Thread: deck guard construction

Looking for code regarding a deck guard constructed such that it can be easily climbed by a tot. Or is this "just" common sense? I'm not seeing anything in the IRC requiring vertical pickets.

Similar Threads:

• May is Deck Safety Month
• Skylight flashing new construction
• Deck framing
• Flow guard CPVC
• Avoiding construction defect lawsuits - Contractor Mag

"Looking for code regarding a deck guard constructed such that it can be easily climbed by a tot. Or is this "just" common sense? I'm not seeing anything in the IRC requiring vertical pickets."

I do not believe there is a code that addresses that

To the contrary, the IRC actually includes a reference allowing constructing the guards as ladders
(bold and underlining are mine)
- R312.2 Guard opening limitations. Required guards on open sides of stairways, raised floor areas, balconies and porches shall have intermediate rails or ornamental closures which do not allow passage of a sphere 4 inches (102 mm) or more in diameter.
- - Exceptions:

- - - 1. The triangular openings formed by the riser, tread and bottom rail of a guard at the open side of a stairway are permitted to be of such a size that a sphere 6 inches (152 mm) cannot pass through.
- - - 2. Openings for required guards on the sides of stair treads shall not allow a sphere 4

3/8 inches (107 mm) to pass through.

"Rails" are horizontal, like rungs of a ladder.

In fact, as worded, the code says "shall have intermediate rails" as the first stated option, then continues with "or ornamental closures", under which the vertical balusters fall.

So, having horizontal rails less than 4" apart meets EXACTLY what the code says the guard "shall have".

Jerry, Thanks.
How strange.

Mr. Arnold:

To begin with deck guards do not contain "pickets". Pickets are elements of fences ( "a wooden strip forming part of a fence") and not deck guards ("a device designed to prevent injury or accident"). Now that we can agree on terminology, there is more.

Mr. Peck's seeming allegation that the IRC "requires" horizontal elements known as rails instead of vertical elements known as balusters is patently absurd. Horizontal rails in a deck guard would amount to constructing a stile, which is structure which provides passage over a boundary such as a guard.

Originally Posted by Elliot Franson

Horizontal rails in a deck guard would amount to constructing a stile, which is structure which provides passage over a boundary such as a guard.

That it would, but that IS what the code SPECIFICALLY states - not making that up either, go back and READ the CODE words.

Like it or not, "the code" is specifically addressing "opening sizes" and NOT PROHIBITING horizontal ladder rungs, and, in fact, states that as the "shall have" option, with everything else being a follow-up option.

Again, like it or not, read the code wording - that is why I posted it, so you (and all others) could see that *I* *am not* the one saying that, *the code* says that.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

That it would, but that IS what the code SPECIFICALLY states - not making that up either, go back and READ the CODE words.

Like it or not, "the code" is specifically addressing "opening sizes" and NOT PROHIBITING horizontal ladder rungs, and, in fact, states that as the "shall have" option, with everything else being a follow-up option.

Again, like it or not, read the code wording - that is why I posted it, so you (and all others) could see that *I* *am not* the one saying that, *the code* says that.

Mr. Peck: Perhaps I misunderstood your post. At best the ICC has so poorly worded this section as to leave it open to extreme misunderstanding of its meaning and intent. I do not believe that the intent is to require rails or horizontal members. And, while I find no proscription in the code regarding rails per se, it is my belief that horizontal members in a guard, other than the necessary top rail, are unsafe and should not be allowed. Any reports I ever wrote reflected that common sense observation. Any client of mine with children had no problem understanding the reasoning involved.

Originally Posted by Elliot Franson

I do not believe that the intent is to require rails or horizontal members. And, while I find no proscription in the code regarding rails per se,

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

- R312.2 Guard opening limitations. Required guards on open sides of stairways, raised floor areas, balconies and porches shall have intermediate rails

That *IS* what the code says ... "shall have intermediate rails" ... and "rails" are horizontal.

The code then adds:

or ornamental closures

Listing the typical vertical balusters as falling under "or ornamental closures".

Note that the "intermediate rails" is the first "shall have".

Now note that the opening size is addressed last:

which do not allow passage of a sphere 4 inches (102 mm) or more in diameter.

Originally Posted by Elliot Franson

it is my belief that horizontal members in a guard, other than the necessary top rail, are unsafe and should not be allowed.

I agree, but we were discussing code and what the code allows, what the code requires, and what the code does not disallow.

The code does not disallow "rails", and not only does the code allow "rails" it is the first "shall have" item listed in the code and the only one listed separately, all others, including vertical balusters are grouped under "ornamental".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]

That *IS* what the code says ... "shall have intermediate rails" ... and "rails" are horizontal.

The code then adds:


Listing the typical vertical balusters as falling under "or ornamental closures".

Note that the "intermediate rails" is the first "shall have".

Now note that the opening size is addressed last:
[font=Times-Roman][size=2][color=#231f20][font=Times-Roman][size=2][color=#231f20][font=Times-Roman][size=2][color=#231f20]

I agree, but we were discussing code and what the code allows, what the code requires, and what the code does not disallow.

The code does not disallow "rails", and not only does the code allow "rails" it is the first "shall have" item listed in the code and the only one listed separately, all others, including vertical balusters are grouped under "ornamental".

Mr. Peck: Well then, if you are correct, as I assume you believe you are (and I do not), almost every single balustrade I have seen in my life - and that is thousands - is not code-compliant.

Take another puff. Is it coming into focus now?

The 2000 IRC Section 316.2 on Guards had an additional last sentence: Required guards shall not be constructed with horizontal rails or other ornamental pattern that results in a ladder effect. The provision was gone the next code cycle because so many adopting bodies were amending it out.

The language regarding the rails comes from the legacy codes, which covered not only residential, but commercial as well. In areas not open to the public in the occupancies of I-3 (jails), F (factory), H (hazordous), and S (storage) openings must not allow a 21" sphere to pass through. You will also see horizontal rails in stair enclosures in commercial buildings as well.

Originally Posted by Elliot Franson

Well then, if you are correct, as I assume you believe you are (and I do not), almost every single balustrade I have seen in my life - and that is thousands - is not code-compliant.

Aaron,

What part of this do you NOT understand?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

The code does not disallow "rails", and not only does the code allow "rails" it is the first "shall have" item listed in the code and the only one listed separately, all others, including vertical balusters are grouped under "ornamental".

I always write-up horizontal balusters up as unsafe. The problem is that "code" should NOT be the "be all, end all". Code is often updated because people find out later that the old way of doing things was unsafe. Common sense should always prevail. Maybe if enough home inspectors write it up code will catch up.

Originally Posted by billynash

The problem is that "code" should NOT be the "be all, end all".

While code is not the "be all, end all" code IS the definitive support document for MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ... and, yes, no one should "strive for" MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, but that is the least which is "required".

I tell people that the difference between "meeting code" and "not meeting code" isn't that a check is written for one but not the other - a check is written for either ... but ... "not meeting code" means the check has another comma and three more zeros in it.

There is no excuse for "not meeting code".