If code is spacing 4″ on vertical placement of deck rails, is it the same for horizontal?
Edited 3/7/2009 7:05 pm ET by lukes
Discussion Forum
Edited 3/7/2009 7:05 pm ET by lukes
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Listeners write in about running a profitable contracting business and ask questions about patching drywall, adding air barriers, and fixing a patio poured against the house.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Fine Homebuilding Magazine
Fine Home Building
Follow
-
Fine Homebuilding
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial Now -
GBA Prime
Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
- Home Group
- Antique Trader
- Arts & Crafts Homes
- Bank Note Reporter
- Cabin Life
- Cuisine at Home
- Fine Gardening
- Fine Woodworking
- Green Building Advisor
- Garden Gate
- Horticulture
- Keep Craft Alive
- Log Home Living
- Military Trader/Vehicles
- Numismatic News
- Numismaster
- Old Cars Weekly
- Old House Journal
- Period Homes
- Popular Woodworking
- Script
- ShopNotes
- Sports Collectors Digest
- Threads
- Timber Home Living
- Traditional Building
- Woodsmith
- World Coin News
- Writer's Digest
Replies
No, in these parts it has something to do with not being able to climb. I can't remember the specifics and I don't have my code book here, sorry
Somebody will surely be by shortly
Have a good day
Cliffy
Generally the 4" rule means that a 4" ball can't get through the railing anywhere.
As stated, there are also rules about the railing not allow climbing, and, of course, a minimum height for the top rail.
I'm pretty sure the "ladder effect" is no longer a code issue, although it'll obviously be the ahj's decision.
k
No, it's not the AHJs decision. It's what the locally used code is. Yea, Yea , I know, the AHJ is king, but he has got to go by the codes in effect. That said, he/she could be a dipwad, so choose your battles wisley.
If you are under the IRC the are no ladder effect rules.
Can you refer me to the section?
I was under the impression that was pulled in IRC 2001, but many ahj's were still using 2000, which is why I gave the ahj disclaimer.
I could be wrong, though.
k
No code books at home , it's the weekend you know.
It looks like you have the applicable code if I read correctly your posts to other folks. I am under the 2006 IRC and prior to that the2003 and looooooong time ago the 2000. I seem to remember the ladder rule went away sometime around then (I really thought it never made it into the International codes)
Are there many places still on the 2000 or older codes?
Are there many places still on the 2000 or older codes?
It wouldn't shock me. And even if the jurisdiction is technically operating under irc 2006, for instance, it doesn't mean any given inspector might not fail you for it. You would probably prevail after fighting it, but I prefer not to battle my local building department if checking first will get everyone on the same page.
And, for the record, that quote I pulled was from a supply house's web page, not any real code book.
I can't vouch for its accuracy. I don't actually own any code books, (just cheat sheets) or I'd look it up... I know horizontal cable railings are allowed here.
k
MA code only state 5" dia didn't see anything about horizontal spacing.
"The 2000 International Residential Code (IRC) states that guardrails . . . shall not be constructed with horizontal members or other ornamental pattern that results in a ladder effect. It has never been in the International Building Code (IBC).
This was removed in the 2001 code cycle and was published in the 2001 IRC supplement. It has remained that way and is in the 2003 or 2006 publications of the IRC.
It is important to note that many local code authorities are using codes based on BOCA -- the creator of the ladder effect wording -- and the 2000 IRC. While we have now succeeded in having this removed from the IRC code, it may be many years before it filters down to these states. It is still unknown how building inspectors will interpret the term . . . ornamental pattern that results in a ladder effect. Contact your local authorities to see how this will impact your business directly."
That is pulled from Wagner co., a handrail supplier. I take it to mean that if your AHJ is using IRC later than 2001, ladder effect is not against code, however, they may be using an older version.
Also- 5"? Are you sure about that? I've never heard anything but 4".
k
Edited 3/7/2009 8:47 pm ET by KFC
Edited 3/7/2009 8:47 pm ET by KFC
got this off state web site:
CMR: STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
BUILDING PLANNING FOR SINGLE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS
1/11/08 (Effective 1/1/08) - corrected 780 CMR - Seventh Edition 559
safety terminals. Handrails adjacent to a wall
shall have a space of not less than 1½ inches
(38 mm) between the wall and the handrails.
