# Guardrail Installed in Non-Required Area



## Jim Albano (Jun 8, 2016)

Where there is no guardrail required and one is installed between 38" and 40" in height, is there a problem?


----------



## Joe Engel (Jun 8, 2016)

If it's not required, it's over and above the code. Being close does help but as an inspector, I would not the "required height" for a "required guard rail" on the report... just to cover your/my AZ


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jun 8, 2016)

In Virginia it should meet the requirement for live load as to not provide a false sense of safety or security.

"The installation of material or equipment, or both, that is neither required nor prohibited shall only be required to comply with the provisions of this code relating to the safe installation of such material or equipment."

The following could be equivalent;

*IBC 105.2 Work exempt from permit.* Exemptions from _permit_ requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. _Permits_ shall not be required for the following: . . . 
“[t]he intent of the IBC that even though work may be exempted from a permit, such work done on a building or structure must still comply with the provisions of the code. As indicated in Section 101.2, the scope of the IBC is virtually all-inclusive. This may seem to be a superfluous requirement where a permit is not required. However, this type of provision is necessary to provide that the owner, as well as any design professional or contractor involved, be responsible for the proper and safe construction of all work being done.”


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 8, 2016)

YES -


----------



## north star (Jun 8, 2016)

*! = ! = !*


Jim Albano,

Welcome to The Building Codes Forum !   

Which Codes & Edition are you using ?


*! = ! = !*


----------



## steveray (Jun 8, 2016)

I say no problem....If the intent is that it is supposed to function as a guard, then I agree with FV and it should meet some kind of loading.  I would recommend that but could not enforce. That would lead to enforcing the <4" rule on fences and every other thing in the world that loosely resembled a guard...Can a window on the 3rd story resist a 200# point load?


----------



## my250r11 (Jun 8, 2016)

IMO if its installed required or not it IS installed needs to meet code.

*IBC 105.2 Work exempt from permit.* Exemptions from _permit_ requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. _Permits _shall not be required for the following: . . .
“[t]he intent of the IBC that even though work may be exempted from a permit, such work done on a building or structure must still comply with the provisions of the code. As indicated in Section 101.2, the scope of the IBC is virtually all-inclusive. This may seem to be a superfluous requirement where a permit is not required. However, this type of provision is necessary to provide that the owner, as well as any design professional or contractor involved, be responsible for the proper and safe construction of all work being done.”


----------



## steveray (Jun 8, 2016)

my250r11 said:


> IMO if its installed required or not it IS installed needs to meet code.
> 
> *IBC 105.2 Work exempt from permit.* Exemptions from _permit_ requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. _Permits _shall not be required for the following: . . .
> “[t]he intent of the IBC that even though work may be exempted from a permit, such work done on a building or structure must still comply with the provisions of the code. As indicated in Section 101.2, the scope of the IBC is virtually all-inclusive. This may seem to be a superfluous requirement where a permit is not required. However, this type of provision is necessary to provide that the owner, as well as any design professional or contractor involved, be responsible for the proper and safe construction of all work being done.”



So, again...If I install a white picket fence around my yard, does it have to meet guard requirements? When does it become decorative and not "structural"?


----------



## my250r11 (Jun 8, 2016)

Jim Albano said:


> Where there is no guardrail required and one is installed between 38" and 40" in height, is there a problem?



First off it was called a guardrail-needs to meet code, Fence under 6' exempt- in my city we have an ord. which requires permits for all fence because somebodies white picket fence or block fence keep falling down so here it is a structural, next town over either direction don't care about fences. If some one adds in mesh or extra re-bar it's not required but it still needs to meet code. Not gonna let them get away with clearances or lay it on the ground just cause it wasn't required.


----------



## ICE (Jun 8, 2016)

Jim Albano said:


> Where there is no guardrail required and one is installed between 38" and 40" in height, is there a problem?


What is the guardrail protecting people from?  The code starts with a guard required for a 30" change in elevation.....so what about a 28" change in elevation.  No guard is required but most likely one is installed...and it should meet the code for guards.  A kid can still get his head stuck....fatboy could still lean on it.


----------



## steveray (Jun 9, 2016)

First and foremost, it is not exempted per 105, it is not required and I will win that in court all day long....Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, if the intent is for it to serve as a guard, I would give some guidance as to how to do that or at least what the requirements would be. But to beat someone on a 38" nonrequired guard is the dumbest thing I've ever seen and I've seen Congress!


