Walking surface ends and guard begins

[Yikes]

Glennman, I see what you're saying, and your example from the vocational school is a perfect real-world scenario. The 1/2" hole in the floor may sound like a stretch, but it neatly fits the actual problem: a floor surface that is inadequately designed to support a reasonable load.

And you CAN have a curb within the space of a floor area, as long as no one is intended to travel across the curb. (A built-in seat is a type of giant curb.) The fact that the curb would be close to the perimeter of the seating area at the vocational school would make it an unlikely path-of-travel or trip hazard.

Your curb example is not that far off from the description of a baseboard, which is not a walking surface but is a maintenance / wall finish device.

 

[Glennman CBO]

Yikes,

Maybe my curb analogy has some flaws, but the point I'm making is that either it is a floor area, or it is not (at the gap between the floor and the guard).

 

[Yikes]

Agreed. In the example of a chair leg falling downward, one or more failures are occuring:

1. There is inadequate floor coverage, and the leg is falling vertically through the floor.

2. There is inadequate guardrail coverage, and the leg is pushing horizontally through the guardrail area into a non-floor space where it can fall vertically.

3. The unusual use* of the code-compliant "gap" is unanticipated in the code. By this I mean that an angled chair leg that can slip at an angle between floor and guard)

Prudent design ("loss prevention") would be to eliminate #1 and 2 as possible targets in a legal action. The best way to do this for the floor is to not leave a gap that is 1/2" or larger when seen in plan view.

 

[High Desert]

Yikes,

There is no legal action if it's not a code requirement. "Unanticipated in the code" is not a reason to skew the code requirements to fit your opinion. By requiring something that is not in the code is painting a "target for legal action" on your own back.

I do agree that it is not addressed in the code and should be. The way to change it would be a code change to ICC, or if your state or jurisdiction permits it, a local amendment.

 

[jeharrarch]

Yikes - I agree too, especially with the "prudent design". But couldn't you make identical arguments for a guard with the following geometry (which I would say complies with the IBC): vertical pickets attached to the floor edge at <4"? A chair leg could easily fall vertically through (the edge of) the floor or horizontally through the guard into the "non-floor" space. (really sketchy sketch here)Does this, I would venture to say very common, detail also not meet Code? I would say it does, because it prevents the chair and its occupant from falling all the way through and hitting the ground below. Just because an item smaller than a 4" sphere can pass through an opening in a guard doesn't make a difference - whether in the vertical or horizontal plane. The purpose of a guard it to prevent a person from falling to the surface below... which this and the OP's detail both do. Not good, but permitted.

View attachment 422

View attachment 422

/monthly_2011_03/572953bfb335a_guardwithoutbottomrail.jpg.ea59b43404a76a95a54afab6a7bc6c1c.jpg

 

[Big Mac]

I could find no definition of floor in the IBC, therefore as directed by code, I attempted to determine the intent of the code by finding its common meaning. The following definitions were found on line rather readily and I think provide a common sense direction to the intent of a floor system.

• The surface on which one walks

• A continuous supporting surface

• A level supporting surface

• A level area for a particular use

• The surface of a room on which one stands

It seems quite clear that there was never the intent that a floor surface would have portions unsuitable for the stated purposes, such a walking. There may be several reasons for this, not the least of which is life safety, one of the basic tenants of the code. It seems unrealistic to me that much of any gap is acceptable. I guess I could somewhat go along with the 11/2” stated except that even that allowance is for a limited opening length, like two inches.

Any opening greater than ½” should be considered unacceptable.

Definition of floor, per dictionary .com

floor:

1.

that part of a room, hallway, or the like, that forms its lower enclosing surface and upon which one walks.

2.

a continuous, supporting surface extending horizontally throughout a building, having a number of rooms, apartments, or the like, and constituting one level or stage in the structure; story.

3.

a level, supporting surface in any structure: the elevator floor.

4.

one of two or more layers of material composing a floor: rough floor; finish floor.

5.

a platform or prepared level area for a particular use: a threshing floor.

6.

the bottom of any more or less hollow place: the floor of a tunnel.

Definition of floor, free dictionary

floor (flôr, fl r)

n.

1.

a. The surface of a room on which one stands.

b. The lower or supporting surface of a structure.

2.

a. A story or level of a building.

b. The occupants of such a story: The entire floor complained about the noise.

3.

a. A level surface or area used for a specified purpose: a dance floor; a threshing floor.

 

[Yikes]

Yikes - I agree too, especially with the "prudent design". But couldn't you make identical arguments for a guard with the following geometry (which I would say complies with the IBC): vertical pickets attached to the floor edge at <4"? A chair leg could easily fall vertically through (the edge of) the floor or horizontally through the guard into the "non-floor" space. (really sketchy sketch here)

Yes, your sketch meets code, and a chair could still fall through. I think we're making the same point. I'm thinking of it more from a standpoint of CYA loss prevention, in addition to the actual safety issue.

The reason for a prescriptive code is that society agrees it provides a reasonable standard for minimum amount of safety; the flip side of this is that it allows a socially / legally acceptable amount of risk. If the chair legs in your sketch fall through the (code compliant) floor+guardrail, and the person in the chair breaks their teeth on the pickets, the ambulance-chasing lawyers will have a difficult time proving that a code compliant design was also professionally negligent design.

On the other hand, if the chair falls through a gap > 1/2" in the floor, or next to the floor, the code is no longer providing you safe harbor. You've seen the varying opinions in this thread; now imagine we're all the expert witnesses giving depositions in a lawsuit. That's a gap that a jury can fall through, too.

 

[High Desert]

If I had to worry about being sued for everything that is not clearly addressed by the code, I would have changed occupations 20 years ago.

You have your opinion on the subject, and I respect that. But I still don't agree that it's a clear code violation. And in a court of law, that's exactly what my stance would be.

 

[Yikes]

Well, I actually hope I'm wrong, but I'd rather play it conservative on this one.

 

[tbz]

Ok, I see the point everyone is making, the floor ends, clearly defined and then the guard protects.

Let me ask you this question now, what about in the 09 IRC, R311.3 which requires a floor or landing be on each side of an exterior door.

Example: Homeowner pulls out a window on the second floor and installs a french door. then proceeds to install just a guard, does not the exception in R311.3 still require the landing, it just allows the landing to be less than 36"?

Or do you still allow just the guard with opening below it because zero is less than 36"? Code section listed below for reference.

R311.3 Floors and landings at exterior doors. There shall be a landing or floor on each side of each exterior door. The width of each landing shall not be less than the door served. Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel. Exterior landings shall be permitted to have a slope not to exceed 1/4 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2-percent).Exception: Exterior balconies less than 60 square feet (5.6 m2) and only accessible from a door are permitted to have a landing less than 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.

 

[High Desert]

Isn't zero less than 36?

 

[brudgers]

Example: Homeowner pulls out a window on the second floor and installs a french door. then proceeds to install just a guard, does not the exception in R311.3 still require the landing, it just allows the landing to be less than 36"?

What is the difference between a french door and a large casement window?

 

[Glennman CBO]

I think in the case of the french door...the code assumes that if there is an exterior door, that it will be used for some kind of egress in and out of the residence.

If they want to install a french door on the second floor with nothing but a guard on the outside, more power to them.

If they did it on the 1st floor, and they installed a guard in the same fashion, I would not require a landing there. The guard screems "This door will not be used for egress".

I would take a picture of the guard and leave.

I was always taught "minimum code" is to be enforced.