• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

How do others on this site handle inspections on these types of guards?

tbz

tbz

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
1,255
Location
PA/NJ - Borderlands
As you all know I am a manufacture who ships false balconies all over. We don't install 90% of them, and we did not make the units in the link, however from the photos in the link it seems to me that these units were more than likely not secured to the building at a optimum level, might have been code compliant, don't know, but not optimal.

So my question is this, when you see these types of units on prints, what steps do you take or should I say what reasonable steps should be taken to be able to confirm or inspect attachment?

I have nothing to do with the Texas accident, I just preach to clients the importance of attachment, fore which I have always wondered how inspections are done for these types of guards?

Thanks Tom

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Denton-apartment-balcony-collapses-three-hurt-129186483.html
 
Good question, haven't had any to look at, guess I would treat it like any deck..... lagged into a ledger. But how do you insure the guard attachment?
 
I'm not sure there was any deck. Looks like just a guard to protect the door that leads to nowhere. What a hideous architectural detail.

But the question is good. Who is physically testing guards in the field? Who is asking for engineering calculations for guards at apartments on the plans?
 
I do not have experience with the inspection of these but it would seem to be a structural review for that attachment detail since it ripped straight out of the wall. Maybe the calcs were only done for a vertical force rather than a horizontal force of people leaning on it? Regardless, the comment by the representative in the article will likely get her into trouble stating that the feature was merely decoractive. Decorative or not, it would have to comply with the requirements for a guardrail with all of the requirements that go with it. In this case it is hard to know if the attachment detail/design was not adequate or the detail/design was adequate and not followed.
 
Had a very similar one here this year. Attachment was a concern. A bigger concern was that the distance between the outer edge of the door threshold and the bottom rail was 8 inches!!! Can you imagine the first inattentive mother on the third floor that leaves the sliding patio door ajar and their 1 year old toddler unattended?

I'm like texasbo - I don't see the purpose for these. Is it to allow a future installation of a deck structure? Otherwise, why not a window composite, which would have to be cheaper than a patio door and would also use a little bit of useable wall space?
 
No deck at all

Decoration only

Why it was allowed, will be the law suit question

How would you test it??? Engineer approval??? Couple fat inspectors???
 
I might also add that I have seen guardrails on 30 story high rises made of glass that is simply placed in a slot at the balcony floor. I never lean on these things and my fear has just been justified :) I do not know if there is a lateral load requirement for guardrails or if it is just engineering judgement. I normally do not get into the structural side of things. I hope the individuals this happened to turn out ok.
 
1st off No matter what you do to the exterior of a building, it is all considered "Decorative" otherwise all buildings would be built like in the old USSR with no style.

As to installing a door instead of a window, it has many advantages, one being adding a future deck, large ERO & moving things in and out to name a quick few.

As to my post, try to keep on point, my question is what procedures are followed for inspecting the attachments.

All the inspectors on this site know that the unit installed was done as a guard, as a guard it has many code requirements it must meet simply dimensions and structural loads.

Thus, it's not weather you like the look or feel it has no use the question is when put before you on a set of drawings and for inspections what do you make note of or what checklist do others use to follow through with inspections.
 
tbz said:
As to my post, try to keep on point, my question is what procedures are followed for inspecting the attachments.All the inspectors on this site know that the unit installed was done as a guard, as a guard it has many code requirements it must meet simply dimensions and structural loads.

Thus, it's not weather you like the look or feel it has no use the question is when put before you on a set of drawings and for inspections what do you make note of or what checklist do others use to follow through with inspections.
Click to expand...
great response tbz. personal preferences aside, we handle these as functional guard rails, as they are not just decorative facade treatments. I would think, even as decoration, they would still have to meet wind loading for attachment. Minimum and maximum dimensional compliance, as well as structural compliance, is the intent of the inspection, however, and Simpson Fasteners company will attest to this, the only realistic way to test these for structural loading is to have an (pre-) engineered designed detail either with third party testing or calculations/signature/RDP seal. We have considered our union's workman comp package and have decided against using inspectors (regardless of horizontal or gravitational challenges) to push and pull against the railing.
 
The statement about "non-weight bearing structure" which was "not designed to support the weight of three full grown adults." from the owners rep is the real concern.

Maybe the missed inspection was the removal of the door knob from the inside of the apartment.
 
