mean another.
The fact that railing is a generalized term and people use guardrail to mean handrails and so on and so forth, at a minimum those of us that work with the code and cite the code professionally, should be at least expected to and using the correct defined terms and not slang.
So, context is everything and to shrug it off as what's the problem, for what is considered a life safety portion within the building envelope, I personally do take an offense to.
It's bad enough that architects, engineers and designers label and note drawings incorrectly, and plan reviewers just overlook it.
But to actually say it's ok to use the wrong defined terms, and think it's correct, well we will have to agree to disagree. No offense.
tbz
Silver Member
re-read the op, the question is for ADA and ramps and does not have a rise that reaches 30-inches of fall, thus first ADA does not require guards and second the IBC does not require a guard when not over 30-in.
If you are looking to install a handrail with ornamental large openings under the handrail, don't label it as a guard is the point.
Not saying don't call a required guard a guard, I am saying don't call a handrail a guard, and don't call a guard a guardrail.
I understand a guard is not required in this situation. The original post acknowledged this.
I'm talking generally here. I agree the code language is guard, which is a broader definition than guardrail.
Suppose there there was a situation that did require a guard. If the guard was designed in the form of a rail, you could correctly label it as a guardrail because that's what it is. You wouldn't label it as "code-required guardrail", as the code doesn't say which form the guard needs to be, but a guardrail is still a valid compliance method to meet guard requirements.
tbz
Silver Member
nope, the correct label would be guard system.
The code is the code, not what you think it is, the IRC & IBC require guards. The structural loads require the loads to transfer through the guard system.
Don't change the name to what you think it is, just like the code does not require guards to have posts. The code does not care how you secure it with or without posts, it cares that the structure holds it in place and anything below the top of the guard is infill.
The problem with your thinking is you are putting a label on it that is not defined to a specific section of the code and expecting those reading it to interpret your thoughts. Why complicate things and try to justify using undefined terms in conjunction, that are not within the code language.
The code states
If you want rails in the guard, then the guard will be constructed by the following system of interconnecting rails.
Keep making up stuff in a world that keeps wanting specifics is a rabbit hole with meeting an unpleasant destiny.
The code is the code, not what you think it is, the IRC & IBC require guards. The structural loads require the loads to transfer through the guard system.
Don't change the name to what you think it is, just like the code does not require guards to have posts. The code does not care how you secure it with or without posts, it cares that the structure holds it in place and anything below the top of the guard is infill.
The problem with your thinking is you are putting a label on it that is not defined to a specific section of the code and expecting those reading it to interpret your thoughts. Why complicate things and try to justify using undefined terms in conjunction, that are not within the code language.
The code states
- A guard is a guard period
- Can be required or not (2 different labels)
- A handrail is a handrail period
- Can be required or not (2 different labels)
- Edge protection is edge protection period
- required for ramps with a rise over....
- Infill is infill period
- Infill can be required or not required
- Required, when a guard is required
- Not require for non-required guards
- Never required in handrails
- Infill can be required or not required
If you want rails in the guard, then the guard will be constructed by the following system of interconnecting rails.
Keep making up stuff in a world that keeps wanting specifics is a rabbit hole with meeting an unpleasant destiny.
TBZ’s point is … if you're having a conversation you can call it a guard or a rail or whatever it takes to get your point across. But if you need to tell someone in writing that they didn’t meet code, you need to use code language.
instantmessenger
Registered User
Again, this actually is in the code. And the answer is D all of the above.
Definitions section 201.4
Definitions section 201.4