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

[permitguy]

Do you even have clue to what an ES report costs to get and then maintain?

Don't know, don't care. It is up to each manufacturer to do the cost/benefit analysis on this. Is it cheaper to have an ES report and have the product virtually universally accepted by AHJs, or is it cheaper to hire a registered engineer for each state where the product is sold and have them certify the manufacturer's design specs? The point here is that ES reports are an option.

So to say having cookie cutter details in the code to go by is just wrong

It works for literally thousands of other code requirements. Perhaps it would lead to more consistency so that you wouln't have to manufacture the same guard 9 different ways because everyone's construction practices were different. There would always be the option to use an engineered solution if someone didn't want to use a prescriptive method.

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.

Leaving the determination that "proof of compliance" is necessary to each inspector based on their "feel" is inherently wrong. Such an approach can never be consistent and will not guarantee a minimum level of safety. All this approach does is establish the potential for confrontation between an inspector and a contractor/manufacturer.

Imagine if the code did not contain prescriptive framing requirements for a conventionally-framed wall, and the inspector had to determine if 40" stud spacing would meet performance criteria based on nothing but "feel". Imagine if the code did not provide prescriptive electrical requirements, and the inspector had to determine if the installation was safe based solely on the look instead of the actual wire and breaker sizes. These examples could go on and on and on. Guards are one of the few things where we are virtualy always flying by the seat of our pants, and there is nothing right about that.

 

[Frank]

The 24" window rule for R-2 and R-3 was included in the 2006 IBC. It is still in the 2009.

I looked again and still can't find it do you have a section number?

NM I found it 1405.13.2

I was remembering it in one not the other it was the IRC that was a cycle late.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

In my opinion, plan review should verify that connection details are provided, and are compliant with the prescriptive structural measures for meeting design loads established by the adopted code. If the Plans Examiner does not feel comfortable with the detail as shown, they may request additional structural calculations, or an RDP engineered detail (an ES report is also an option, but highly unlikely for reasons noted above, and which are of no concern to the plans examiner). It is not uncommon, nor unrealistic, for manufacturers (i.e., sign manufacturers) to specify standard anchorage details for different types of typical construction (i.e., metal framing, wood framing, cmu, poured in place, etc.).

 

[Coug Dad]

Frank

Imprudently put in Section 1405.12.2 in the 2006

Revised to 1405.13.2 in the 2009

Properly placed in 1013.8 in the 2012

 

[tbz]

Don't know, don't care. It is up to each manufacturer to do the cost/benefit analysis on this. Is it cheaper to have an ES report and have the product virtually universally accepted by AHJs, or is it cheaper to hire a registered engineer for each state where the product is sold and have them certify the manufacturer's design specs? The point here is that ES reports are an option.It works for literally thousands of other code requirements. Perhaps it would lead to more consistency so that you wouln't have to manufacture the same guard 9 different ways because everyone's construction practices were different. There would always be the option to use an engineered solution if someone didn't want to use a prescriptive method.

Leaving the determination that "proof of compliance" is necessary to each inspector based on their "feel" is inherently wrong. Such an approach can never be consistent and will not guarantee a minimum level of safety. All this approach does is establish the potential for confrontation between an inspector and a contractor/manufacturer.

Imagine if the code did not contain prescriptive framing requirements for a conventionally-framed wall, and the inspector had to determine if 40" stud spacing would meet performance criteria based on nothing but "feel". Imagine if the code did not provide prescriptive electrical requirements, and the inspector had to determine if the installation was safe based solely on the look instead of the actual wire and breaker sizes. These examples could go on and on and on. Guards are one of the few things where we are virtualy always flying by the seat of our pants, and there is nothing right about that.

Just what I figured you would say, "don't no don't care" is why we see small companies having to pay huge costs to make items and items become extreme in cost. Ask yourself this question, once an item is designed to be made only a few ways were does it get made? ES report as you noted is not an option for small business @ an estimated $100,000.00 to get through the first time and then a recurring cost of 1/3 it works for limited items, even the current ES-for guards and handrails is just a method for engineers, not an approval. So for 90% paying for engineering state by state is cheaper.

The fact that the mounting needs to be redesigned for each project is what keeps the manufacturing within the USA.... I have no problem with that do you?

As to the feel statement I made, well even with your method it is still the same, you have to inspect to make sure it is holding (give it a shove). Just because it looks right does not mean it is strong.

