• 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.

Guard Rail Glass Code

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sea Tech Guy
  • Start date Start date
S

Sea Tech Guy

Guest
I am trying to Final my home as its been 3 years since we reached substantial completion and the builder is slow (moved on to other projects) and our contact at the architects is no longer there. I called for a final inspection myself and the inspector told me that our "guard rail glass needs a baluster type support at both ends of glass"

He referenced SBC 2407.1.2 Support. which says "Each handrail or guard section shall be supported by a minimum of three glass balusters or shall be otherwise supported to remain in place should one baluster panel fail. Glass balusters shall not be installed with- out an attached handrail or guard. Exception: A top rail shall not be required where the glass balusters are laminated glass with two or more glass plies of equal thickness and the same glass type when approved by the building official. The panels shall be designed to withstand the loads specified in Section 1607.8."

Our glass is tempered / laminated so no top rail is needed and is supported by multiple CRL stand-offs. Does anyone have any idea on what the inspector is requiring of us. Is he accurate with his requirement that a support is needed on the ends (part of me thinks perhaps not). Help please?

Photos of the project can be found here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uk0ebvrnpfhob7c/IMG_6129.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/n7l3aq4fmxo82pa/IMG_6127.jpg

Thank you for your help.
 
@ = @


Sea Tech Guy,

Welcome to The Building Codes Forum ! :cool:

So that we can assist you, what is the applicable
Building Code you are using ?.......Also, what is
"SBC 2407.1.2 - Support" ?

Thanks !


@ = @
 
Sea Tech:

Looks like you have a beautiful home, probably built to well above code standards, in most cases like this AHJs will look the other way when encountering conflicting code standards, this is a well known problem. I have to wonder why your home was built to the IBC standards instead of residential standards?

Glass Magazine said:
IBC 2407.1.2: Support. Each handrail or guard section shall be supported by a minimum of three glass balusters or shall be supported to remain in place should one baluster panel fail. Glass balusters shall not be installed without an attached handrail or guard.

The intent of the code was to protect the public in the event of an individual panel's failure. Should one lite of glass fail and vacate the opening, a minimum of two panels would remain in place to hold the “attached handrail or guard” and thereby assist in preventing falls.

The ICC requires guards in areas where there is a minimum drop—generally 30 inches—on one side. Guardrails have a minimum height requirement of 42 inches above the walking surface in commercial applications and 36 inches in residential applications. Handrail is required on stairs and is located between 34 and 38 inches. If a stair meets the minimum drop as noted in the code, then a guard with a handrail is required.

This problem begins with the interpretation of the phrase: glass balusters shall not be installed without an attached handrail or guard. Many installers, designers and inspectors are taking this sentence to indicate that as long as a handrail is in place, the code has been met.¹
Click to expand...

I'd take a copy of this article to the CBO and ask him to waive the requirement do to the conflict, should he refuse I'd ask him for the papers to file an appeal.

Questions:
  1. Where are you located?
  2. Are you living in the house?
  3. Are the utilities hooked up?
  4. Why do you want/need a final inspection? AHJs want finals to get you on the tax rolls, you don't need a final unless they hold utility hookups over your head.

¹ http://glassmagazine.com/article/retail/a-code-contradiction
 
Last edited:
Seattle??

Maybe do not use IRC??

conarb said:
Sea Tech:

Looks like you have a beautiful home, probably built to well above code standards, in most cases like this AHJs will look the other way when encountering conflicting code standards, this is a well known problem. I have to wonder why your home was built to the IBC standards instead of residential standards?



I'd take a copy of this article to the CBO and ask him to waive the requirement do to the conflict, should he refuse I'd ask him for the papers to file an appeal.

Questions:
  1. Where are you located?
  2. Are you living in the house?
  3. Are the utilities hooked up?
  4. Why do you want/need a final inspection? AHJs want finals to get you on the tax rolls, you don't need a final unless they hold utility hookups over your head.

¹ http://glassmagazine.com/article/retail/a-code-contradiction
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I am in Seattle. We have the Seattle building code.

That wagner article, page 3, second picture looks pretty much like what I have except mine is supported by CRL standoffs instead of having the whole bottom as a rail... and mine is a single piece of glass (not 3 separate pieces).
 
opinions on if the inspector is clearly incorrect here, or if its a code contradiction problem and could be interpreted multiple ways, and what the potential fix may involve if the inspector requires it. Usually I'm pretty good at reading this stuff and understanding it... but I don't understand this whole guard / top rail / hand rail / glass ballusters part of the code. Very confusing.

