• 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.

Catch all in chapter 1

tbz

tbz

SAWHORSE
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
1,391
Location
PA/NJ - Borderlands
Good afternoon everyone,

I know it exists, just not sure were it is, but here is what I am looking for.

Let me state this is not my work, but a member of my association out west.

The guard is installed, it moves when you lean on it.

The engineer stamp it, the height is correct, opening sizes are good but it has a shimmy.

The inspector is claiming its not safe and is not signing off on it,

For the record I don't blame the inspector, however they won't cite a violation number and just notes fails for being unsafe.

Now that you have gotten yourself back up from the floor, could you give me a little direction.

Thank you
 
Tom, the top of the guard has to be able to resist a load 50 lb. plf in any direction at the top and be able to transfer the load to the structure. It should be in the engineering calcs if the engineer did their job.
 
I fully understand the limits of 1013 and 1607 and always look at 1604.3 also,

Beyond strength resistance requirements, the 2006 IBC, Section 1604.3 addresses the serviceability requirements of structural members. According to Section 1604.3 Serviceability, “Structural systems and members thereof shall be designed to have adequate stiffness to limit deflections and lateral drift.” According to Section 1604.3.6 Limits, “Deflection of structural members over span, L, shall not exceed that permitted by Table 1604.3.”
Click to expand...
section quoted from an article by Matthew T. Blackmer, M.S.C.E., P.E. of PIE Forensic ConsultantsHowever, I am looking for the section of the code were it simply states and gives the AHJ the authority when something does not seem safe to flag it. I am missing something here and yes part of it is my mind.

I know it is there or someone is spiking my Ice Tea's

Tom
 
A code section that permits an inspector to turn something down because it doesn't seem right? In Oregon we are required to cite code sections for any correction we write. Don't know of a code section that vague and ambiguous. Is this the section you were looking for? It's the only one I found that they could be using.

SECTION 115

STOP WORK ORDER

115.1 Authority. Whenever the building official finds any

work regulated by this code being performed in a manner either

contrary to the provisions of this code or dangerous or unsafe,

the building official is authorized to issue a stop work order.
 
HD,

The more I look the more I get frustrated.

This might be one of those things that was added when one of the AHJ we do work in scratched CH1 and replaced with there own which is what I am leaning towards.

But that is the closest thing I have found also.

Thank you for the effort.
 
I do not believe that there is any definitive deflection criteria in the code for guardrails. The strength is well defined and the adequacy could be established either by calculations or by testing. It would have to be very flexible before I would say that a railing was unsafe.

It appears that the inspector has overstepped his authority.
 
If it the engineer addressed the loading criteria and it was installed per the engineering, I don't see how the inspector can disapprove it. I agree with Mark K.
 
Define "shimmy".

Maybe okay on a guardrail, but dangerous on a handrail . . . might cause a mis-step.

Need more information besides the stamp, height and opening sizes. Are the points of attachment properly executed?

You said that you don't blame the inspector. Does this mean that you agree with the inspector that the guardrail appears dangerous, seems dangerous, feels dangerous?
 
not ok on a guardrail either... soooooooo the owner wants to discuss and leans against said guardrail.. boom.. backwards he goes.. (well, ok I was right).. I think chapter 16 is where you want to look.
 
A careful look at Chapter 16 has not uncovered deflection criteria for guard rails.

I might suggest that a strong but flexible guard rail might even be safer. When individuals feel the railing move they will tend to step back. If somebody falls against the railing it will be the strength and not the stiffness that will determine the outcome.
 
OP asked:

However, I am looking for the section of the code were it simply states and gives the AHJ the authority when something does not seem safe to flag it. I am missing something here and yes part of it is my mind.
Click to expand...
I believe this is the only area where one could use that tactic ........ Section 115 of 06 or 116 of 09/Unsafe Structures and Equipment
 
I would argue that Section 116 applies to buildings that fail to comply with the code for some reason. Otherwise this could be construed to allow the building official to impose new requirements without the affected party being provided with due process.

If the building official believes that a building that complies with the building code is unsafe I would recommend that he ge legal advice prior to citing the building as unsafe since the owner may have some interesting claims against the jurisdiction.

Any building official who rejects a flexible guard rail is sticking his neck out unnecessarily.
 
FM,

You hit the home run, just what I was looking for.

SECTION 115 UNSAFE STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT 115.1 Conditions.

