-
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.
2006 IRC Appendix G
- Thread starter ccbuilding
- Start date
tbz
SAWHORSE
RK,
ASTM F1346 I am pretty sure covers manual covers for spas'
NJ has been using the IRC since the 2000 Publication and have always adopted appendix "G" and I see spa's and hot tubs going in all the time with just locked manual safety covers and no fencing.
I don't believe the fence, I mean barrier is required to be fencing as the locked safety cover performs this function.
Though, I have never seen anyone lock them after the inspection was completed.
ASTM F1346 I am pretty sure covers manual covers for spas'
NJ has been using the IRC since the 2000 Publication and have always adopted appendix "G" and I see spa's and hot tubs going in all the time with just locked manual safety covers and no fencing.
I don't believe the fence, I mean barrier is required to be fencing as the locked safety cover performs this function.
Though, I have never seen anyone lock them after the inspection was completed.
tbz
SAWHORSE
Mark,mark handler said:Theres always a fix. You need to increase the height, but this fixes the veiw issue
I am not sure that the picture you posted meets the building code.
Here is my reason,
The top of a guard is required to meet a 200 lb point load, and both the IBC & IRC require glass within a guard to meet a 4 times safety factor.
Thus I would like to know how the top edge of that glass could take a 800 lb point load?
Just my thought on the issue.
The powered safety cover on a pool exempts you from the alarm-on-the-doors provision in Section AG105.2(9) only.
The safety cover on spas and hot tops exempts you from Section AG105 entirely.
Do they even make a powered safety cover for spas/hot tubs?
The safety cover on spas and hot tops exempts you from Section AG105 entirely.
Do they even make a powered safety cover for spas/hot tubs?
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Yes, see attached.tbz said:
http://www.glassmagazine.com/article/retail/a-code-contradiction
But there is a fix for that. add a rail at 42"
tbz
SAWHORSE
Yep I am very aware of Tony's writings and as shown in your pic, the guard does not comply without a top bar of some sort or as tony calls it "the guard".mark handler said:
Known Tony since the 70's, great person, by the way for all you architects and designers out there.
The Wagner Companies will come and provide training classes (CEU) if you have a group and I don't believe they charge.
They have a few programs they lecture on,
Not sure if their classes are approved for CEU's by the ICC for the inspectors on the board....
Tom,
I found this at Tony's website: "Guardrails have a minimum height requirement of 42 inches above the walking surface in commercial applications and 36 inches in residential applications." Be a friend and let him know about the mistake.
I found this at Tony's website: "Guardrails have a minimum height requirement of 42 inches above the walking surface in commercial applications and 36 inches in residential applications." Be a friend and let him know about the mistake.
2009 IRC "R312.2 Height. Required guards at open-sided walking surfaces,
including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be
not less than 36 inches (914 mm) high measured vertically
above the adjacent walking surface, adjacent fixed seating or
the line connecting the leading edges of the treads."
2009 IBC "1013.2 Height. Required guards shall be not less than 42
inches (1067 mm) high, measured vertically above the adjacent
walking surfaces, adjacent fixed seating or the line connecting
the leading edges of the treads."
Where's the problem?
including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be
not less than 36 inches (914 mm) high measured vertically
above the adjacent walking surface, adjacent fixed seating or
the line connecting the leading edges of the treads."
2009 IBC "1013.2 Height. Required guards shall be not less than 42
inches (1067 mm) high, measured vertically above the adjacent
walking surfaces, adjacent fixed seating or the line connecting
the leading edges of the treads."
Where's the problem?
Well it must be a California amendment because it's 42" here. This is the second time in a few days that a CA amendment has left me looking dumb. I think I'll look for a CA forum.
2009 IRC "R312.2 Height. Required guards at open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) high measured vertically above the adjacent walking surface, adjacent fixed seating or the line connecting the leading edges of the treads.
Exceptions:
1. Guards on the open sides of stairs shall have a height not less than 34 inches (864 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges of the treads.
