Guards (2006) Sec: 1013 (Cable Infill)

[Glennman CBO]

B, is my vote.

 

[Frank]

Preventing getting head stuck would require the smaller 2-3/8 inch spacing required for cribs.

I was active in the debate 20-21 years ago at BOCA because the old 6 inch spacing would allow toddlers to walk through the vertical pickets without slowing down.

Testemony included 2 malls that had young children run from mom and splat to the lower level with mom in persuit.

I gave the example of my then 2 year old (23 in 2 weeks) that walked through the rail on my brother's new deck with 5-1/2 inch spacing and was standing on a 6 inch ledge about 6 ft off the ground when we fetched him back. I was sitting on the top step to keep him from going that way and had not realized that he could walk through the code legal spacing. The deck was full of adults and children at the time.

 

[texasbo]

Splat. Sweet.

 

[TJacobs]

My vote is B. Since I'm from Chicago, I will be having some deceased individuals voting shortly...

 

[Yankee]

Happened across the stair section where solid risers/ min 4" space is not required on stairs less than 30" in total rise. So if one can extrapolate, then guards are not required either.

 

[DwightB]

Railings

I just ran across this thread. It answers many questions that I've had about cable rail systems and spacing relative to the minimum sphere as mentioned in detail several times here. On another point though, I thought there was also some requirement that railings must not be horizontal and thus easy to climb because of the ladder effect. I see a lot of railings now with closely spaced vertical bars that would easily comply. Following this discussion, I am now convinced that cable systems can meet the sphere test, but isn't there also a restriction against the ladder configuration?

 

[mark handler]

...isn't there also a restriction against the ladder configuration?

No longer in the model codes

 

[tbz]

I just ran across this thread. It answers many questions that I've had about cable rail systems and spacing relative to the minimum sphere as mentioned in detail several times here. On another point though, I thought there was also some requirement that railings must not be horizontal and thus easy to climb because of the ladder effect. I see a lot of railings now with closely spaced vertical bars that would easily comply. Following this discussion, I am now convinced that cable systems can meet the sphere test, but isn't there also a restriction against the ladder configuration?

Ladder effect wording was only in the 2000 IRC and was removed in the 2001 IRC sup. I was never in any other ICC Model code.

Prior to that BOCO 1993, 1996 & 1999 had the wording, however many AHJ did not adopt that section and revised.

Reason being is prior to the 2000 IRC many AHJ used the CABO 1&2 family dwelling code (My memory is fading but I think it was CABO) with adoption of the standard building code for commercial use and since the 1&2 family did not have that requirement, some AHJ deleted the requirement from the code and others did not.

However, there are some AHJ that modify the code when adopted to include this type of wording I believe Baltimore & Chicago still do, that might have changed, others could chime in.

Tom

 

[ADAguy]

To further expand this issue:

1. Force applied is not identified as static vs dynamic (as in when runs into or is pushed into the railing and its ballistars)

2. 4" is intended to protect little ones from getting their heads stuck no mater what the drop off height (best practice vs performance requirement?) If greater than 4" clear space who wins in court if dropoff is less than 30"?

 

[tbz]

To further expand this issue:1. Force applied is not identified as static vs dynamic (as in when runs into or is pushed into the railing and its ballistars)

2. 4" is intended to protect little ones from getting their heads stuck no mater what the drop off height (best practice vs performance requirement?) If greater than 4" clear space who wins in court if dropoff is less than 30"?

I have to disagree, the code has nothing to do with getting stuck, if they get stuck the guard did it's job.

The full intent of the guard is to stop someone from falling off the elevated surface.

Weather you do 50lbs running or pushing on a 1sq/ft area the results are going to be very similar if not the same.

But it has nothing to do with getting stuck its all about stopping.

 

[ADAguy]

Was this requirement written before cables appeared?

Bet the courts have a ball sorting out expert testimony on this.

Isn't 4" interpreted based on fixed pickets vs movable? How do you define fixed vs flexable/moveable (cables?). Cables require evidence of being maintained at a given tension (no?)