Nothing changes

1. All prints should have a detail for this type of product and it's connection method.

2. The inspector checks to see if installed per the detail.

The only different is that you think it should be a simple 1 up design in the code, I am saying requiring the 1 up design in the code is wrong, but having the detail in the plans is a must.

 

[tbz]

In my opinion, plan review should verify that connection details are provided, and are compliant with the prescriptive structural measures for meeting design loads established by the adopted code. If the Plans Examiner does not feel comfortable with the detail as shown, they may request additional structural calculations, or an RDP engineered detail (an ES report is also an option, but highly unlikely for reasons noted above, and which are of no concern to the plans examiner). It is not uncommon, nor unrealistic, for manufacturers (i.e., sign manufacturers) to specify standard anchorage details for different types of typical construction (i.e., metal framing, wood framing, cmu, poured in place, etc.).

Papio,

I don't think Perm or I are far off on the drawings being required along with the engineering, I think were we differ is adding it to the IBC as code language.

You are correct I would agree as we also supply RDP & Engineers(EOR) with standard attachment methods, but they need to implemented by the RDP & EOR on the drawings, supplied on the drawings and confirmed as acceptable by the EOR with calac's or testing and submitted.

 

[Frank]

FrankImprudently put in Section 1405.12.2 in the 2006

Revised to 1405.13.2 in the 2009

Properly placed in 1013.8 in the 2012

I had looked in Chapt 10 guard section and in the glass and glazing chapter and they did not index it either lol

 

[permitguy]

tbz, you're getting into motivations that go way beyond what local government officials can or should consider when making decisions on the proper way to enforce or amend the code. The fact that "free trade" policies have eroded our manufacturing base and caused our middle class to begin disappearing can not be the motivation for leaving the code in its current flawed state. In fact, an argument could be made that the cheap overseas manufacturing of such products is more in-line with the intent of the code. After all, "affordability" is among the attributes listed under intent. I don't agree with this politically, but that isn't the point.

I have no interest in costing you business, just as I have no interest in giving you business. All I want is a legitimate way to ensure public safety, regardless of where a product was manufactured.

As to the feel statement I made, well even with your method it is still the same, you have to inspect to make sure it is holding (give it a shove). Just because it looks right does not mean it is strong.

Yes, it must be inspected either way. The difference is that verifying prescriptive compliance makes the inspection an objective process; it is either right or wrong according to the code. The lack of prescriptive language makes the inspection a subjective process; whether it complies is a judgement call, a.k.a. a guess. We can get around this with engineering, but the code does not typically leave such commonly installed elements to be engineered (as I described in my examples above).

I have neither the engineering nor the manufacturing background to write such language. I don't know what it would look like, I don't know if it would be popular, I don't even know if it's truly possible. I'm only offering this: as long as we lack the political will to require engineering for all guards, and as long as we lack prescriptive language for the installation of guards, the public is at risk due to failures such as the one highlighted in the OP.

 

[tbz]

The lack of prescriptive language makes the inspection a subjective process; whether it complies is a judgement call, a.k.a. a guess. We can get around this with engineering, but the code does not typically leave such commonly installed elements to be engineered (as I described in my examples above).I have neither the engineering nor the manufacturing background to write such language. I don't know what it would look like, I don't know if it would be popular, I don't even know if it's truly possible. I'm only offering this: as long as we lack the political will to require engineering for all guards, and as long as we lack prescriptive language for the installation of guards, the public is at risk due to failures such as the one highlighted in the OP.

Perm, I not sure were you are coming from with "as long as we lack the political will to require engineering for all guards" I have supplied guards to about 38 of the 50 states and everyone I have ever sold to be installed required an engineer to review and approve(stamp), and provide details for the mountings so the building inspector could review and inspect.

As far as I am aware the code states ALL Required guards must comply and the code says an inspector has the right to request documentation/proof when in doubt. Thus, please explain were it says you don't have the ability to request engineering proof on every project for guards?

I commonly work on projects were on the prints the RDP just puts in typical railing to be installed to code, the Plan reviewer stamps, railings not approved, addition drawings required prior to installation. Later on when the client makes up their mind they are submitted, reviewed and inspected.

May be I live in a bubble, but we are asked for it all the time and we always give the client the choice it cost X amount for us to do it, check with your RDP see what they will charge and they get it done.