----------



## ICE (Jun 9, 2016)

Jim Albano said:


> Where there is no guardrail required and one is installed between 38" and 40" in height, is there a problem?


What is the reason for installing a guard?


----------



## north star (Jun 9, 2016)

*@ @ @*



> *" What is the reason for installing a guard ? "*


Possibly a decorative application,  or to direct Pedestrian traffic.

We need more info...

*@ @ @*


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 9, 2016)

*SECTION 105 PERMITS 

[A] 105.1 Required. *
Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the _building official_ and obtain the required_permit_.

*[A] 105.2 Work exempt from permit. *
Exemptions from _permit_ requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. _Permits_ shall not be required for the following:


2009 Commentary:


Section 105.1 essentially requires a permit for any activity involving work on a building and its systems and other structures. This section lists those activities that are permitted to take place without first obtaining a permit from the building department. Note that in some cases, such as Items 9, 10, 11 and 12, the work is exempt only for certain occupancies. *It is further the intent of the code that even though work may be exempted for permit purposes, it must still comply with the code and the owner is responsible for proper and safe construction for all work being done. Work exempted by the codes adopted by reference in Section 101.4 is also included here.*


----------



## steveray (Jun 9, 2016)

BB....you guys are getting hung up on exempted from permit vs. not required by code.... A 200 square foot deck may be exempted, but it should still be built to code for structural/safety reasons. The guardrail that is not required is built to code because there is no requirement.....Another example, strip mall with 4" curb along the front covered walkway, if not protected or at least delineated in some way, I know it is a tripping hazard. Do I have them install guards? Do I have them install handrails because it is a "stair"?...Where would we stop? And I do appreciate the discussion BTW.


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 9, 2016)

Whether a permit is required or not is the issue that has been discussed. The issue at hand is if I install something not required by code does it have to meet code.....

"....*even though work may be exempted for permit purposes, it must still comply with the code and the owner is responsible for proper and safe construction..."
*
_That is the point being made. If you install it, it must meet the requirements of the code for proper and safe construction ...... thus height, picket spacing, point load, anchorage, etc. would be required to meet code whether or not a permit is required.

The question that was being asked was a yes or no question and where would you find the answer in the code book....


The only question that I have is "what is a guard rail?" since that is not in the code book - 

It is either a guard or a handrail - both of which have different requirements in the IBC (Commercial Code)

If this is at a residential location, it may have different requirements.


To put a spin on it, Do you require the contractor that installs HVAC systems for cooling to meet code  and/or manufacture's instruction for the install?  

What if I have a fire place insert along with a HVAC system, does it have to be installed per code and/or manufacture's instructions? 

(hint: Air conditioning for cooling purposes is not required by the code, only the ability to heat air is.... and if I have a central heat installed, I am not required to install a fire place or a fire place insert......)


Now what say ye?_


----------



## steveray (Jun 9, 2016)

I see your point on the "required" analogy....but there is specific code requirements dealing with A/C installations and they are not exempted in 105. The specific requirements on guards are that they are not required <30" drop...If I plant arborvitae along side my 29" high deck because I have a concern about someone walking off it, but I do not want to install a guardrail", would you make my shrubs have to meet guard requirements?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 9, 2016)

GUARD. A building component or a system of building components located at or near the open sides of elevated walking surfaces that minimizes the possibility of a fall from the walking surface to a lower level.


----------



## steveray (Jun 9, 2016)

See how clear this is Jim A?....


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 10, 2016)

now Steve.... You didn't ask for common sense to be used..... Nobody like 42" Latina besides it wouldn't support a 200 lb point load.

However, back to the guard --- if it is in the public area, it better be the correct height with the correct spacing for pickets.... otherwise litigation potential will eat the owner alive if Bobbie Sue or Billie Bob gets his/her head stuck between the pickets.... 

What about the recent outrage about the three year old kid falling into the gorilla enclosure.....??


----------



## steveray (Jun 10, 2016)

Darwin....IMO, we should let him do his job.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 10, 2016)

Gentlemen, am I missing something? I see a lot of positive comments but no response from Jim.
Many don't see the line between code specific requirements and risk management/common sense/best practices.
Save a dime now and pay dollars later doesn't make good "cents".


