• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

1013.5 mech equip guards

rktect 1

rktect 1

SILVER MEMBER
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,165
Location
Illinois
We had a rooftop unit installed on an existing single story structure which has no parapet. The appliance is located within 10 feet of the edge so we told them they need to put up a guard. The guard they are proposing is the one I have the link to below. This guard system is free standing but as I read 1013.1 it states that guards shall be adequate in strength and attachment in accordance with 1607.7 But this section, and I am not 100% certain, seems to want the guard system to be attached. The manufacturere is willing to provide the documentation for all the loading requirements but no attachment.

Any thoughts? The one that keeps going through my head is that these are made for temporary work conditions and not for permenant purposes. Plus these great big plates and tubes sticking out seem like trip hazards to me.

http://www.keesafety.com/solutions/Roof_Edge_Protection
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have not looked into this specific system, but there are systems that look "portable" but are allowed to be used for the guardrail system. It needs to pass the load criteria. There is nothing in the code that says the guards have to be "attached" to the building structure. The code only specifies design loads. I think I would take some photos and put them in the file so you have some cover if the system is removed in the future.
 
The system prevents "penitrations" of the roof membrane. That is a good thing.

Meets the code intent if it withstands the imposed loads.
 
* * *

rktekt 1,

Section 1607.7.1.1 - CONCENTRATED LOAD: "Handrail assemblies and guards shall

be able to resist a single concentrated load of 200 pounds (0.89 kN), applied in any

direction at any point along the top, and have attachment devices and supporting

structure to transfer this loading to appropriate structural elements of the

building. This load need not be assumed to act concurrently with the loads

specified in the preceding paragraph."



* * *
 
Copied;

Our KeeGuard Roof Edge Railing System is a counterweighted guardrail system with 42" minimum. The system can withstand a minimum load of 200 lbs. in any direction to all components per OSHA Regulation 29 CFR 1910.23.
 
north star said:
* * *rktekt 1,

Section 1607.7.1.1 - CONCENTRATED LOAD: "Handrail assemblies and guards shall

be able to resist a single concentrated load of 200 pounds (0.89 kN), applied in any

direction at any point along the top, and have attachment devices and supporting

structure to transfer this loading to appropriate structural elements of the

building. This load need not be assumed to act concurrently with the loads

specified in the preceding paragraph."



* * *
Click to expand...
That was the part I was worried about.
 
If this was attached to the structure in such a manner to hold it in place, would you approve it?

I foresee where this type of railing would have to be removed and re-installed for re-roofing.
 
Is this being installed permanently, so that it is present when the HVAC service tech arrives to service a roof top unit?
 
The advantage of these types of systems is that they do not require penetration of the roof membrane and the subsequent water problems that could cause. If the system meets the performance requirements of the code, I would not get hung up on the "attached" wording. Of course, someone could remove the system in the future, but I have seen fixed guardrails cut off because the owner did not like how they looked on the roof. You can't always fix stupid.
 
mtlogcabin

There’s nothing wrong in my opinion; however the next inspector years down the road may not have a clue about the type of guard that was approved before the reroofing inspection. Hopefully it will still be there as it was before; I’m obliquely making the same point as Coug Dad. Thought I put it out there see what others think!
 
mark handler said:
The concern would be the owner removing them and not replacing them.
Click to expand...
And as we all know, that is well out of our hands. Even if they are anchored, they can still be removed. I would say that if you are comfortable with them supporting the required loads, pass them and move on. Obtain and retain documentation of what you approved. JMHO
 
= = =

Section 1607.7.1.1 seems pretty clear! Have all guardrails attached

to the building structure.



= = =
 
* * *

From Mark H.:

We know that, it can be approved through Alternate Means and Methods
Click to expand...
The DP has valid concerns.

That was the part I was worried about.
Click to expand...
Why not default spec. to the ' letter ' of the code? Let the AHJ decide whether or not to

use "Alternate Means and Methods".

* * *
 
Last edited by a moderator:
north star said:
* * *From Mark H.:

The DP has valid concerns.

Why not default spec. to the ' letter ' of the code? Let the AHJ decide whether or not to

use "Alternate Means and Methods".

* * *
Click to expand...
We didn't write the spec, preaching to the chorus
 
Is this just happening to me?

Has anybody else, in the last three years, seen this?

Because I now have the same situation where we have a mechanical piece of equipment on the roof within ten feet of the edge and this is the solution to their problem.

We are still on the 2006 IBC but I went to the 2012 IBC just to see if it reads the same and it does not mention attachment to the structure.

Did they remove this section? We will be adopting the 2012 IBC within a few months.
 
2006

1607.7.1.1 Concentrated load.

Handrail assemblies and guards shall be able to resist a single concentrated load of 200 pounds (0.89 kN), applied in any direction at any point along the top, and have attachment devices and supporting structure to transfer this loading to appropriate structural elements of the building. This load need not be assumed to act concurrently with the loads specified in the preceding paragraph.

2009

1607.7.1.1 Concentrated load. Handrails and guards shall be able to resist a single concentrated load of 200 pounds (0.89 kN), applied in any direction at any point along the top, and to transfer this load through the supports to the structure. This load need not be assumed to act concurrently with the loads specified in Section 1607.7.1.

2012

1607.8.1 Handrails and guards.

Handrails and guards shall be designed to resist a linear load of 50 pounds per linear foot (plf) (0.73 kN/m) in accordance with Section 4.5.1 of ASCE 7. Glass handrail assemblies and guards shall also comply with Section 2407.

1607.8.1.1 Concentrated load.

Handrails and guards shall also be designed to resist a concentrated load of 200 pounds (0.89 kN) in accordance with Section 4.5.1 of ASCE 7.
 
north star said:
* * *rktekt 1,

Section 1607.7.1.1 - CONCENTRATED LOAD: "Handrail assemblies and guards shall

be able to resist a single concentrated load of 200 pounds (0.89 kN), applied in any

direction at any point along the top, and have attachment devices and supporting

structure to transfer this loading to appropriate structural elements of the

building. This load need not be assumed to act concurrently with the loads

specified in the preceding paragraph."



* * *
Click to expand...
I would question the companies view first, they only note meeting OSHA requirements, if they felt it also met ICC codes for guard protection on mechanical equipment why would they not advertise it.

Though if it can withstand 200lb point loads without attachment, what are the requirements for uplift requirements because the building code requires the 200 lb load in any direction.

How do you define along the top?

Does this mean you can apply the load to the side of the top part of the guard?

Or does it mean a 200 lb point load only along the top portion of the top of the guard?

And if we look at ICC-ES AC-273 for testing they have you applying the load at a 45 degree up angle on the 7 to 8 o'clock portion of the top horizontal of the guard, thus if we assume that it also needs to hold with this type of load test, then one would have to assume that it also needs to stay in place with an upload force of 200lb.

Without attachment I question (2) 90lb weights holding down a 200lb point load from displacement?

Just my thought on the matter
 
Make them move the equipment....but give them the option to place a permanent guard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top