• 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.

Horizontal Guardrails on High Rise R2

IBC does not have the climbability restrictions, therefore as said by Ron, less than 4-in and it is ok. Don't like it, but it is legal.
 
Are those sliding glass panels? Looks like the handle is on the outside. Are you supposed to lean over the rail to grab the handle?
 
Here is a question for you,
  • If the balcony had a solid 42-inch high wall acting as the guard would you think twice about it?
  • What research has shown is that being able to get a footing on something does not entice an action, curiosity does.
    • in my search over the years I have read lots of injury reports of climbing over solid walls and furniture or objects, but nothing about horizontal guards.
    • both young and old, people are curious to see what is going on, thus the fact you can see what is going on though the guard is were the curiosity terminates because they see the issue with the fall height as proven though researchers with the visual cliff studies.
    • When people can't see what is on the other side, they try to see how they can see, thus solid guards have a good amount of data showing climb overs. Hence what is on the other side is an unknown, so they climb up to see and then they accidently fall due to being unstable. A good footing is what you want and don't have a solid smooth surface that is not clear.
    • Studies and data have shown a reduction in falls once the 4" sphere rule for opening limitations were adopted in many jurisdictions. The fact that they could see, but could not pass through, solidified the persons curiosity. If it didn't and the intent was to get to the other side, you would not have seen the reduction to the extent that has been seen. Because if the intent is to get there you would see different results in the data than has been documented.
Just because you think something might be an issue or problem, does not mean it actually is one.

Additionally, the ICC had the CTC do an in-depth review over 4-5 years on this topic, and you can see plenty of their documentation on the ICC website and the code proposals submitted by the ICC/CTC in the 2006, 2009 and 2012 code cycles. Plus the CTC's report to the ICC Board.

And lastly, if it was really an issue or problem do you think the building cold get insurance coverage????
 
Good points tbz, but as we are all aware, (at least us parents) a small child will have a much different curiosity level, plus they lack the common sense that an accident could be waiting at the top of that rail. If it can be climbed, it will be.
 
Teeshot said:
Good points tbz, but as we are all aware, (at least us parents) a small child will have a much different curiosity level, plus they lack the common sense that an accident could be waiting at the top of that rail. If it can be climbed, it will be.
Click to expand...
Teeshot,

have you ever done the research on the visual cliff studies? and your statement if it can be climb, they will, i fully disagree with because if that was true the statistics would shin through someplace and they don't.

The statement that if something is climbable and inviting interest they will climb I can agree with, but just a broad statement of anything period is way off the facts.
 
ICE said:
Looks to be shy of 42".
Click to expand...
Ice,

From what I see, the lower portion is not seen but the top of the bottom bar looks to be between 2 - 3 inches off the floor level, with Florida I will say less than 2" below and 1" for the bottom bar, so about 2.5" plus the openings, with the round bars being 1", so 4.625" on center thus 8*4.625 = 37" with the top pipe being an easy 3" diameter, so 40 inches, plus the 2 plus inches at the bottom, I will say this is over 42".
 
tbz said:
Teeshot,

have you ever done the research on the visual cliff studies? and your statement if it can be climb, they will, i fully disagree with because if that was true the statistics would shin through someplace and they don't.

The statement that if something is climbable and inviting interest they will climb I can agree with, but just a broad statement of anything period is way off the facts.
Click to expand...
My statement was not broad, but rather narrowed toward small children, who as described by eh, have the "gremlin" switch that comes on at any time, hence the reason for child-proofing your kitchen, etc.
 
tbz said:
Here is a question for you,
  • If the balcony had a solid 42-inch high wall acting as the guard would you think twice about it?
  • What research has shown is that being able to get a footing on something does not entice an action, curiosity does.
    • in my search over the years I have read lots of injury reports of climbing over solid walls and furniture or objects, but nothing about horizontal guards.
    • both young and old, people are curious to see what is going on, thus the fact you can see what is going on though the guard is were the curiosity terminates because they see the issue with the fall height as proven though researchers with the visual cliff studies.
    • When people can't see what is on the other side, they try to see how they can see, thus solid guards have a good amount of data showing climb overs. Hence what is on the other side is an unknown, so they climb up to see and then they accidently fall due to being unstable. A good footing is what you want and don't have a solid smooth surface that is not clear.
    • Studies and data have shown a reduction in falls once the 4" sphere rule for opening limitations were adopted in many jurisdictions. The fact that they could see, but could not pass through, solidified the persons curiosity. If it didn't and the intent was to get to the other side, you would not have seen the reduction to the extent that has been seen. Because if the intent is to get there you would see different results in the data than has been documented.
Just because you think something might be an issue or problem, does not mean it actually is one.

