Guard requirements when they are not required

[NH09]

Typically when someone constructs a guard where it is not required (on a platform less than 30" high) I require that that guard meet the same requirements as a guard that is for a location higher than 30". A have had contractors tell me that since it is not required it does not have to meet code (36" high min, sphere of 4" cannot pass through etc.) How have other people been interpreting this?

 

[cboboggs]

Good luck, that has been hashed and rehashed. You are not going to come away with an answer. I don't require a non-required element to meet code requirements.

 

[vegas paul]

Same question as a non-required stair, does it need to be compliant? Re-re-re-hashed! No definitive answer.

 

[fatboy]

here is the most recent hashing............

http://www.inspectpa.com/phpbb/showthread.php?2616-non-required-elements&highlight=required+guard

 

[Bootleg]

Less than 30" above grade guard not required to meet code.

 

[peach]

I agree... not required to meet the guard requirements... UNLESS.. there is a local amendment to require it..

then it's required..

 

[tbz]

NON Required Guard Openings

The IRC is quite specific under opening limitations for guards that only required guards need meet any of the sphere requirements, 4", 4-3/8" or the 6".

This was also changed and made more specific in the 2009 IRC with where to measure the 30" trigger point from and to.

Weather you agree or not with the 30" trigger point, does not matter, the code specifies 30" and therefore unless changed during the adoption of the code by the AHJ, this is the trigger point.

Also note that the 2009 IRC has added the word required to the height section of the code. Hence NON-Required guards under the 2009 ICC published vrs of the IRC does not require a non-required guards height to be a minimum of 36".

However in any case no matter if larger openings or short height, the code is specific in not stating (REQUIRED) for the loads and thus all guards defined by the AHJ as being a guard need comply with the load portion of the code.

These changes are not IRC specific, but also in the IBC.

My spell check is turned off for those typo's I bid sorry.

 

[fatboy]

Glad to see you made it in tbz! Welcome!

 

[tbz]

Thanks Fatboy, Up and posting..........Glad to see everyone made it back from the meet and greet....

 

[NH09]

Thanks tbz, I think that is a good interpretation of the code section. One person I spoke with mentioned "entanglement issues" as a concern for spacing balusters more than 4" apart - have you ever heard of anything like that?

 

[tbz]

"Entanglement Issues"

Thanks tbz, I think that is a good interpretation of the code section. One person I spoke with mentioned "entanglement issues" as a concern for spacing balusters more than 4" apart - have you ever heard of anything like that?

I am unaware of this concern with the standard vertical baluster within the frame work of the guard and opening limitations.

However, I have seen concerns with balusters within a guard that have ornamentation and other sweeping flows.

Also, concerns have been raised with entanglement where framed type guards are fabricated with a bottom channel or bar, on the descending nosing of the stairs.

When risers greater than 7 inches are used typically in the IRC, this creates a larger space that allows a 6" sphere to pass, therefore many times the balusters are extend downward through the bottom bar or channel and then stop before entering the treads.

These so called balusters extensions, have created concern for entanglement with shoe laces, however, when was the last time you saw people wearing shoes with laces?

The main question that needs to be asked is, why are guards installed and required?

To stop someone from accidentally falling off the elevated floor level.

If they get entangled and not pass through, in reality the guard preformed it's task.

Some my argue it created another offset concern, but I would argue we all have views.

 

[GHRoberts]

If it is not required, it is not a guard.

 

[NH09]

I agree on the entanglement issue, if they get caught up it's doing it's job, if they fall it's still less than 30" and the code states that no guard is required; so which is worse? Let me throw another issue into the mix - let's say a contractor puts in a 12" high built in flower box along the edge of the deck (just saw this) and the deck is less than 30" above grade, is this a trip hazard?