----------



## georgia plans exam (Jun 10, 2016)

The question was about the height of a non-required guardrail. Section 1013.3 (2012 IBC) regulates the height of _required_ guardrails. "Required guards shall not be less than..." If it is not required, it is not regulated by the IBC. That is, IMHO, the answer to the OP's question.

GPE


----------



## hughdint (Jun 16, 2016)

I primarily do multi-family. We do 30" high decorative rails on first level patios all of the time. Never call it a guardrail it is a decorative rail.
There is nothing in the code that says that decorative items needs to follow all of the rules of guardrails.
I can't find anywhere that says that the <4" max spacing would apply to anything other than a guardrail.
We do not need to protect the world from all spacing < 4" only guardrails.


----------



## JBI (Jun 17, 2016)

The Building Code says 'guards shall comply with...' It does not say 'required guards', so even a non-required guard must comply. As noted earlier, it cannot create a false sense of security.
The IRC takes a slightly different approach. Some sections say 'required guards shall' and other simply say 'guards shall'. Height and opening limitations in the IRC only apply to 'required guards' while the loading requirements apply to all guards per Section R301.5 and Table R301.5.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jun 17, 2016)

hughdint said:


> I primarily do multi-family. We do 30" high decorative rails on first level patios all of the time. Never call it a guardrail it is a decorative rail.
> There is nothing in the code that says that decorative items needs to follow all of the rules of guardrails.
> I can't find anywhere that says that the <4" max spacing would apply to anything other than a guardrail.
> We do not need to protect the world from all spacing < 4" only guardrails.



The intent of the guard infill is child protection in various application in the code such as elevated floors, pool barriers and windows, etc.

Here it's a case by case basis.  And as a reminder; pointed out in various threads on this forum municipalities and states also have different administrative provisions.

*[A] 104.1 General. *
The _building official_ is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The _building official_ shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.

*"(2012 IRC) R104.1 General. *
The _building official _is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The _building official _shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jun 17, 2016)

I don't know why this gets pasted weird

This section establishes the building official’s authority to render such interpretations of the 
	
	



```
. In addition, the building official may adopt policies and procedures that will help clarify the application of the code. Although having no authoring to provide variances or waivers to the code requirements, the building official is charged with interpreting and clarifying the provisions found in the [code], provided that such decisions are in conformance with the intent and purpose of the code.



However, it must be stressed that the ultimate responsibility for determining the appropriateness of an interpretation lies with the jurisdictional building official, and all other opinions, both verbal and written, are just that, opinions."
```


----------



## conarb (Jun 17, 2016)

I once built a home with two child's bedrooms, each with a loft, ship's ladder, and non-compliant guard rail designed by the architect, I was worried about the ship's ladder more than the guard rails, but the inspector walked right by both of them at final.


----------



## kilitact (Jun 21, 2016)

Call it something else, if its not required doesn't need to meet the requirements for a guard/rail


----------



## fatboy (Jun 21, 2016)

kilitact said:


> Call it something else, if its not required doesn't need to meet the requirements for a guard/rail



Call it decorative perimeter treatment.


----------



## kilitact (Jun 21, 2016)

yes, some(like stairway) get hung-up on the code terminology


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jun 21, 2016)




----------



## Timo (Jun 30, 2016)

Strange to see so many calling for a non-guard to comply with guard requirements.  
1. If it is not a required guard rail, the building code does not require it to be a guard rail, period.  If you went down the path of 'expectation,' those little fabric mesh pedestrian control cables and their free-standing posts would have to be built as guards, even on a level floor.  If it is not a required guard, it is not a guard at all. 
2. There may be some level of expectation if its function is similar to a guard at a drop off under 30".  In such cases, we like to put in a handrail, with the handrail meeting code loading requirements.  This is not because the code mandates it, but for our own liability concerns and best practices.


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 30, 2016)

I would caution that if it appears as a ducks, walks, like duck, but doesn't perform like a duck, then in a court you may be left holding the duck that wasn't required to be a duck


----------



## conarb (Jun 30, 2016)

Just call it something else, like a rail, but not a handrail.  We went through this for years on what constitutes a bedroom, we ended up with a room is whatever the architect says it is on the plans, if he labels it a bedroom it must comply with bedroom requirements including egress, if he calls it an office it doesn't need to me egress or other requirements.