780 CMR 5312 GUARDS
5312.1 Guards Required. Porches, balconies or
raised floor surfaces located more than 30 inches
(762 mm) above the floor or grade below shall have
guards not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height.
Open sides of stairs with a total rise of more than 30
inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below
shall have guards not less than 34 inches (864 mm)
in height measured vertically from the nosing of the
treads.
Porches and decks which are enclosed with insect
screening shall be provided with guards where the
walking surface is located more than 30 inches (762
mm) above the floor or grade below.
5312.2 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 five inches (127 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 six inches (152 mm)
cannot pass through.
2. Openings for required guards on the sides
of stair treads shall not allow a sphere 5d
inches (137 mm) to pass through.
Well, there it is.
k
>> got this off state web site <<
Which state is that? The state of confusion?
Seriously though, as soon as I saw those section/paragraph numbers I knew it was something different that the IRC that we use here in NC for houses. We just got the IRC 2006 with NC amendments....
So my point is that when you start quoting code, or asking what "the" code is X you need to specify where you are. Otherwise the info is no more meaningful than a few farts among friends....
As far as what code is en effect where a quick Google brought up this... Which is wrong, or at least mis-leading for my state which uses the IBC for commercial and IRC for residential... which I guess says that you need a local resource - or at least in the same state where you live, for starters...
You guys got me curious about the ladder effect thing since we just got a new code book so I looked it up and the NC flavor of the IRC doesn't say anything about the ladder effect or similar. (Section R312)
BTW - What building professionals here don't have code books? We will go with a show of hands to protect the guilty. :-)
well, I can put my hands on :
CABO '83
CABO '95
IRC 2000
IRC 2006
and the Mass Code ...... that's about twice as thick as the IRC 2006
everything except Mass Code has the RI amendments postedMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
>> No, it's not the AHJs decision. It's what the locally used code is. <<
It depends on what you mean by "locally" and again, what state you are in. In NC there are STATE WIDE codes. Local (county, city, town, etc) code enforcement jurisdictions have the right to add to that state code but can't subtract from it. IE - the state code is the minimum... Then there is the question of interpretation which puts the crown on the BI of he wants to be an A-H.
I don't know what is done in other states, but I suspect some/a bunch/whatever are similar.
All of this is assuming there is someone to enforce the code... Could be that in some really rural area the county solid waste facility manager (guy who hangs around the dump looking for good stuff and being sure no tractor trailer loads of tires are dropped off) also has that someplace way down in the fine print of his job description - since no one else wanted to do it and he is the only paid employee who can get stuck with something...
You missed my point when I said it's the local code in effect, not the AHJs decision. The only things the AHJ can regulate are what is in the locally adopted (whatever that may be) codes. He/she can't just make it up as they go along.
All the smart builders have code books and some of them have actually opened them.
When I really need to look something up, I can go to the U.C.B. library... happens once every three years. The rest of the time I just ask the inspector, he likes it better that way anyway. Saves some $, the full set is a little spendy...
But here's one I would like to look up some day, maybe you know the answer:
So, we know the 4" ball rule. But what is the minimum spacing that that rule comes into play?
In other words, if I build a handrail along a path where there's no drop off, I don't need screening to keep people from falling over the non-existent edge. So, I've got the handrail, and the client wants me to put one or two intermediate horizontals for some reason. If there's 18" of space between the horizontal members is that ok? 16"? 12"?
Anybody?
thanks,
k
Edited 3/8/2009 10:17 pm ET by KFC
Depends on what codes and state and lacal ammendments you are under......
Ha ha ha, now that we have more or less gone full circle let me take a stab at yer question.
If I understand your question correctly, you are asking "when are guardrails (properly spaced @ 4'' oc) required. That occures when the walking surface is higher than 30'' above the other surface. If you fall less than 30'' nobody cares.
If you wanted to put up horizontal rails at 12'' or 16'' or whatever, I think they would still have to resist the 50 lb impact load requirement, just like any rail. But once again nobody cares in a code complient way wheather they are there or not.
Ha ha, indeed. Nicely brought around!
No, you misunderstood. (I probably didn't explain very well).
