• 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.

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

I thought we all agreed that the tied off over weight inspector was going to lean on the rail, and if it didn’t collapse it passed.
 
gbhammer said:
I thought we all agreed that the tied off over weight inspector was going to lean on the rail, and if it didn’t collapse it passed.
Click to expand...
Yep, we draw straws for the week, shortest straw gets Monday, next Tuesday, and so on through-out the week. Any guard rail inspections that come up on your day, you have to lean on the rail. Wednesday's are my day in the barrell.
 
I carry my barrel with me so any day is ok. Given a choice I suppose Thursday would be nice for the long weekend to recover.
 
glad i didn't hang that. that is a guard, should have been code compliant, how could anyone see that as " decorative" when it's at the elevation that it's at and in front of those doors ? i hope the lawyers don't go for the inspector!
 
globe trekker said:
I have received plans for a proposed new single family dwelling. The plans indicatethat 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! :)

.
Click to expand...
Globe,

Loved that you brought this back when it came across your desk.

The inspectors here for the most part work on 2 rules for the IRC.

Rule 1: Builder or contractor open permit plans by RDP.

They have been and continue to request submitted drawings, as will be built, in the documents.

They will issue permit with notation that guard & HR design to follow.

Materials and attachments is what we find most requested.

We have not had to have engineered approved and stamped, just drawings with the original RDP on the documents.

Builder asks us to submit basic shop drawings, showing attachments and layout. We also normally send a cad file.

RDP copies and pastes on to plot handed in to building dept.

Rule 2: Owner built and or permit by owner, they just look it over.
 
tbz,

Your answers pretty much confirm my thoughts on these two questions.

In my particular application, the homeowner will be obtaining the permit,

so I will mention / attempt to discuss the issue with him. Also, on this

particular application, besides the means of attaching the guard /

handrailing, there are some spacing issues ( i.e. - poorly designed plans )

of the vertical rails / ballusters and the spacing limitations of below the

railing on some steps. Refer to Section R312.2 in the 2006 IRC.

"tbz", thanks for your input! :)

.
 
I must admit I did not read all the responses but the door should have been fixed not to operate as a door. If they needed a window for emergency egress the designer should have designed the window and decortive rail better. Yep law suites on the way for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top