# Height of Guards



## tmurray (Apr 8, 2013)

The following is in the National Building Code of Canada;


```
1)Except as provided in Sentences (2) to (4), all guards shall be not less than 1 070 mm high.
2)All guards within dwelling units shall be not less than 900 mm high.
3)Exterior guards serving not more than one dwelling unit shall be no less than 900 mm high where the walking surface served by the guard is not more than 1 800 mm above the finished ground level.
4)Guards for flights of steps, except in required exit stairs, shall be not less than 900 mm high.
```
[/CODE]Here is the question; A deck serving a single dwelling unit has stairs leading to grade. The deck is approximately 10' above grade. Are the guards serving the stairs required to be 36" or 42"?

I proposed that sentence 3 would at the very least require the guards to be 42" where the stair tread was 6' above grade. The other inspector I work with doesn't think stairs constitute a walking surface.

What do you guys and gals think?


----------



## mjesse (Apr 8, 2013)

IRC (1 &2 fam. residential) = 36"

IBC (all other) = 42"

...and I'm from 'merica, we don't know what mm's are for 'cept good candy


----------



## RLGA (Apr 8, 2013)

No. 4 of the requirements states that guards for stairs can be 900mm, unless the stairs are required exit stairs.  In the IBC, the more specific takes precedent over the more general.  If the NBC has a similar interpretation, then a stair is more specific than a walking surface.


----------



## globe trekker (Apr 8, 2013)

tmurray,

Let's start with some basic conversions!

70 mm = 35 and 7/16",

1,800 mm = 70 and 55/64"

In your listed standards, ..# 3 limits the height above grade to 1,800 mm (70 and 55/64").

IMO, because your listed application is approx. 10 ft. above grade, an RDP will need to

design a compliant guard, or the BO will need to make a determination of this application.

Does this help?

.


----------



## tmurray (Apr 9, 2013)

RLGA said:
			
		

> In the IBC, the more specific takes precedent over the more general.


Unfortunately, there is no such provision in the NBCC


----------



## brudgers (Apr 9, 2013)

tmurray said:
			
		

> The following is in the National Building Code of Canada;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tmurray (Apr 9, 2013)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I think you should go with the interpretation which complies with convention - instead of being creative.


We have builders on both sides of the fence. Some supplying guards 42" and some 36".


----------



## brudgers (Apr 10, 2013)

tmurray said:
			
		

> We have builders on both sides of the fence. Some supplying guards 42" and some 36".


  So the minimum conventionally required by code is...


----------



## ICE (Apr 10, 2013)

On stairs you put on foot in front of the other and move in a forward direction...it looks a lot like walking

900mm=35.4331"


----------



## Rider Rick (Apr 10, 2013)

Use 36" and be safe.


----------



## Builder Bob (Apr 10, 2013)

Guards are used to prevent falling off of a stair or elevated platform. the requirement for the code is for 42". Since stairs/ramps also have a requirement for handrails, they are required to be placed at 36" A.F. tread nose.

So the old standard handrail serving dual purpose as a guard cannot be done as has been accepted in the past.


----------



## conarb (Apr 10, 2013)

Bob:

That's not how the stair industry interprets it.


----------



## north star (Apr 10, 2013)

*: - : - :*





> "The following is in the National Building Code of Canada;Code:
> 
> 1)Except as provided in Sentences (2) to (4), all guards shall be not less than 1 070 mm high.2)All guards within dwelling units shall be not less than 900 mm high.3)Exterior guards serving not more than one dwelling unit shall be no less than 900 mm high where the walking surface served by the guard is not more than 1 800 mm above the finished ground level.4)Guards for flights of steps, except in required exit stairs, shall be not less than 900 mm high."


1,070 millimeters equals 42 1/8".

*: - : - :*


----------



## mark handler (Apr 10, 2013)

conarb said:
			
		

> Bob:That's not how the stair industry interprets it.


National Building Code of Canada


----------



## Rider Rick (Apr 10, 2013)

conarb said:
			
		

> Bob:That's not how the stair industry interprets it.


See drawing #43.

Thank you, Conarb.


----------



## north star (Apr 10, 2013)

*: - :*





> "See drawing #43."


Unless Canada has adopted the standards of the Stairway Manufacturer'sAssociation [ SMA ]; in conjunction with their National Building Code of

Canada [ NBCC ], ...**conarb**' resource will not apply!....Totally different

countries and construction standards to apply.

*: - :*


----------



## Rider Rick (Apr 10, 2013)

north star said:
			
		

> *: - :*Unless Canada has adopted the standards of the Stairway Manufacturer's
> 
> Association [ SMA ]; in conjunction with their National Building Code of
> 
> ...


What Builder Bob said in post #10 apply to USA?


----------



## north star (Apr 10, 2013)

*: - :*





> "What Builder Bob said in post #10 apply to USA?"


I believe that **Builder Bob** has quoted the requirements from the actualsections in the IRC [ Section R312, `06 IRC ] & the IBC [ Section 1013.2 -

`06 IBC ]......The SMA link provided by **conarb** is a visual interpretation

of the code sections [ see Page # 2 in the SMA ]......For the dimensions to

apply, a jurisiction will have to adopt the IRC or IBC as the standard......I

do not think that all jurisdictions across the US of A have adopted The

Cow's codes.