My guess is that most would treat it like any other guard rail. Grab a hold of it and give it a good shove. If it moves more than it seems like it should, then they need to fix it. It isn't scientific, it isn't consistent, it doesn't truly contribute to life safety, and it really isn't fair to those on either side of the counter.

The problem with the code language surrounding guards has been well documented here and in the old ICC forum. Without prescriptive attachment details for guards, we can either require engineering or go with our gut. Engineering is the only truly compliant option, but most have been going with their gut for years, as requiring engineering for every guard could have negative political implications.
 
permitguy said:
My guess is that most would treat it like any other guard rail. Grab a hold of it and give it a good shove. If it moves more than it seems like it should, then they need to fix it. It isn't scientific, it isn't consistent, it doesn't truly contribute to life safety, and it really isn't fair to those on either side of the counter.The problem with the code language surrounding guards has been well documented here and in the old ICC forum. Without prescriptive attachment details for guards, we can either require engineering or go with our gut. Engineering is the only truly compliant option, but most have been going with their gut for years, as requiring engineering for every guard could have negative political implications.
Click to expand...
damn right it would.

we treat it as a guard.
 
permitguy said:
The problem with the code language surrounding guards has been well documented here and in the old ICC forum. Without prescriptive attachment details for guards, we can either require engineering or go with our gut. Engineering is the only truly compliant option, but most have been going with their gut for years, as requiring engineering for every guard could have negative political implications.
Click to expand...
Aren't there pre-engineered assemblies provided by fastener companies for their products (Simpson, etc.)? Couldn't a political entity have a prescriptive design engineered, and use that as a pre-engineered assembly?
 
* * * *



"Couldn't a political entity have a prescriptive design engineered, and use that asa pre-engineered assembly?"
Click to expand...
Yes, they [ the AHJ ] could, but that would cost money and potentially be a sourceof un-needed exposure......IMO, I would not recommend any AHJ to adopt this direction,

...rather, to have all liability remain with the RDP, ...the contractor and / or the owners.

These types of mishaps have "sue the beJesus out of everyone involved" written all over

them! :eek:



* * * *
 
north star said:
* * * *Yes, they [ the AHJ ] could, but that would cost money and potentially be a source

of un-needed exposure......IMO, I would not recommend any AHJ to adopt this direction,

...rather, to have all liability remain with the RDP, ...the contractor and / or the owners.

These types of mishaps have "sue the beJesus out of everyone involved" written all over

them! :eek:



* * * *
Click to expand...
But don't AHJs adopt these types of measures for residential design all the time (i.e., cantilevered floor joist for the bearing of decks, pier footing to post connections on decks, guard-rails, etc.)? I understand there are always cost and liability measures to be considered, and granted, I would prefer an engineered design every time, but as permitguy stated, there are also political ramifications to consider if required for every case. Where is the middle ground? What is your solution? Is pushing and pulling on a guard rail correct? I wouldn't do that on a deck post to footing connection, why would I find that a suitable inspection method on a guard rail?
 
My inspection is visual for the connections, pull out ol stanley for all the required measurements then my 200+ body hurls itself (leans) againest the railing or shakes it. kinda depends if I'm over 30" or at 30ft!

pc1
 
What is your solution?
Click to expand...
My solution would be to remove the solely performance based language (i.e. "a guard must withstand 200# lateral force") and replace it with prescriptive language. Leave the performance based language for a designer who wants to stray from the prescriptive language. If so many jurisdictions are finding it necessary to adopt these "pre-engineered" details (and they are), then there is a problem with the code. With a 3-year code cycle, there is no reason that popular modern construction details can't be incorporated. How many years does it take before we realize that popular options such as attaching a deck to a cantilever or installing a structrual garage floor slab are not going away?

It doesn't help that people in the code enforcement industry constantly complain about the code book getting thicker as if that somehow means we've gone overboard. Pay attention to what is applicable to the project, ignore what isn't applicable, and get over it.

For a pre-manufactured product such as the guard in the original post, perhaps an ES report with attachment details would be an option.

Okay, I'm off the soapbox now . . .
 
Glade to see all the comments, however does anyone add to the framing inspection prior to insulation to check if solid blocking or mounting units of some type are installed at the point the guards are noted to be attached to the building?

