# non required elements



## peach (Sep 2, 2010)

I know we've hashed (and re-hashed) this before.. and I'm not stupid..  but I want fresh perspective.

We ALL know residential guardrail height is 36" with spindle spacing to prevent passage of a 4" sphere..

Deck/porch is essentially at grade (well, 10" above grade).  How do we feel (group hug) about a guard rail/opening limitation here?


----------



## Yankee (Sep 2, 2010)

Some say that anything built even if not required must meet the code for such a required item. I believe it is up to a knowledgeable AHJ. In this case, the AHJ knows why there are requirements for the guard and for infill and why those dimensions have been chosen.

Use your judgement and allow some leeway based on that.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 2, 2010)

Less than 30" IMO unlimited spacing


----------



## Daddy-0- (Sep 2, 2010)

Any guardrail assembly installed where not required is above and beyond imo unless it creates a false sense of security or something. If the guardrail is sturdy but the pickets are a little too far apart I would argue that it is more safe than no guardrail. I would pass it and move on.


----------



## globe trekker (Sep 2, 2010)

peach,

Are you asking about a guardrail "opening limitation" between the spindles, or

from underneath the horizontally framing that the spindles attach to ( i.e. -

from the porch / deck to the bottom of the spindles  ), both or something

else?

IMO, I think that ' requiring ' limitations on these non-required guards does

indeed go beyond the minimum.    There's nothing to say that the homeowner

couldn't install some type of guard themselves, ...but as a code minimum, I

would say "No!"

.


----------



## incognito (Sep 3, 2010)

If it is not required it can be whatever.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Sep 3, 2010)

How do I feel?

" Deck/porch is essentially at grade (well, 10" above grade). How do we feel (group hug) about a guard rail/opening limitation here? "

"Not required; but, how do we feel?" This is how men get into trouble; by answering questions like this.

At present, of course; there is no opening limitaton. R312.3 refers only to required guards; so we can't require anything.

I "feel" that we should not be over protective where private property is conserned.

Now, I'm afraid to go to Denver; and have to explain my opinion to Peach in person. I may be court ordered; by a Lady Judge; to attend sensitivity counseling.

"Group hug"; bah, humbug,

Uncle Bob


----------



## Inspector 102 (Sep 3, 2010)

I feel if it looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, you should treat it like a duck. A guard rail that is installed should meet the provisions of the code, or not be provided. I have had to explained to too many people that their deck at 31" needs a complying guard rail, but the neighbor, whos deck is 29" does not. Make them all comply. That being said, I realize there has to be a limit and the magical number in this case is 30" above grade, thats what it says and that is what I am charged to enforce.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 3, 2010)

UB said "required guard" and that is exactly right, , , if it is not required, it doesn't not need to meet the dimensional requirements for a required guard. I really never noticed the "required" word in that section before.


----------



## Darren Emery (Sep 3, 2010)

My .02 - guard openings should be limited to 4", regardless of location of the guard.  If you build it, adhere to the design specificaitons.

Now...before you jump on me - I know that's not what the code requires, but what I think it _should_ require.

One key reason for the maximum opening size is to prevent child entrapment.  Doesn't matter where the guardrail is - a kid might try to put his/her heard through the opening.

A guardrail less than 36" tall becomes a hazard (can you say head over heals?) no matter where you put it.

I guess I "feel" it's time for a code change.


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 3, 2010)

While I respect the word "required", and would not "require" a code-compliant guard, you can bet I would document a non-required non-code-compliant guard as being "not required".


----------



## Mac (Sep 3, 2010)

If it's a non required element, not interfering with a required element, it's invisible.

Never mind my thoughts on what it ought to be.


----------



## rshuey (Sep 3, 2010)

If they install one that is not required, I call it an "ornamental railing", I say, boy that sure is purdy...and I move on.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 3, 2010)

I agree with others who say that the code does not intend for non-required guardrails to comply.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 3, 2010)

Less than 30" to grade, build it however you want.

Kinda like the attic access to an unoccupied attic. hehehe   :-D:-D:-D


----------



## texas transplant (Sep 3, 2010)

I like Mac's version.   If it isn't required, then its invisible to me.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Sep 3, 2010)

I look at it like this. The 4" max space limitation is for child entrapment. I get it; however, I think that the child has a much greater chance of getting hurt by falling off the deck than by getting stuck in pickets. A deck at grade is not that big of a deal, but a fall from a deck at 18"-24" high could seriously hurt a young child.


----------



## peach (Sep 4, 2010)

me too... I agree with Daddy-O if he's saying 30" may be too high for the requirement to kick in..

thanks


----------



## fatboy (Sep 4, 2010)

But, and I agree that 30" is a a long way to fall for a child, at close to that height, I would rather see some sort of guard, even if it did not meet all the requirements, than none at all. Just sayin..........


----------



## D a v e W (Sep 4, 2010)

30 inches is the code, no violation. However with that said I believe in the 09 book the grade must extend 3 feet from the deck edge or the requirement kicks in. No 09 book in front of me right now, could be mistaken.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 4, 2010)

D a v e W said:
			
		

> 30 inches is the code, no violation. However with that said I believe in the 09 book the grade must extend 3 feet from the deck edge or the requirement kicks in. No 09 book in front of me right now, could be mistaken.


That is correct. Grade must remain at or less than 30" below deck for a distance of 36" horizontally.

There are so many things in life that we each individually can look at and say "that doesn't seem as safe as it could be", and there really isn't anything in life that is completely safe.

I believe on a daily basis we NEED TO ACCEPT the levels/numbers in the codes as the place where we stop finding ghosts (and if you can't, well, that's when you go to the code hearings). It isn't our job to make situations as safe as they possibly can be, it is the basic level of safety set in the code that we are working for.


----------



## tbz (Sep 16, 2010)

This is a dual post from another thread but is on point.

The IRC is quite specific under opening limitations for guards that only required guards need meet any of the sphere requirements, 4", 4-3/8" or the 6".

Yankee is correct that the 2009 IRC added a 36" directional edge measurement zone to the 30" height trigger point and thus has increased what I refer to as a drop zone.  This took me a few code cycles to get adopted and the IBC & IRC committees both requeted I do the change through the CTC's work with guards.

Weather or not you agree with the 30" trigger point, really does not matter, the code specifies 30" and therefore unless changed during the adoption of the code by the AHJ, this is the trigger point.

Also note that the 2009 IRC has added the word required to the height section of the code. Hence NON-Required guards under the 2009 ICC published vrs of the IRC does not require a non-required guards height to be a minimum of 36".

However in any case no matter if larger openings or short height, the code is specific in not stating (REQUIRED) for the loads and thus all guards defined by the AHJ as being a guard need comply with the load portion of the code.

These changes are not IRC specific, but also in the IBC.

As to changing to the 4" sphere to stop heads being entraped was not a real reason, the reason for the change is the large amount of small children falling *through* the *large baluster spacing*, not getting stuck.

For those of you that have the interest and the time the CTC portion of the ICC website, if it is working and comes back to life, has a huge amount of documented information on how the change in opening limitations from 6" & larger to a base size of 4" with exceptions has reduced the amount of fall through accidents for very small and young children.  Nowhere in that information, injury data or studies did I see a problem with heads getting stuck.  Just another myth.

My spell check is turned off for those typo's I bid sorry.


----------



## codewonk (Sep 20, 2010)

Me too (not required). Just had to say it.


----------

