mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
What was the bollard spacing for guardrails in the 95 Cabo edition. 92 was 6". I need to know if Cabo ever went to the 4" requirement.
-
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.
1995 CABO ?
- Thread starter mtlogcabin
- Start date
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Re: 1995 CABO ?
1992 Cabo R-214.2
Required guardrails on open sides of stairways, raised floor areas, balconies and porches shall have intermediate rails or ornamental closures which shall not allow passage of an object 6 inches or more in diameter. I thought his applied to the bollards
Horizontal spacing between the vertical members in required guardrails shall be a maximum of 4 inches at the nearest point between members. This would be the space from the floor to the bottom rail of the bollards. Am I correct or do I have it wrong. One requirement is a 6" diameter the other is a 4" measurment
1992 Cabo R-214.2
Required guardrails on open sides of stairways, raised floor areas, balconies and porches shall have intermediate rails or ornamental closures which shall not allow passage of an object 6 inches or more in diameter. I thought his applied to the bollards
Horizontal spacing between the vertical members in required guardrails shall be a maximum of 4 inches at the nearest point between members. This would be the space from the floor to the bottom rail of the bollards. Am I correct or do I have it wrong. One requirement is a 6" diameter the other is a 4" measurment
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Re: 1995 CABO ?
I agree my problem is home built under 95 Cabo which city inspected and child got caught between the bollards last week so the finger pointing has started. Rental duplex owned by an attorney.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Re: 1995 CABO ?
4" sphere and 6" sphere at the triangle cannot pass 1995 CABO 315.4 w/exception
4" sphere and 6" sphere at the triangle cannot pass 1995 CABO 315.4 w/exception
jpranch
REGISTERED
Re: 1995 CABO ?
Ah, CABO. The good old days. MT, I have CABO in my personal library back to 76. But it is still in boxes. CABO a long time ago was 6" spacing. I'll nail down the year tomorrow when they went to 4".
"Good thing it is an outdated code." I have to take exception to that. It was an excellent code written by all three of the model code organizations. SBCCI, BOCA, ICBO. Perscriptive in nature and a heck of a lot easyer to enforce.
Ah, CABO. The good old days. MT, I have CABO in my personal library back to 76. But it is still in boxes. CABO a long time ago was 6" spacing. I'll nail down the year tomorrow when they went to 4".
"Good thing it is an outdated code." I have to take exception to that. It was an excellent code written by all three of the model code organizations. SBCCI, BOCA, ICBO. Perscriptive in nature and a heck of a lot easyer to enforce.
incognito
Silver Member
Re: 1995 CABO ?
JP stated,
"Good thing it is an outdated code." I have to take exception to that. It was an excellent code written by all three of the model code organizations. SBCCI, BOCA, ICBO. Perscriptive in nature and a heck of a lot easyer to enforce.
I too started this job under CABO and preferred it to the combined thing we have now. BUT, the section being referenced by M&M and MT is confusing at best in the "92" edition.
JP stated,
"Good thing it is an outdated code." I have to take exception to that. It was an excellent code written by all three of the model code organizations. SBCCI, BOCA, ICBO. Perscriptive in nature and a heck of a lot easyer to enforce.
I too started this job under CABO and preferred it to the combined thing we have now. BUT, the section being referenced by M&M and MT is confusing at best in the "92" edition.
Paul Sweet
SAWHORSE
Re: 1995 CABO ?
The CABO code isn't outdated. The IRC is just the CABO code with a ton of seismic and hurricane requirements added.
The CABO code actually was tougher than the 2006 IRC. R312.2 now allows 4 3/8" clear between balusters, so that two tapered balusters can be used for each tread, instead of having to go to 3 balusters per tread.
The exception to allow a 6" sphere to pass below the bottom member of a stair rail is there because the bottom member would have to be below the nosing line to keep a 4" sphere from passing.
The CABO code isn't outdated. The IRC is just the CABO code with a ton of seismic and hurricane requirements added.
The CABO code actually was tougher than the 2006 IRC. R312.2 now allows 4 3/8" clear between balusters, so that two tapered balusters can be used for each tread, instead of having to go to 3 balusters per tread.
The exception to allow a 6" sphere to pass below the bottom member of a stair rail is there because the bottom member would have to be below the nosing line to keep a 4" sphere from passing.
Re: 1995 CABO ?
steveray already gave the correct answer, but here is the language verbatim.
315.4 Guardrail opening limitations.
Required guardrails on open sides of stairways, raised floor areas, balconies and porches shall have intermediate rails or ornamental closures which do not allow passage of an object 4 inches (102 mm) or more in diameter.
Exception: The triangular openings formed by the riser, tread and bottom rail of a guard at the open side of a stairway may be of such a size that a sphere 6 inches (153 mm) cannot pass through.
steveray already gave the correct answer, but here is the language verbatim.
315.4 Guardrail opening limitations.
Required guardrails on open sides of stairways, raised floor areas, balconies and porches shall have intermediate rails or ornamental closures which do not allow passage of an object 4 inches (102 mm) or more in diameter.
Exception: The triangular openings formed by the riser, tread and bottom rail of a guard at the open side of a stairway may be of such a size that a sphere 6 inches (153 mm) cannot pass through.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Re: 1995 CABO ?
Thanks every one. The bollards are in an interior stair and they exceed the 4" requirement but do not exceed the 4 3/8" allowed under today's code. Attorney (she devil with a tie) wants me to cite the contractor and make him replace the bollards at the CABO 4" requirement. :roll: Told her I could not cite him because it is code compliant under todays code but. Went away grumbling about the Building Department not wanting to do their job. Made my week
Thanks every one. The bollards are in an interior stair and they exceed the 4" requirement but do not exceed the 4 3/8" allowed under today's code. Attorney (she devil with a tie) wants me to cite the contractor and make him replace the bollards at the CABO 4" requirement. :roll: Told her I could not cite him because it is code compliant under todays code but. Went away grumbling about the Building Department not wanting to do their job. Made my week