Tom

 

[TJacobs]

1. Me the inspector pushing on the guard during inspection will not simulate 3 college students leaning on the guard.

2. I don't have x-ray vision to determine that the bolts were long enough unless I make them pull a bolt.

3. 3 college students leaning on the guard would exceed the 200-pound load IMO...can't fix stupid.

 

[permitguy]

Perm, I not sure were you are coming from with "as long as we lack the political will to require engineering for all guards" I have supplied guards to about 38 of the 50 states and everyone I have ever sold to be installed required an engineer to review and approve(stamp), and provide details for the mountings so the building inspector could review and inspect.

Your experience is atypical. I would feel perfectly comfortable in stating that the overwhelming majority of guards in this country are installed with no engineering consultation. The comments seen here (and in many similar threads) certainly support that assertion.

As far as I am aware the code states ALL Required guards must comply and the code says an inspector has the right to request documentation/proof when in doubt. Thus, please explain were it says you don't have the ability to request engineering proof on every project for guards?

I have never said an AHJ doesn't have the ability or the authority to request engineering on the guards. I am talking about political reality. I am talking about the backlash that would follow if that approach were actually taken. Replaceing the deck on your house? Hire an engineer. Re-modeling your 1970's era home that previously had one baluster per stair? Hire an engineer. Replacing the rusty old wrought iron railing around your front porch? Hire an engineer. Building a 600 home tract development full of 2-story homes? Hire an engineer. Going "loft" by removing a section of 2nd story non-bearing wall in your conventionally framed insurance office? Hire an engineer.

It will never make sense that I can build a structure from the footing all the way to the ridge with no engineer, but I will have to have an engineer spec out something as commonly installed as the guards . . .

 

[cda]

Frank. Great question

""""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."""""

 

[tbz]

Your experience is atypical. I would feel perfectly comfortable in stating that the overwhelming majority of guards in this country are installed with no engineering consultation. The comments seen here (and in many similar threads) certainly support that assertion. I have never said an AHJ doesn't have the ability or the authority to request engineering on the guards. I am talking about political reality. I am talking about the backlash that would follow if that approach were actually taken. Replaceing the deck on your house? Hire an engineer. Re-modeling your 1970's era home that previously had one baluster per stair? Hire an engineer. Replacing the rusty old wrought iron railing around your front porch? Hire an engineer. Building a 600 home tract development full of 2-story homes? Hire an engineer. Going "loft" by removing a section of 2nd story non-bearing wall in your conventionally framed insurance office? Hire an engineer.

It will never make sense that I can build a structure from the footing all the way to the ridge with no engineer, but I will have to have an engineer spec out something as commonly installed as the guards . . .

Perm,

You got your code books flipped, this whole post is about inspecting guards yes, but all my comments have been specific to IBC not IRC and all IBC projects involving required guards that don't have an engineering review and stamp on them, well someone is doing something fishy.

And the 600 home track project, you bet that the contractor building them has engineered stamped drawings on file for the metal guards being built, they always demand them, maybe not address specific, but if you asked for them I am sure they are just a fax away.

As for removing the wall in an insurance office here on the east coast, not happening without stamped drawing being submitted. The clerk at the desk would not even accept the drawings from me if the raised stamp is not on there.

 

[permitguy]

Your post is completely ignoring the fact that there are prescriptive requirements for conventially framed buildings in the IBC, just as there are in the IRC. The purpose of prescriptive code requirements is to avoid the need for engineering, and many projects take advantage of this. A three story apartment building (as shown in the OP) could certainly take advantage of prescriptive construction requirements present in the IBC and avoid the need for an engineer. Unless the local AHJ has amended the code, they'd have no choice but to accept this. The same is true for all aspects of my examples above - prescriptive compliance could be assured for the entire project with the exception of the guards. It may be easier to hire an engineer rather than place enough detail in the plan to ensure the AHJ it will comply with prescriptive standards, but that is beside the point.

It makes no difference which code is in use. The life of a person in an IBC structure is no more or less precious than the life of a person in an IRC structure. A guard is a guard, and for most guards being installed today (as a percentage) inspectors are simply guessing about compliance. This is my experience based on time in the field and the comments of other contributors in this thread and similar ones.

 

[mark handler]

....treat it as a guard.

it is a guard....

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

It makes no difference which code is in use. The life of a person in an IBC structure is no more or less precious than the life of a person in an IRC structure. A guard is a guard, and for most guards being installed today (as a percentage) inspectors are simply guessing about compliance. This is my experience based on time in the field and the comments of other contributors in this thread and similar ones.

