• 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

Roof Paver Deck Railing 4" spacing or 21" spacing?

redbird11

SAWHORSE
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
45
Location
Over the rainbow
For a paver roof deck system that will be 10" higher than the white membrane roof and more than 20 feet from the actual roof edge what are the railing requirements? The parapets at roof edge are not 42". Access to the roof is controlled by key card. Occupancy will be Business.
 
Can you provide a sketch or photo? What is the intended use of the roof?

If you are intending to create a barrier element to limit the rooftop area available to general occupants, a guard is required per IBC 1015. Guards are required where the walking surface extends to within 36-inches of a 30-inch or greater drop. The guard does not necessarily have to be installed adjacent to the drop. A barrier element that meets the requirements for and is equivalent to a guard, such as a partial height wall, fence, etc., can be used to limit the roof area available to occupants.

<4-inch spacing is required for guards unless meeting one of the 6 exceptions of 1015.2, which you most likely do not.
 
Example what this may look like.

Screen+Shot+2018-03-21+at+11.50.17+PM.png
 
TJ, I created a diagram to clarify my question. I am thinking I need a guardrail along the paver paths from the stairs to the deck and around the deck. Just questioning whether the guardrail can have 21" requirement or needs to meet 4" requirement?
 

Attachments

  • Guardrail Question.jpg
    Guardrail Question.jpg
    141.3 KB · Views: 10
You NEED nothing unless you are considering the whole roof a walking surface...Which it does not look like that is the intent. But it might be a good idea...
 
If the whole roof is open as a walking surface, then guards with 4" spacing are required. Check out section 1015.2 regarding the exceptions - from info provided, 4" spacing is required.

The AHJ will most likely want some delineation of the walking surface other than just placement of pavers to exempt guardrail at perimeter of entire roof or surrounding pathway and deck.
 
The whole world is open but we don't put rails at the Grand Canyon.....If the walkway is raised 10" the roof cannot possibly be a walking surface as 10" is not a compliant step...Again, good idea, but not code IMO
 
The whole world is open but we don't put rails at the Grand Canyon.....If the walkway is raised 10" the roof cannot possibly be a walking surface as 10" is not a compliant step...Again, good idea, but not code IMO
Agreed, that is exactly what I am saying. It has to be delineated somehow.
 
The entire roof is not intended to be a walking surface. The white membrane roof area would only be accessed by maintenance staff to access equipment or repair the roof. The paver paths to the pavered deck would be utilized by a business occupancy, and my thought was that I needed to keep them on the pavers and not have them wander over to the parapets that are not 42".
 
The entire roof is not intended to be a walking surface. The white membrane roof area would only be accessed by maintenance staff to access equipment or repair the roof. The paver paths to the pavered deck would be utilized by a business occupancy, and my thought was that I needed to keep them on the pavers and not have them wander over to the parapets that are not 42".
Which is my point, something needs to delineate this. Be that by a curb, a fence, a single rail, posts w/ single chain, etc. The delineation is not regulated by the codes, however unless delineated, I would consider the whole roof a walking surface.
 
Alright, so delineated (by a curb, a fence, a single rail, posts w/ single chain, etc) but not necessary to meet the guardrail requirements because the adjacent roof area is not a walking surface? Is that the conclusion?

1015.2 Where required. Guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces, including mezzanines, equipment platforms, aisles, stairs, ramps and landings that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically to the floor or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally to the edge of the open side.Guards shall be adequate in strength and attachment in accordance with Section 1607.8.
 
Alright, so delineated (by a curb, a fence, a single rail, posts w/ single chain, etc) but not necessary to meet the guardrail requirements because the adjacent roof area is not a walking surface? Is that the conclusion?

1015.2 Where required. Guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces, including mezzanines, equipment platforms, aisles, stairs, ramps and landings that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically to the floor or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally to the edge of the open side.Guards shall be adequate in strength and attachment in accordance with Section 1607.8.
Agreed
 
Somebody should talk to the insurance company. My guess is that the aisles and patio will be separated from the roof by a 5’ tall fence.

As an aside, that’s the only way I would approve it.
 
Somebody should talk to the insurance company. My guess is that the aisles and patio will be separated from the roof by a 5’ tall fence.

As an aside, that’s the only way I would approve it.
Insurance company can request whatever they want. Point is, an inspector using the building code can only enforce the minimum standard as established in the code. Doesn't mean that what the code requires is adequate or even a "good" idea. If it complies with the minimum provision, move on.
 
There is an occupied roof that has less than a 42” guard at the edge of the roof. They have options as to how the danger will be mitigated. The parapet could be raised to 42”. The space that will be occupied can be separated from the rest of the roof by a barrier.