Additionally, the ICC had the CTC do an in-depth review over 4-5 years on this topic, and you can see plenty of their documentation on the ICC website and the code proposals submitted by the ICC/CTC in the 2006, 2009 and 2012 code cycles. Plus the CTC's report to the ICC Board.

And lastly, if it was really an issue or problem do you think the building cold get insurance coverage????
Click to expand...
Good comments but still not "Best" practice, an attractive opportunity for kids.
 
A tenant could always tie a net over the railing if he or she was concerned.

Using Rope on Staircase

Residential Balusters: I have a new home and they want to use rope between balusters. I know the rope would have to be where a 4" sphere would not pass through it. If the balusters are close enough and it would meet code for strength, does anyone see any other issues with the rope?
www.thebuildingcodeforum.com

Children shouldn't be left unsupervised on highrise balconies anyway.
 
Teeshot said:
Good points tbz, but as we are all aware, (at least us parents) a small child will have a much different curiosity level, plus they lack the common sense that an accident could be waiting at the top of that rail. If it can be climbed, it will be.
Click to expand...
Those of us with small children should know better... the Building Code is not a replacement for good parenting. Be present and engaged, children will be safer.
 
ADAguy said:
Good comments but still not "Best" practice, an attractive opportunity for kids.
Click to expand...
This comment doesn't advance the how building codes should address a balcony. Codes do not dictate exact design or how people should act, nor should they. If this were the case, then the United States Capitol building could never have been design the way it was. All of the horizontal reveals would need to be filled in because uneducated people might climb it on January 6th in an election year. Codes are no substitute for common sense or good parenting.
 
tbz said:
Here is a question for you,
  • If the balcony had a solid 42-inch high wall acting as the guard would you think twice about it?
  • What research has shown is that being able to get a footing on something does not entice an action, curiosity does.
    • in my search over the years I have read lots of injury reports of climbing over solid walls and furniture or objects, but nothing about horizontal guards.
    • both young and old, people are curious to see what is going on, thus the fact you can see what is going on though the guard is were the curiosity terminates because they see the issue with the fall height as proven though researchers with the visual cliff studies.
    • When people can't see what is on the other side, they try to see how they can see, thus solid guards have a good amount of data showing climb overs. Hence what is on the other side is an unknown, so they climb up to see and then they accidently fall due to being unstable. A good footing is what you want and don't have a solid smooth surface that is not clear.
    • Studies and data have shown a reduction in falls once the 4" sphere rule for opening limitations were adopted in many jurisdictions. The fact that they could see, but could not pass through, solidified the persons curiosity. If it didn't and the intent was to get to the other side, you would not have seen the reduction to the extent that has been seen. Because if the intent is to get there you would see different results in the data than has been documented.
Just because you think something might be an issue or problem, does not mean it actually is one.

Additionally, the ICC had the CTC do an in-depth review over 4-5 years on this topic, and you can see plenty of their documentation on the ICC website and the code proposals submitted by the ICC/CTC in the 2006, 2009 and 2012 code cycles. Plus the CTC's report to the ICC Board.

And lastly, if it was really an issue or problem do you think the building cold get insurance coverage????
Click to expand...
These findings were presented here in Canada and were accepted to remove climability restrictions on guards for up to 4.2m above the adjacent surface. Even in SFDs.
 
ICE said:
Looks to be shy of 42".
Click to expand...
May not be required depending on what story it is on

2018 IBC 1015.3
Exceptions:

1. For occupancies in Group R-3 not more than three stories above grade in height and within individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2 not more than three stories above grade in height with separate means of egress, required guards shall be not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height measured vertically above the adjacent walking surfaces.
 
instantmessenger said:
This comment doesn't advance the how building codes should address a balcony. Codes do not dictate exact design or how people should act, nor should they. If this were the case, then the United States Capitol building could never have been design the way it was. All of the horizontal reveals would need to be filled in because uneducated people might climb it on January 6th in an election year. Codes are no substitute for common sense or good parenting.
Click to expand...
Maybe not be good but they do allow for the feathering of Atty's nests by giving justification to their representations in court.
Parenting skills are becoming a lost art.
 
mtlogcabin said:
May not be required depending on what story it is on

2018 IBC 1015.3
Exceptions:

1. For occupancies in Group R-3 not more than three stories above grade in height and within individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2 not more than three stories above grade in height with separate means of egress, required guards shall be not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height measured vertically above the adjacent walking surfaces.
Click to expand...
That exception is not in California code.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top