My question is (assuming no need for barriers or screening, hence the no drop-off scenario):
What is the minimum space where the 4" ball rule comes into play? (According to IRC)
If you have 34" clear space under a hand rail (again, assuming no screening needed), a 4" ball will obviously fit through, but it doesn't matter. If you have 33" clear space, a 4" ball will fit through, but it doesn't matter. If you have 32" clear space, a 4" ball will fit through, etc. etc.
What is the magic number where the 4" ball rule comes into play?
thanks,
k
Boy now I'm getting confused. I hate these what if my mother-in-law stood on her head and the building was on fire....
If no guard rail is required, then no spacing requirement. Do whatever you want.
Did I even come close to answering your question?
Just to screw things up even worse, did you know the IBC in some instances lets you go with (i hope I remember correctly) a 21'' horizontal spacing in some industrial settings. Not a lot of rug rats running around
Um, no. Feel free to forget about it, too.
But, I still wonder...
All else aside, you can't have a 5" space, because a baby could get its head stuck. Same for a 6" space. 7", 8" etc... at what point is it decided that the space is too large for a child to get stuck?
Maybe I'll post this as a general question, see if I can confuse some more people...
k
What is the magic number where the 4" ball rule comes into play?
Seperation of More than 30" above grade or finished floor. That's it.
Now, you are asking from horizontals, too. Horizontals are virtually not allowed in a situation where the 4" sphere test applies (only matters where the horizontals support vertical ballusters, really).
Walk without any drop-off is just a sidewalk. Fence rule applies more than a guard rail.
That is if, and only if, no other rule applies to the walk (accessibility ramps have their own sets of rules--sometimes conflicting with guard rail structures--makes the intersection of the two far too exciting in the CD phase, really it does).Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
" if I build a handrail along a path where there's no drop off, I don't need screening to keep people from falling over the non-existent edge"
Your example doesn't need to go that far. You can still have all sorts of dangerous drop offs without needing any guard. As long as the path is not part of the building structure or its required exit, the code does not apply. Lots of high bank waterfront houses around here have code compliant railings on their 3 ft high decks, but the on- grade patios drop straight off onto steep cliffs. Apart from implying they would like to see the builders install something for safety, there is nothing the BI can do.
ok, but that is all just a set up for my question.
at what minimum space between members does the 4" ball rule kick in? 18"? 15"? 12"? 4 1/8"?
are you saying that the driving factor for the spacing is based by the gap between barrier members? and not the exposure of the area?
From what I read, you are missing the point. The 4 inch space applies to all spacings.
1 member, 1/4 inch wide to a what ever you want, then 4 inch space and another member and repeat. nothing could be easier!
Its a little confusing, I admit.
I posted this as a thread in gen q's. my second post, (the third post overall) describes it a little better.
thanks.
k
are you saying that the driving factor for the spacing is based by the gap between barrier members? and not the exposure of the area?
That's two ways of saying the same thing, right?
I posted the question under a different thread in gen q's. my second post, the third post in, describes it a little better. Thanks.
k
It doesn't. The spacing is required when the drop is 30 inches or more. No drop, no spacing required. You can make it whatever feeds your soul.Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein (or maybe Mark Twain)
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
"Everything not forbidden is compulsory." T.H. White, The Once and Future King
It doesn't. The spacing is required when the drop is 30 inches or more. No drop, no spacing required. You can make it whatever feeds your soul.
I guess I would put that differently- the screening or barrier members aren't required without the dropoff.
The spacing requirement comes into play if a child's head could get stuck, which is possible anywhere a child is walking next to multiple exposed members, regardless of dropoff or no dropoff.
I posted this in gen q's, my second post (the third overall) describes it a little better. I'm going to move the whole shebang to that thread...
thanks.
k
Unfortunately the code doesn't care if a child's head gets stuck. The 4" spacing is simply designed to stop the child slipping through the guard and being injured by the fall on the other side. The only provision I can think of that in any way addresses the child wedge-head issue is the recent amendment to out code that applies the 4" sphere rule to open-risers on stairs. Other than that you can design guards with nasty pointed spikes to impale children as far as the code is concerned.
>>The 4" spacing is simply designed to stop the child slipping through the guard and being injured by the fall on the other side
I don't think this is correct. There is risk of injury due to fall, and risk of injury or death due to being hung.