*: - :*


----------



## Builder Bob (Apr 10, 2013)

1013.2 Height. Guards shall form a protective barrier not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) high, measured vertically above the

leading edge of the tread, adjacent walking surface or adjacent seatboard.

Exceptions:

1. For occupancies in Group R-3, and within individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2, guards

whose top rail also serves as a handrail shall have a height not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more

than 38 inches (965 mm) measured vertically from the leading edge of the stair tread nosing.

2. The height in assembly seating areas shall be in accordance with Section 1025.14.

It is important to note that the exceptions exist for stairways within a dwelling unit............ If the stairs are exterior, the guards are at 42" and the handrails are at 36" as was originally posted.


----------



## conarb (Apr 10, 2013)

Interestingly I just posed a question to Feeney, probably the largest manufacturer of cable rails in the country about the gooseneck transition between California's 42" guard and lower rail requirements asking them to consult with their engineering department.  I was also concerned with end termination over the newel as opposed  to into it, I quoted the section from the 2007 CBC asking for their interpretation.  They came back a few days later stating that they interpreted Exception 1 to apply:



> The consensus is that we are not convinced that “Exception 1” does not apply. This is a residential application. We are going to have to defer you to your building department for clarification.As for the profile I gave to you it cannot run over the end posts. It has to terminate into the end posts. Typically at landings and the top and bottom of stairs.


As a matter of interest they forwarded me a copy of this month's ICC Committee Action Hearing  .  I can't seem to make that link work for some reason so here's the relevant part:



			
				ICC Committee Action Hearings - April 2013 said:
			
		

> *303.3.5.1 ([F] 1104.6.1) Height of guards*. Guards shall form a protective barrier not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) high.
> 
> *Exceptions:*
> 
> ...


----------



## Rider Rick (Apr 11, 2013)

Was there a problem or did someone get hurt and sue in California for a 36" high guard rail in a SFR?

Are we that tall we need a 42" guard rail on a SFR to be safe?


----------



## pwood (Apr 11, 2013)

nothing like sitting on a deck in the great scenic outdoors and looking at a guardrail. the 42"  guardrail height blocks the field of vision perfectly. dumass code change imo.


----------



## conarb (Apr 11, 2013)

Rider Rick said:
			
		

> Was there a problem or did someone get hurt and sue in California for a 36" high guard rail in a SFR?Are we that tall we need a 42" guard rail on a SFR to be safe?


The history as I recall is that we were on the UBC, one size fits all occupancies and we had a code requirement of 36".  In Oakland there were a lot of Motel 6 type apartments (yes I built some of them), some kids fell off the balconies precipitating a lot of rail changes, strength, spacing and heights.  The new code required 42" high rails in all occupancies, everybody hated them and they were only in the code for one cycle. in about 1979 they created an exception for one and two story occupancies that allowed us to drop the rails to 36" again, I recall becasue I was building an expensive home in Lafayette under the 42" requirement and I presented the code change for the new code to the field inspector and asked him to look the other way since the code was changing in a few months to allow 36" high rails again, he agreed.  When we went through one code cycle on the 2007 CBC, based upon the 2006 IBC, with no residential code they actually placed an exception in the code for us:



			
				2007 CBC said:
			
		

> *1013.2 Height*. Guards shall form a protective barrier not lessthan 42 inches (1067 mm) high, measured vertically above the
> 
> leading edge of the tread, adjacent walking surface or adjacent
> 
> ...


When the 2010 CRC came out, based upon the 2009 IRC they unbelievably again increased the guard height back up to 42".  With everybody screaming about ugly rails again maybe they will reduce it back down in some future cycle.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 11, 2013)

Once again misinformation


----------



## conarb (Apr 11, 2013)

Wrong again:

View attachment 692

​
View attachment 692


/monthly_2013_04/2007-CBC.jpg.0f10f3094dcec8546660b3b41ac665aa.jpg


----------



## mark handler (Apr 12, 2013)

What does the California building code have to do with the National Building Code of Canada?


----------



## conarb (Apr 12, 2013)

Interesting that  Mark edited his post that said that the 2007 IBC was based upon the UBC.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 12, 2013)

conarb said:
			
		

> Interesting that  Mark edited his post that said that the 2007 IBC was based upon the UBC.


Not what I edited, It had to do with the CBC not the IBC


----------



## Rider Rick (Apr 12, 2013)

Mark,

I would think you of all people would want a 36" guard and handrail in the IRC like everyone else that works in the code.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 12, 2013)

It is not what is wanted

The issue of the Op is what's required by the Canadian Building codes,  not the IBC or the IRC or the California Building codes

It really does not matter to the OP when the California Building Codes were based on which code

The issue of the OP is the Canadian Building Code

Dick keeps throwing irrelevant stuff out there.


----------



## tmurray (Apr 12, 2013)

In Canada generally a 42" guard is required everywhere the adjacent surface is 2' lower. The exception is for dwellings. As my original post says there are allowances for a reduction to 36" on certain circumstances.

I thank all those who responded, but this has been resolved as our local builders have decided to provide 42" guards on the stairs in question regardless of the code.


----------