Thank you!
 
The intent of the code was to protect the public in the event of an individual panel's failure. Should one lite of glass fail and vacate the opening, a minimum of two panels would remain in place to hold the “attached handrail or guard” and thereby assist in preventing falls.
 
That is part of where my confusion lies. Does that mean that I need to replace the existing single tempered / laminated glass with 3 separate pieces of equal size. Then again, I don't have a handrail or top rail as I have a tempered / piece. Thanks everyone for the help.
 
Is a Guard Rail required?
Yes.
IBC1607.7 clearly states that the load must be met by the top of the guard (42 inches).
Glass balusters will not be able to meet the concentrated load without an attached guard rail.

Most restrictive code section applies.
 
But I have a stamped letter from my structural engineer saying that "The interior tempered / laminated glass is adequate for support of a 200 lb point load applied at the top of the guardrail section.".
 
Sea Tech Guy said:
But I have a stamped letter from my structural engineer saying that "The interior tempered / laminated glass is adequate for support of a 200 lb point load applied at the top of the guardrail section.".
Click to expand...

Sea Tech:

Don't listen to these guys, if the AHJ won't approve it appeal, you will win, if you don't hire an attorney and sue them (BTW, I am a contractor and not a government employee, but I do have a law degree and testify in court against AHJs that are unreasonable).
 
I don't think the top rail is an issue. The inspector already confirmed with me over the phone that a top rail is not needed as we have tempered laminated glass. Per the inspector the issue is that he says that per SBC 2407.1.2 "guard rail glass needs a baluster type support at both ends of glass". I think that is the only issue he has with our glass. However, I am not able to find anything in this section of the code which requires this.. but its difficult for me to understand exactly what is meant by SBC 2407.1.2 as its confusing. Clarification on whether you think the inspector is correct or incorrect? would be appreciated. Is "baluster type support at both ends of glass" required, if a top rail is not, and we have a letter from the engineer the interior tempered / laminated glass is adequate for support of a 200 lb point load applied at the top of the guardrail section. And what do you think he means by "baluster type support at both ends of glass" if he says a top rail is not required?
 
& ~ &


Sea Tech Guy,

As long as you are asking for input, ...IMO a top rail
is not required in your application......REASON: Your
Registered Design Professional ( RDP ) has provided
documentation to substantiate the Loading Requirements
of Section 1607.8..........Also, "IF" the Inspector has
already confirmed this verbally, then you can cite Section
2403.2 in your efforts........Section 2403.2: //http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/s047837.pdf

I DO believe that it is time for you to schedule an
appointment with the Building Official to discuss the
matter.

One request from you sir: Please come back here to
let us know the outcome of this issue.

Thanks !


& ~ &
 
Does the inspector want vertical supports, where the glass ties into the walls??


You know some people install what is required for an inspection, then remove it.

Would agree met with BO for clarification
 
My first question is what type of laminate did they use?

IF they used a Dupont Sentryglas you comply because the glass panel will stay in place when both sides of the glass panel break.

Here is a link below to a short video that shows standard clear tempered glass breaking, then (2) layers of glass over a traditional PVB layer inside and then the Sentryglas.

The question I have is this a single family home or a commercial building?

The code sections you are quoting are for the IBC, not the IRC and the picture of the elevator in the background tends me to lean to commercial building.

The whole 3 glass panels/balusters is a problem because in those short distances dividing the panel in to 3 parts becomes more of a problem than a plus.

As noted by others the whole intent of the 3 baluster/panel requirement was to make sure something stays in place if 1 panel breaks, if the panel will stay in place even with the broken glass because of the Sentryglas, then requiring the 3 panels becomes mute IMO.


Tom
 
I guess what I am asking is why they are using the standard IBC building text for your residential Home?

Section 1607 & 2407 are IBC requirements, not IRC for one and two family dwellings?

Are you over 3 stories out of grade?

Tom
 
I looked it up and my home is Seattle Residential Code 2006.
 
Just 3 stories, no more. Permitted plans on the construction permit say "Building Code: SRC 2006", on the second page (plan coversheet) there is three options under a "code used for design" checkbox (SBC, SRC and a split option). The box that was checked says "SBC 2006 (structural), SRC 2006 (architectural)." On the cities website when I pull up the home information it says "SRC 2006".
 
There is confusion here but I'd say this issue falls under the residential (architectural) code, this is administrative law, under contract law ambiguities are interpreted against the drafting party, I'd say you have the advantage in a legal dispute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top