There is a code for that.
 
There is a code for that.
Please provide the code section.

I agree that the occupiable area must be delineated from the non-occupiable area, however I am unaware of a code section requiring a guard as asked in the OP. I would personally cite IBC 116.1- Unsafe Condition to require some type of delineation (as noted above, a curb, fence, single rail, posts w/ single chain, etc.).
 
The situation raised is not a code requirement - however litigation would probably dictate 4" spacing on the pickets with a guard height of 42" to prevent youths from climbing down and running all over the roof.

From a legal standpoint, you have met or exceeded the codes with proper picket spacing and provide a "guard" to properly delineate the walking surfaces for the common or public use. BTW in today's society, don't expect parent to watch their kids - go to any restaurant and watch the varmints run free in the restaurant.
.
 
There is an occupied roof that has less than a 42” guard at the edge of the roof. They have options as to how the danger will be mitigated. The parapet could be raised to 42”. The space that will be occupied can be separated from the rest of the roof by a barrier.

There is a code for that.

This has always been a gray area in the code for interpretations, most guard manufactures would build a compliant guard for this type of situation, however if a fence company installs some fence, there are many a fence that does not comply with guard load requirements, just as the fence barrier code for pools are not required to meet loads when under 6ft in height.

I too am curious as to what code section you are claiming requires a "barrier"?

If you label the entire roof simply occupied space because of the access to the defined walking area and the non-defined walking area are now considered all the same, one could push the limit and say guards all around, however, if they have a defined walking surface and a defined non-walking surface, though not wise, one could establish it as non-occupied space, and therefore read it another way.

However lets ask this question, do you calculate the square footage for the required MOE by the defined walking surface of the pavers or the entire roof area? and why?
 
I too am curious as to what code section you are claiming requires a "barrier"?

It's Tiger code...You get used to it...The heart is in the right place. Some of us just get a little too worried about getting sued for asking for too much, even if it is a good idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICE
21" spacing (with a curb or low pipe to keep crutches from slipping off the edge) is sufficient because the deck is only 10" above the roof. However it would be prudent to have a 42" high guard with no more than 4" between pickets. The code is written with the assumption that careless parents will bring their toddlers everywhere and leave them unsupervised, so you could be in for a lawsuit if somebody explores beyond the edge of the deck and falls over the parapet.
 
21" spacing (with a curb or low pipe to keep crutches from slipping off the edge) is sufficient because the deck is only 10" above the roof. However it would be prudent to have a 42" high guard with no more than 4" between pickets. The code is written with the assumption that careless parents will bring their toddlers everywhere and leave them unsupervised, so you could be in for a lawsuit if somebody explores beyond the edge of the deck and falls over the parapet.

Darwin for the win....!
 
The OP mentioned “white roof” so I’m thinking TPO or PVC. Ever walk on one of those roof membranes when they are wet or even just slightly damp? They are slick as ****! Put up some sort of guard to keep the business occupants off the membrane or someone is going to slip and fall…..and sue.
 
Please provide the code section.

I agree that the occupiable area must be delineated from the non-occupiable area, however I am unaware of a code section requiring a guard as asked in the OP. I would personally cite IBC 116.1- Unsafe Condition to require some type of delineation (as noted above, a curb, fence, single rail, posts w/ single chain, etc.).

SECTION 102
UNSAFE BUILDINGS

102.1 Definition. All buildings or structures which are structurally unsound or not provided with adequate egress, or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life, or which in relation to existing use constitute a hazard to safety or health, or public welfare, by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster damage, lack of an approved water supply, electrical hazard, unsafe gas piping or appliances, or abandonment as specified in this Code or any other effective ordinance, are, for the purpose of this Chapter, unsafe buildings.......

All unsafe buildings are hereby declared to be public nuisances. In addition to instituting any appropriate action to prevent, restrain or correct a violation of this section, the Building Official may abate an unsafe condition or order that the unsafe condition be secured, repaired, rehabilitated, demolished or removed as deemed necessary by the Building Official in accordance with the procedure specified in this Code.

This is an amendment to the California Code.
While a 42" tall guard is sufficient for the code as it relates to a drop-off with a walkway, 42" is not adequate as a barrier. For example, our pedestrian barrier that is required to separate a swimming pool from public access is 5' tall. If the effort is to protect someone from a fall 42" does that. If the effort is to keep the public from accessing the fall, 5' does that.

 
Last edited:
Often overlooked, OSHA requires attachment points for fall protection devices on roofs without parapets.
 
Top