From what I am assuming, and it is totally an assumption, the pull out from the wall to me looks like mounting to nothing or small fasteners. Just guessing, and I know this is just one item on a list of thousands of things to check.

As to being able to have mass manufactured mountings standard for guards, well not practical at all. Thou many guards might look similar there mountings are always vastly different on many occasions, not so much IRC, but IBC, the last 9 projects we looked at all had the same type of guard but due to the construction all required different mountings.

I guess my point is, does anyone check during the process that the mountings are there in some manner? And if so, what steps?

Just looking at our suggested checklist and seeing if we should add anything.

Thanks again for all the posts.
 
How about ordering the correct size to do the job. It appears a 6' model was placed on a 5-0 opening so the bolts do not land on framing
 
A couple questions--

Are these decorative railings a required guard in the first place?

If not a required guard then there is no strength requirement other than to resist wind.

Are these oversized casement windows behind these decorative railings the emergency escape and rescue opening from these units with a maximum height of 44 inches to unobstructed sill but no minimum sill height under IBC?

IBC has no window maximum size limits.

While the 2009 IRC has some provisions for fall protection from windows with a sill height of less than 24 inches above the floor, I am unaware of any similar provisions in the IBC through 2009.
 
permitguy said:
My solution would be to remove the solely performance based language (i.e. "a guard must withstand 200# lateral force") and replace it with prescriptive language. Leave the performance based language for a designer who wants to stray from the prescriptive language. If so many jurisdictions are finding it necessary to adopt these "pre-engineered" details (and they are), then there is a problem with the code. With a 3-year code cycle, there is no reason that popular modern construction details can't be incorporated. How many years does it take before we realize that popular options such as attaching a deck to a cantilever or installing a structrual garage floor slab are not going away?It doesn't help that people in the code enforcement industry constantly complain about the code book getting thicker as if that somehow means we've gone overboard. Pay attention to what is applicable to the project, ignore what isn't applicable, and get over it.

For a pre-manufactured product such as the guard in the original post, perhaps an ES report with attachment details would be an option.

Okay, I'm off the soapbox now . . .
Click to expand...
P,

As a guard manufacture IMO all ES reports do is put money in the ICC pocket and big or should I say huge manufactures, though for certain products they have a place with mass use from a limited number of suppliers. Do you even have clue to what an ES report costs to get and then maintain?

Also, as noted in my post before, on an IBC project, this attachment should have been someplace on one of the drawings and if not, during review someone should have spoke up and requested it. At least in my 20+ years doing this that is the standard.

So to say having cookie cutter details in the code to go by is just wrong, to say having a detail to go by in the submitted and approved documents is 100% right. I can remember when seeing a computer drawn set of prints was neat and new, today if one see's a hand draw set of prints on an IBC project, well to me that would be very odd, could be just me. With computers this detail should be in the documents.

As to testing to performance of loads, the only spot inspection the inspector has that I can think of is feel, when the inspector grabs hold if they feel the guard is unsafe the code allows them to request proof of compliance. I see nothing wrong with this request, but here is a question I have.

If brick veneer can't be used at any time as a structural support, why are guards, like in the link in my first post, allowed to be solely mounted and supported on them?

JMORRISON How about ordering the correct size to do the job. It appears a 6' model was placed on a 5-0 opening so the bolts do not land on framing
Click to expand...
Not sure I can answer that one to your satisfaction, but many RDP request that they be made larger, not sure why, but a very common request.

As to a 6' model vrs a 5' model, no such thing, all these items are made to order, thus the size that is there was requested, thus the details should have shown blocking or mountings in that area of attachment.

Frank A couple questions--

Are these decorative railings a required guard in the first place?

If not a required guard then there is no strength requirement other than to resist wind.

Are these oversized casement windows behind these decorative railings the emergency escape and rescue opening from these units with a maximum height of 44 inches to unobstructed sill but no minimum sill height under IBC?

IBC has no window maximum size limits.

While the 2009 IRC has some provisions for fall protection from windows with a sill height of less than 24 inches above the floor, I am unaware of any similar provisions in the IBC through 2009.
Click to expand...
Frank, all items are decorative, being on a door as the means of protection from a fall makes it a guard and thus must comply with a guards requirement. Just calling it decorative means nothing.

The code is like a game of Texas holdem your cards speak! Hence opening (the door) over 30" drop = guard required!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top