Guardrail OK as-is yes or no?

[D a v e W]

Second floor deck had a two sided (building is the other two walls) 2x6 solid wall framed > 36" and solid finish on both side. Wall now cut down to the height of 9" with 8" metal flat cap. So imagine a step. Next they attached metal railing to the exterior face with clear temper glass which only extends 27" in height. I say no, move rail to inside of deck.

What say everyone here, simple yes or no wuill work. THANKS!

 

[mjesse]

The glass is 27" above the curb? A total of 36" above the deck?

Sounds like it works with IRC 2006, but not 2009.

This is often a fiercely debated topic when benches are involved. I am of the opinion that the intent is to keep someone from tumbling off the deck (36" above deck) Not climbers (36" above curb-bench-seat-table-half wall-etc.)

mj

 

[Yankee]

Guard needs to be 36" above the "step" or "seat" as either will be a walking surface for anyone under the age of eleven 100% of the time, and many older at least SOME time, I guarantee it.

 

[GHRoberts]

It appears to be to code. I don't believe there is a "climbing" provision anymore. You are trying to enforce a "climbing" provision.

 

[Fortner]

27 + 9 = 36" above deck. O.k with me from an inspector's point of view. I would not personally have that setup at my home for the reasons mentioned above.

 

[Fritz]

No, height is measured adjacent to the guardrail, not 8 or 12 or 26 inches away.

Planters and benches are another subject.

Fritz

 

[D a v e W]

Well I am sticking with incorrect. Correction wrote as part of a field change plan review as this design was not part of original approved design documents. Other words they did something different. It's been almost two weeks since the correction was written and no response. I guess we will need to wait a little longer.

 

[D a v e W]

Word from the contractor is they are changing the rail to remove the step up condition.

 

[peach]

benches don't come in until the 2009 code... it's the walking surface (deck) you measure from. 36" minimum (that hasn't changed)

 

[tbz]

DaveW,

The code is specific in noting from the walking surface, if the so called (short height item) is within the maximum riser height for a step, and the top of the (short height item) meets a tread depth requirement, one could designate it as a step and thus call it a walking surface, however if it does not, then it is just a very poor design which I would question myself, but complies with 2006 and 2003 IRC as published by the ICC. The 2000 had ladder effect and you could quote that if still on it.

I too however would be a bit forceful and use the not as built on the plans, and also even go as far to require a full set of engineers or architectural drawings be done.

I guess my only question would be, if they remove the step up condition, will the old guard still work? Was it built to the correct height and just lowered on installation?

As for the 2009 IRC fixed seating I am not sure you can use that, as it is quite clear this would not be a fixed seating area, but the AHJ is what it is.