I should have been more clear. I don't think the code cares if a child's head becomes wedged in any element of the building - be it a guard or vent or anything else. It is concerned with the consequences of a child making it through a guard where there is a significant drop on the other side. The fall or, as you say perhaps more horrifically, the possibility of hanging are the consequence of the drop. No drop, no code interest.
My only personal experience with any of this occurred when I was standing around with a client looking at the set of exterior stairs I had just finished. His young daughter came out and immediately began to use them as a climbing frame, slipped herself through the open risers and then found her head wouldn't fit! Luckily her father was quickly able to extricate her by pushing her back up through the opening. It was a harrowing experience, and something I had never given a thought to. Much as I like the look of open riser stairs, I think applying the 4" rule to them was a good idea.
Yeah, I'm coming around to what you are saying. I put it basically this way to Piffin in the '4" sphere test' thread:
"So, you're saying as long as there's no drop off, you could infill a handrail with nooses and code wouldn't have anything to say about it..."
My apologies to the guys who said pretty much just that earlier- I thought they didn't understand my question, but now I think I didn't understand their answers...
Which isn't to say that there isn't a safety issue, just that code doesn't address it. My common sense says that if a head can get in any opening, I want to leave enough space for the whole toddler to slip through.
k
In the house, and on structures attached to the house, the IRC applies the 4 in. rule to open risers.Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein (or maybe Mark Twain)
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
"Everything not forbidden is compulsory." T.H. White, The Once and Future King
At first then our (Canadian) code applied the 4" rule to stairs it was interpreted by builders as making open risers illegal, but since then I've seen many interesting variations. The one I have built several times is attaching a 1"x to the bottom of the tread forming a tee. One added benefit is that this increases the rigidity of the tread allowing me to use 1"x material instead of 2"x.
Amazing how much stiffer materials are across their depth than their thickness, isn't it? I love that detail.Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein (or maybe Mark Twain)
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
"Everything not forbidden is compulsory." T.H. White, The Once and Future King
I've got an article around here somewhere, you may remember, that FHB ran several years ago on stiffening bookshelves which had some astonishing gains from small lips on the front and back.
Horizontal 'Ladder Effect'.
Came across this recently. Toddler could climb up the back of a deck bench like a ladder and fall. Client is a childless retired couple.
Well, maybe that is a safety issue, having dealt with some 3 year old boys, I can understand that reasoning, but should it be code?
I was told that it's not code with 'tiger teeth' and so passed. Still, as they say, I'll take it under advisement.
Having been a 3 year old boy, if I need to climb, i'm climbing, Momma better catch me.
Edited 3/10/2009 11:08 pm ET by skipj
Yeah, I know what you're saying. It's not a code issue, but man it is real.
I have a friend who has a balcony with a 30' drop, and there are horizontal 2x4's for railing infill. It is completely terrifying to be on that little deck with his 3-year old.
k
The ladder effect is certainly a code issue with pool fences. I assumed it extended to railings too. These are just in the residential code. In commercial they don't seem to care about kids.
I don't actually own a copy of IRC, so I could certainly be wrong, but my understanding is that the ladder effect was removed from IRC in 2001.
If you've got the amended IRC 2001 (or 2006, for that matter), by all means check me on that.