----------



## linnrg (Jun 30, 2016)

In the code for "guards" (both IBC and IRC):  The very first section is the Bold lettering that says "Where Required.", then it follows with a sentence of the locations where it occurs as "required".  So if a short divider wall, picket structure or paper decorations is installed at an area where a guard is not required then there are no requirements or items an inspector or BO can impose.  I would go to court and tell a judge that the code says it is not required therefore they can construct it however they want.  I dated a girl once who let her pet ducks into the house - never tried to hold the duck.


----------



## conarb (Jun 30, 2016)

linnrg said:
			
		

> . I dated a girl once who let her pet ducks into the house - never tried to hold the duck.



Ducks can fly over even 42" high guards, or course with all the duck $hit on the floor humans would slip and fall before they even got to the guard to fall over.


----------



## linnrg (Jun 30, 2016)

exactly!!!!!


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 30, 2016)

Apparently I have stepped on a duck...... Not saying that I disagree with your assessment.. I am merely making this assessment - 
If you can't get consensus among 12 code professionals, how are you going to fair with a jury of 12 non-code professionals in a civil trial??


----------



## linnrg (Jul 1, 2016)

never been to court over this issue but have been called by attorneys (and threatening to add me to the suit) for a suit where someone fell off a deck that was only 15" off the ground.  According to the owner the lady showed up to his house opening party already half lit, in high heels.  Her accident happened just a few days after I finaled the home and I had responded to the owner previously when he asked if he had to have a guard around the deck to which I told him that the code does not require it - but is is his option to build one if he wishes.  I sent the attorney a copy of the code and never heard from him again.  The homeowner later told me his insurance paid out.  to this day the fella has never had another house party - and when his wife was still alive the edge of the deck was always the most colorful flower layout.  The deck is the full front of the house. The house is up for sale and I recently got the call from a potential buyer who wondered if they would have to put up a guard rail.


----------



## north star (Jul 1, 2016)

*$ ~ $ ~ $*

I wonder if we skeer'd Jim Albano off !  

Even though a guard may not be not required, no one is
immune from having a suit filed against them.....Even if the insurance
carrier does not require a guard, property owners can be sued !
That's the world we live in !

"Insurance up" boys & girls, ...insurance up !.......Oh, and keep all
"non-direct family humans" off of your property !

*$ ~ $ ~ $*


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 1, 2016)

But what if they had a guardrail where it's not required? Similarly with pool barriers; the code requires minimum height and opening limitations, but what reference are you using for live load; not required?

Another interpretation or opinion (hope Glenn doesn't mind me quoting him again)

"Unlike guard height and the size of the openings — which are regulated only on required guards — load resistance is regulated on all guards, even those installed on ground-level decks by choice. Falling over or getting through a guard on a low-level deck is not considered a hazard. However, all guards invite leaning and sitting, and you don't want optional ones on low decks to be booby-traps that could collapse. So, if you build a guard on a deck where it's not required by code, you have leeway regarding the guard's height and openings, but you still must satisfy the strength requirements."

http://www.deckmagazine.com/codes-and-standards/code-compliant-guardrails.aspx

Have a great Independence Day Celebration!


----------



## linnrg (Jul 1, 2016)

the most challenging and probably the most interesting part of our business is the fact that we are interpreters and it can be a tangled up web.  One of the things I do is to offer up the code to the client to read it.  If I offer up something that is "my code" then I would effectively be acting in a non-code compliant manner - how could I ever ask for their code compliance if I could not offer the same?

I find that most forums offer information (some of which is useful) but often do not come to firm conclusion and yes the original poster falls away because he does not see the conclusion.  I have a problem with one of my vehicles and through many repair forums have never found the answer to fix my problem - lucky for me the car still runs and delivers me to where I want to go but I have to abide by its tweaky behavior.  Other forums have helped me greatly such as helping me through some appliance repair, helping me understand technical subjects like grounding and bonding.  This forum has helped me - made me laugh - made me scratch my head - made me say WTF thats over the top - and mostly it has helped me see that I am not the only one who is still learning, or needs to learn, or allowing me to pass along some of my "lessons learned".

So Jim A if you are still out there please bear with us we are a technical bunch.

Hope every one enjoys the holiday but be careful out there


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 5, 2016)

If not "required", then what of "best Practices? Under what guidelines do you see them following? (note, I said guidelines, not code)


----------