2. Where the top of the guard also serves as a handrail on the open sides of stairs, the top of the guard shall not be not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges of the treads."
2009 IRC "R312.2 Height. Required guards at open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) high measured vertically above the adjacent walking surface, adjacent fixed seating or the line connecting the leading edges of the treads.
Exceptions:
1. Guards on the open sides of stairs shall have a height not less than 34 inches (864 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges of the treads.
2. Where the top of the guard also serves as a handrail on the open sides of stairs, the top of the guard shall not be not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the leading edges of the treads."
Last edited by a moderator:
mark handler
SAWHORSE
"...not less than...."
42" complies with both.
42" complies with both.
tbz
SAWHORSE
ICE,
Yep 42" all the way is a CA amendment. Knowing the local code is your job, knowing everything is not possible and why we use this forum.
Don't sweat the amendments, from the pictures you post, you have enough to deal with.
Yep 42" all the way is a CA amendment. Knowing the local code is your job, knowing everything is not possible and why we use this forum.
Don't sweat the amendments, from the pictures you post, you have enough to deal with.
Tom, you also may want to let Tony know that O'Hare is in Chicago and Chicago does not adopt the I-codes...they write their own.tbz said:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicagobuilding/buildingcodeandrelatedexcerptsofthemunic?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicagobuilding_il
tbz
SAWHORSE
TJ,
That is not the only place IL does funky things I guess.
Thanks for the information.
That is not the only place IL does funky things I guess.
Thanks for the information.
tonyleto
Member
Thanks TJ.
Is O'Hare covered under Chicago code even though it's in Rosemont? I looked through your link and haven't been able to find their code definition on guard. Do they not have similar wording to the ICC regarding the 200 lb concentrated load at the top of a guard (with a 4x safety factor)?
Everything I know about building codes I learned from TBZ so I blame him for the holes in my knowledge.
There was an update to that article this past year at http://www.wagnercompanies.com/domains/wagnercompanies/files/pdf/GlassRailTop.pdf
I have seen a large number of railing systems that have been introduced similar to the photo above using 1/4" and 3/8" glass. They are being promoted for being a system with no top rail. Their justification is that it is a post system and the glass is an infill and therefore only needs to meet the 50 lb/sq ft requirement. But the code clearly states that the guard must meet a load of 200 lbs concentrated or 50 lbs/ft uniform at the top of the guard. Top of the guard is glass and thin glass just won't meet the load requirement when the safety factor is applied. This past summer there were numerous cases of glass railing failures in Canada and the US. Providing safe glass railing systems is going to be a primary concern with these installs going forward.
Info on the glass railing failures can be seen here: http://www.usglassmag.com/digital/2011/Oct2011.pdf the article appears on page 32.
Is O'Hare covered under Chicago code even though it's in Rosemont? I looked through your link and haven't been able to find their code definition on guard. Do they not have similar wording to the ICC regarding the 200 lb concentrated load at the top of a guard (with a 4x safety factor)?
Everything I know about building codes I learned from TBZ so I blame him for the holes in my knowledge.
There was an update to that article this past year at http://www.wagnercompanies.com/domains/wagnercompanies/files/pdf/GlassRailTop.pdf
I have seen a large number of railing systems that have been introduced similar to the photo above using 1/4" and 3/8" glass. They are being promoted for being a system with no top rail. Their justification is that it is a post system and the glass is an infill and therefore only needs to meet the 50 lb/sq ft requirement. But the code clearly states that the guard must meet a load of 200 lbs concentrated or 50 lbs/ft uniform at the top of the guard. Top of the guard is glass and thin glass just won't meet the load requirement when the safety factor is applied. This past summer there were numerous cases of glass railing failures in Canada and the US. Providing safe glass railing systems is going to be a primary concern with these installs going forward.
Info on the glass railing failures can be seen here: http://www.usglassmag.com/digital/2011/Oct2011.pdf the article appears on page 32.