• 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.

Guardrail Installed in Non-Required Area

The Building Code says 'guards shall comply with...' It does not say 'required guards', so even a non-required guard must comply. As noted earlier, it cannot create a false sense of security.
The IRC takes a slightly different approach. Some sections say 'required guards shall' and other simply say 'guards shall'. Height and opening limitations in the IRC only apply to 'required guards' while the loading requirements apply to all guards per Section R301.5 and Table R301.5.
 
hughdint said:
I primarily do multi-family. We do 30" high decorative rails on first level patios all of the time. Never call it a guardrail it is a decorative rail.
There is nothing in the code that says that decorative items needs to follow all of the rules of guardrails.
I can't find anywhere that says that the <4" max spacing would apply to anything other than a guardrail.
We do not need to protect the world from all spacing < 4" only guardrails.
Click to expand...

The intent of the guard infill is child protection in various application in the code such as elevated floors, pool barriers and windows, etc.

Here it's a case by case basis. And as a reminder; pointed out in various threads on this forum municipalities and states also have different administrative provisions.

[A] 104.1 General.
The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.

"(2012 IRC) R104.1 General.
The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why this gets pasted weird

This section establishes the building official’s authority to render such interpretations of the
Code: 
. In addition, the building official may adopt policies and procedures that will help clarify the application of the code. Although having no authoring to provide variances or waivers to the code requirements, the building official is charged with interpreting and clarifying the provisions found in the [code], provided that such decisions are in conformance with the intent and purpose of the code.



However, it must be stressed that the ultimate responsibility for determining the appropriateness of an interpretation lies with the jurisdictional building official, and all other opinions, both verbal and written, are just that, opinions."
 
I once built a home with two child's bedrooms, each with a loft, ship's ladder, and non-compliant guard rail designed by the architect, I was worried about the ship's ladder more than the guard rails, but the inspector walked right by both of them at final.
 
Call it something else, if its not required doesn't need to meet the requirements for a guard/rail
 
Strange to see so many calling for a non-guard to comply with guard requirements. :-)
1. If it is not a required guard rail, the building code does not require it to be a guard rail, period. If you went down the path of 'expectation,' those little fabric mesh pedestrian control cables and their free-standing posts would have to be built as guards, even on a level floor. If it is not a required guard, it is not a guard at all.
2. There may be some level of expectation if its function is similar to a guard at a drop off under 30". In such cases, we like to put in a handrail, with the handrail meeting code loading requirements. This is not because the code mandates it, but for our own liability concerns and best practices.
 
Just call it something else, like a rail, but not a handrail. We went through this for years on what constitutes a bedroom, we ended up with a room is whatever the architect says it is on the plans, if he labels it a bedroom it must comply with bedroom requirements including egress, if he calls it an office it doesn't need to me egress or other requirements.
 
In the code for "guards" (both IBC and IRC): The very first section is the Bold lettering that says "Where Required.", then it follows with a sentence of the locations where it occurs as "required". So if a short divider wall, picket structure or paper decorations is installed at an area where a guard is not required then there are no requirements or items an inspector or BO can impose. I would go to court and tell a judge that the code says it is not required therefore they can construct it however they want. I dated a girl once who let her pet ducks into the house - never tried to hold the duck.
 
linnrg said:
. I dated a girl once who let her pet ducks into the house - never tried to hold the duck.
Click to expand...

Ducks can fly over even 42" high guards, or course with all the duck $hit on the floor humans would slip and fall before they even got to the guard to fall over.
 
never been to court over this issue but have been called by attorneys (and threatening to add me to the suit) for a suit where someone fell off a deck that was only 15" off the ground. According to the owner the lady showed up to his house opening party already half lit, in high heels. Her accident happened just a few days after I finaled the home and I had responded to the owner previously when he asked if he had to have a guard around the deck to which I told him that the code does not require it - but is is his option to build one if he wishes. I sent the attorney a copy of the code and never heard from him again. The homeowner later told me his insurance paid out. to this day the fella has never had another house party - and when his wife was still alive the edge of the deck was always the most colorful flower layout. The deck is the full front of the house. The house is up for sale and I recently got the call from a potential buyer who wondered if they would have to put up a guard rail.
 
$ ~ $ ~ $

I wonder if we skeer'd Jim Albano off ! :cool:

Even though a guard may not be not required, no one is
immune from having a suit filed against them.....Even if the insurance
carrier does not require a guard, property owners can be sued !
That's the world we live in !

"Insurance up" boys & girls, ...insurance up !.......Oh, and keep all
"non-direct family humans" off of your property !

$ ~ $ ~ $
 
But what if they had a guardrail where it's not required? Similarly with pool barriers; the code requires minimum height and opening limitations, but what reference are you using for live load; not required?

Another interpretation or opinion (hope Glenn doesn't mind me quoting him again)

"Unlike guard height and the size of the openings — which are regulated only on required guards — load resistance is regulated on all guards, even those installed on ground-level decks by choice. Falling over or getting through a guard on a low-level deck is not considered a hazard. However, all guards invite leaning and sitting, and you don't want optional ones on low decks to be booby-traps that could collapse. So, if you build a guard on a deck where it's not required by code, you have leeway regarding the guard's height and openings, but you still must satisfy the strength requirements."

http://www.deckmagazine.com/codes-and-standards/code-compliant-guardrails.aspx

Have a great Independence Day Celebration!
 
the most challenging and probably the most interesting part of our business is the fact that we are interpreters and it can be a tangled up web. One of the things I do is to offer up the code to the client to read it. If I offer up something that is "my code" then I would effectively be acting in a non-code compliant manner - how could I ever ask for their code compliance if I could not offer the same?

I find that most forums offer information (some of which is useful) but often do not come to firm conclusion and yes the original poster falls away because he does not see the conclusion. I have a problem with one of my vehicles and through many repair forums have never found the answer to fix my problem - lucky for me the car still runs and delivers me to where I want to go but I have to abide by its tweaky behavior. Other forums have helped me greatly such as helping me through some appliance repair, helping me understand technical subjects like grounding and bonding. This forum has helped me - made me laugh - made me scratch my head - made me say WTF thats over the top - and mostly it has helped me see that I am not the only one who is still learning, or needs to learn, or allowing me to pass along some of my "lessons learned".

So Jim A if you are still out there please bear with us we are a technical bunch.

Hope every one enjoys the holiday but be careful out there
 
If not "required", then what of "best Practices? Under what guidelines do you see them following? (note, I said guidelines, not code)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top