Actually I think the IBC sets the value of life for 1-49 as pretty much equal.

I am completely on board with your position, especially when an RDP is not necessarily a requirement for all commercial projects and the IBC is to be used as a prescriptive code.

 

[Architect1281]

Well it looks like a door but its a window and its sill is more than 72" above the ground and when its open it requires a gusrd

The dumb language relative to window openings is hidden in the same place they hide it in the residentail code

EXTERIOR WALLS - still makes no sense to me but it did to someone.

1405.12.2 Window sills.

In Occupancy Groups R-2 and R-3, one- and two-family and multiple-family dwellings, where the opening of the sill portion of an operable window is located more than 72 inches (1829 mm) above the finished grade or other surface below, the lowest part of the clear opening of the window shall be a minimum of 24 inches (610 mm) above the finished floor surface of the room in which the window is located. Glazing between the floor and a height of 24 inches (610 mm) shall be fixed or have openings such that a 4-inch (102 mm) diameter sphere cannot pass through.

Exception: Openings that are provided with window guards that comply with ASTM F 2006 or F 2090.

How low can a window sill be to the floor ZERO so there you have it.

The code would allow the inadequate guard to be 24"s high cause it is ment to save the children

some children never grow up?

Papio the code is both prescriptive and performance but not always in the same chapter and verse at the same time.

As an RDP it would be incumbent to exceed the code in this instance. A full height security grill might be enought to avoid stupid.

a 42" guard would still have people sitting on it GARRONTEE!

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Exception: Openings that are provided with window guards that comply with ASTM F 2006 or F 2090.

I think this exemplifies how lacking the code is in regard to guard rails. How many Building Inspectors and Plans Examiners, let alone RDPs, have a copy of ASTM F 2006 or F 2090? Being that it is also performance based code, would a 200lb building inspector pushing against the railing, be a performance based inspection (assuming the inspector is tied off in an OSHA approved manner of course)?

 

[Phil]

. . . would a 200lb building inspector pushing against the railing, be a performance based inspection (assuming the inspector is tied off in an OSHA approved manner of course)?

You may need several beefy construction workers to get a 200 lbs horizontal load. Also, chapter 17's in-situ testing criteria may require 400 pounds for the load test.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

You may need several beefy construction workers to get a 200 lbs horizontal load. Also, chapter 17's in-situ testing criteria may require 400 pounds for the load test.

How should the load be applied? In short 200lb point load bursts, or in a uniformly distributed load of 200lbs for a duration of 10 seconds.

 

[codeworks]

i know personnally of a 265 pound construction worker ( we called him "cupcake, 'cause he liked 'em)who fell back against a "site built" guardrail on an elevator shaft door opening. the # 2 spf 2x4 snapped, the fellow dropped 28 feet , landed on a concrete slab. he is no longer with us.

 

[mjesse]

Somewhat related, a nearly $1mil settlement for a similar case.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-975000-settlement-in-fatal-chicago-porch-fall-20110913,0,5651462.story

 

[peach]

here they are called Juliet Balconies.. see them all the time (usually with gaps > 4" which we make them fix). Never heard of anyone toppling over one.

 

[globe trekker]

I have received plans for a proposed new single family dwelling. The plans indicate

that a guardrail & handrail is proposed to be installed on a rear porch area, greater

than 30 inches above the finished grade. The plans do not provide any details or

information regarding means of attachment or structural loading of the guardrailing.

The proposed guardrailing is shown on the plans to be attached to vertical columns,

that also support the roof and are installed on the porch wood decking over column

footings.

In these parts, it is typical for the fiberglass type (precast) columns to be installed,

without any means of positive attachment at the roof-to-column location, or the

column-to-foundation location. It is what it is..!

QUESTION #1: In reading this topic, was there ever a consensus on what is required

regarding the means of attachment, ..legally requesting RDP drawings, ..structural

loading, ...inspections on the design, ..other? I did not see any referenced code

sections in the IRC.

QUESTION # 2: If you had a Residential application where a guardrail & handrail

was proposed, ...say on a rear porch deck, what would you do, or have you done

for compliance?

Again, my particular application is for a Residential guardrail & handrail on a rear

porch, greater than 30 inches above grade.

I apologize for asking a Residential question in the Commercial Building topics

thread!

Thanks ya'll!

.