Replies

1. 
   Ragnar17 | Jun 10, 2007 09:58pm | #1

   I don't know if there's a specific criterion in the code in regards to baluster strength.

   However, my common sense seems to be saying that a 1/4" x 1-1/2" section is too flimsy. 

   Is this an interior or exterior application?  If exterior, I'd suggest a minimum of 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 if going for the "spindle" look, and a minimum of 1x4 if going for a "slat" look.  You can go with slightly smaller stock if in the interior (maybe 1.0" x 1.0" for spindles, and 3/4" x 2-1/2" for slats).

2. 
   Sphere | Jun 11, 2007 02:01am | #2

   Just a wild stab here..but as long as the 4" diameter sphere cannot pass through , due to flexing of the "filler" , I don't see a legal reason why not. Now , longevity, aestetically, and safty from a load applied sideways would be a concern of mine.

   "you are dead a lot longer than you are alive"
   Noah Aaron MacKenzie, 1990.

3. 
   Piffin | Jun 11, 2007 02:38am | #3

   The railing as a whole and the individual parts needs to resist a minimum lateral load of 200#. My cognicator is off whack tonight, so I could be wrong. Maybe it is 250#

   I don't think a 1/4" baluster will do the trick for either.

   I am thinking that maybe you had a typo and meant 1-1/4" square. That is a common size that can be purchased for this useage.

    

    

   Welcome to the
   Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
    where ...
   Excellence is its own reward!

1. 
   dovetail97128 | Jun 11, 2007 03:27am | #4

   Disputantum,

   For railings and guardrails my old code book calls for 200# minimum point load at any point along the top APPLIED in any direction. I wanted to say 300# lateral load on the balusters but cannot find the documentation for that .
   "Poor is not the person who has too little, but the person who craves more."...Seneca

1. 
   Inspector704 | Jun 11, 2007 04:26am | #5

   The modified 2003 IBC we use in NC requires guardrails to withstand a force of 200 lbs. applied in any direction along the top rail and the balusters must resists a force of 50 lbs perpendicular to the balusters

1. 
   dovetail97128 | Jun 11, 2007 06:32am | #6

   Inspector, Thank You , it was the 50# baluster load I couldn't find.
   "Poor is not the person who has too little, but the person who craves more."...Seneca

4. 
   Disputantum | Jun 11, 2007 10:34pm | #7

   Thanks to everybody who answered.

1. 
   FastEddie | Jun 11, 2007 11:49pm | #8

   If you want something that thin, consider buying (or having made) 1/4" x 1-1/2" metal bars.  Properly anchored top & bottom they should meet code."Put your creed in your deed."   Emerson

   "When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it."  T. Roosevelt

2. 
   Piffin | Jun 12, 2007 12:01am | #9

   I am more than curious how you planned to orient these and what the overall goal is. Maybe we can suggest the best way to accomplish the goal you have in mind. So far we are only responding to a specific Q but since it is non-typical, it can help to know the thinking behind it.For instance, if you orient this as normal balusters running vertically with the flat 1-1/2" surface facing out, it would definitely no pass code, but maybe you are thinking of a weave like lattice and there could be a way to do it... 

    

   Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!

1. 
   Disputantum | Jun 12, 2007 05:54am | #10

   Vertically.  I'd planned on 6" centers like the old railings which satisfied the insurance inspector but I guess I'll have to reduce that to 5.5" or less.  Two by fours on edge for top and bottom rails rabbeted 3/4" for the ends of the slats.  36" top and 5.5" off the deck giving 23.5" unsupported length.   I suspect they'll stand a 50# side thrust but not 200# or larger.  I was looking for a specific dimension though.  I don't really care how effective they are as long as code is met.

1. 
   SteveSchoene | Jun 12, 2007 06:13am | #11

   I don't really care how effective they are as long as code is met.

    

   Surely you can't mean that.

    

1. 
   FastEddie | Jun 12, 2007 02:49pm | #12

   My thoughts exactly.  "Let's meet the letter of the law, not the spirit".  Looks like somebody is going to get hurt."Put your creed in your deed."   Emerson

   "When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it."  T. Roosevelt

5. 
   Disputantum | Jun 12, 2007 10:29pm | #13

   I've decided to use 1×4s as suggested by Ragner17 above.