k
This is from the Florida Residential code 2007 Paragraph tool menuR4101.17.1 Outdoor swimming pools. Outdoor swimming pools shall be provided with a barrier complying with R4101.17.1.1 through R4101.17.1.14. Paragraph tool menuR4101.17.1.1 The top of the barrier shall be at least 48 inches (1219 mm) above grade measured on the side of the barrier which faces away from the swimming pool. The maximum vertical clearance between grade and the bottom of the barrier shall be 2 inches (51 mm) measured on the side of the barrier which faces away from the swimming pool. Where the top of the pool structure is above grade the barrier may be at ground level or mounted on top of the pool structure. Where the barrier is mounted on top of the pool structure, the maximum vertical clearance between the top of the pool structure and the bottom of the barrier shall be 4 inches (102 mm). Paragraph tool menuR4101.17.1.2 The barrier may not have any gaps, openings, indentations, protrusions, or structural components that could allow a young child to crawl under, squeeze through, or climb over the barrier as herein described below. One end of a removable child barrier shall not be removable without the aid of tools. Openings in any barrier shall not allow passage of a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere. Paragraph tool menuR4101.17.1.3 Solid barriers which do not have openings shall not contain indentations or protrusions except for normal construction tolerances and tooled masonry joints. Paragraph tool menuR4101.17.1.4 Where the barrier is composed of horizontal and vertical members and the distance between the tops of the horizontal members is less than 45 inches (1143 mm), the horizontal members shall be located on the swimming pool side of the fence. Spacing between vertical members shall not exceed 13/4 inches (44 mm) in width. Where there are decorative cutouts within vertical members, spacing within the cutouts shall not exceed 13/4 inches (44 mm) in width. Paragraph tool menuR4101.17.1.5 Where the barrier is composed of horizontal and vertical members and the distance between the tops of the horizontal members is 45 inches (1143 mm) or more, spacing between vertical members shall not exceed 4 inches (102 mm). Where there are decorative cutouts within vertical members, spacing within the cutouts shall not exceed 13/4 inches (44 mm) in width. Paragraph tool menuR4101.17.1.6 Maximum mesh size for chain link fences shall be a 21/4 inch square (57 mm) unless the fence is provided with slats fastened at the top or bottom which reduce the openings to no more than 13/4 inches (44 mm). Paragraph tool menuR4101.17.1.7 Where the barrier is composed of diagonal members, the maximum opening formed by the diagonal members shall be no more than 13/4 inches (44 mm).
Florida code? Ok... I believe you.
IRC? (amended 2001 or later) I believe it is no longer a code issue.
I've put that out on breaktime at least three times, and no one's come up with an IRC section to make me change my mind. Yet. (I fully admit I don't have the full IRC code book...)
If you've got it, show it. I'll give you credit!
k
This is the preface of the Fl 2007 residential code.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. This 2007 Florida Building Code - Residential, contains substantial copyrighted material from the 2006 International Residential Code,
I've researched this pretty extensively. Horizontal railing infill is permitted in the 2006 IRC, no question. It may be forbidden locally, but not by the IRC.Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein (or maybe Mark Twain)
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
"Everything not forbidden is compulsory." T.H. White, The Once and Future King
"It is completely terrifying to be on that little deck with his 3-year old."
I wonder how much this is a cultural thing. Most European cities have low or no railings protecting children from drops but they don't seem to have much higher rates of head injuries.
Thinking about this always reminds me of a show I saw on PBS where an Amazonian Indian let his barely able to walk son borrow his blow gun to go and take a pop at some monkeys, while his even younger son played with a machete in the background.
Many of my childhood friends grew up on farms around hair-raisingly dangerous machines and animals with out incident too.
Not to say it isn't dangerous to have a small child around a climbable railing here, but why is that?
Maybe european kids get enough small injuries that they learn to be careful. In my friend's case, he seems overly complacent. Maybe all the safety measures (plug covers, gates at stairs, etc.) lull us into a coma.
I've seen his toddler climbing that railing, and my buddy not even notice.
I had a friend growing up who had a steel plate covering a good part of his head (3-story fall off a balcony at home). real nice guy. kinda slow. huge.
s--t does happen.
k
Smart kid won't bother climbing a ladder-type railing. He or she will just push a
convenient chair up to the railing and jump over.
My understanding of why code uses a 4" ball (or sphere) instead of just a 4" lineal
measurement is because the origin of this concern was with ornamental iron railings.
I believe the measurement was either 5" or 6" years ago, but has shrunk down to
the current 4". Theoretically, no force should be used to push the ball through but
this is a moot point with wood or metal ballusters or infill - pretty much only an issue
with cable railings. Cable should be spaced at approx. 3" with posts no more than
42" apart.
Smart kid won't bother climbing a ladder-type railing. He or she will just push a
convenient chair up to the railing and jump over.
That's if the kid is trying to get to the other side. A lot of kids just kind of climb and put body parts here there and everywhere just 'cuz. You every watch a kid sitting in a chair? Up, down back front, whatever. I can definitely imagine a kid flipping over a railing they had no real intention of crossing.
But, anyway, I was the one who initially pointed out the ladder effect isn't a code issue, and I've built plenty of structures with climbable elements.
And, I agree with you about the the deflection issue- The last cable railing I designed (with horizontal cables) had 3" spacing, just like you recommend.
k