Structures or existing equipment that are or hereafter become unsafe, insanitary or deficient because of inadequate means of egress facilities, inadequate light and ventilation, or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare, or that involve illegal or improper occupancy or inadequate maintenance, shall be deemed an unsafe condition. Unsafe structures shall be taken down and removed or made safe, as the building official deems necessary and as provided for in this section. A vacant structure that is not secured against entry shall be deemed unsafe.
Click to expand...
Thanks everyone,

Again not my project, we have members all the time that get in to this pickle with custom designed guards that are designed for look and to just pass. Not by the members but the design agent and CLIENT.

This comes up a good bit with cable infill on guards and the 4" sphere also.

Mark,

As for deflection criteria, I am not one to split hairs over certain things and though the building code may not cover this, ASTM 935 & 985 cover deflection and infill spreading. To have an industry ASTM standard for these items and not have them in the code, well one could say is an oxymornon, I tend to just say simply build a quality good product that exceeds the base requirements an be ahead of the curve.... ;)
 
I am not objecting to the use of ASTM E935 and E985 by the design professional to define good practice but they are not in the code and thus cannot be mandated by the building official. If you believe that there is a need for deflection requirements for guardrails then propose a code change.

If we look closely we will find a lot of other situations where there is no mandated deflection criteria. At the same time I am hearing about how it is wrong for the code to not address a problem I am hearing others complain about the size of the code and the number of code changes. Is there a balance?
 
I failed a railing once based on the deflection I felt. I couldn't visually verify the connection as it was covered and the description of the connection provided by the builder sounded both non-standard and not adequate. I required an engineers assessment (which failed) and then an engineered solution (which passed).
 
But if it meets minimum code, and there is documentation to prove it how can you say it is unsafe???

Even if it has shimmy??

Judge Judy I turned it down because it had shimmy

Did it meet code

Yes

Are you some type of engineer

No

Wel then appears you are not prepared for court , case dismissed
 
AS most of you know inspectors come in all shorts of opinions, with that said putting a stall on a project will often get questionable compliant items changed rather than delay the C/O.

AS you know many will just give in rather than say they are correct.

An example recently.

South Central PA,

Inspector was failing an IRC residential guard on stairs with handrail on top because the 1/2" x 2" flat bar was on top of another flat bar 1/2" x 1" sitting on top of balusters.

The inspector was stating that the double stacked flatbar ment it was a type II and did not comply with type II, insisted that it was not a type I which it was.

Well this project would have required a few hundred feet to be replaced,

The builder simply said to the fabricator rip it all out you can't be right the inspector said so.

2 days and an interp from the ICC later and both the inspector and the builder were able to now see that this is allowed. From what I heard the inspector had others before this remove and replace on smaller projects and it must of been simpler for the builder to just change it.

So the long point to my short question is just because you are right does not mean much sometimes.

Cheer up FM the advertisers will not let it go just 4.
 
I think you have another catch all

202 Definition APPROVED. Acceptable to the code official or authority having jurisdiction.

One I don't like to use without some serious backup.

and yes I have dissaproved stamped signed professionally (sic) prepared calculations; cause believe it or not those guys, sometimes, get it WRONG

When you look at loading on guards and rails the loads are 50 pounds PER LINEAR foot and 200 Pounds Concentrated (Point applied)

the 50 PLF load is to be applied in ANY and ALL Directios. Up, Down, Out, In, Sideways, angular, radial for the entire length of the system.

the most common math error the DP's make when submitting is say for example a 24 foot rail of three 8 foot segments they analyze the 8 foot segment.

1607 says for the entire (24ft) length

MAKES BIG DIFFERENCE so be suspicious
 
tbz:

Civility calls for an assumption that the code official has the authority to make an interpretation, even if it is a wrong one, which can be established through the appeals process.

Sometimes, the appeals process can be as informal as talking it over or getting a second opinion from someone having the authority that comes with having knowledge, or position.

In the case you describe, the builder made a choice not to wait on the process.

Why does it take two days to get an interpretation?

Why didn't the builder wait two days before making the "short of opinion" made to tear it out?

Because time is money in the construction industry, or, because of unnecessary haste and the "sport" of degrading inspectors?

Sometimes inspectors catch things needing to be caught. Has that ever happened in a way that was beneficial to you?

We all inspect our own work, and the work of others, in this industry. I never met a single person or entity that was beyong making a mistake, though some are much more competent than others.

The problem with inspecting, is that inspectors frequenty do not have time to review and correct thier mistakes before affecting someone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top