Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Loads on building guardrails 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dennis59

Structural
Dec 29, 2000
56
0
0
US
I remember reading in a code somewhere that the guardrail must resist the prescribed load "without failure or permanent set". Does anyone else remember reading this phrase as it relates to the design of building-type guardrails (e.g. OSHA, UBC, IBC, etc.)? If so, do you remember where you read it?

In my opinion, a guardrail is there purely to save someone's life - not to give you a feeling of confidence in its strength or stiffness. (If the engineer advises, and the Owner agrees that it should be designed to exceed the code minimums, then by all means that is fine, of course.)

If the phrase I remember is correct, then the intent of the code body that wrote the statement would probably be:
"We want the rail to stop a 200 pound force without breaking or deforming, but we really don't care if it exceeds some typical 'allowable stress' limit."

Designing the rail to stop a 200 pound force without breaking or permanently bending would probably mean letting the bending stress get pretty close to Fy, and the deflection could be most anything, as long as it stayed in the elastic range so it springs back once the load is gone.

The question then becomes what do you design the connections for?

I wonder if anyone would care to comment on this.

BTW - for what it's worth, I do design rails and connections using the allowable stress method, and the full 200 pound (or 50#/ft, if greater) load. I use the IBC 2000 allowable overstress of 1/3 (1607.7.1.3). I personally think this more than satisfies the 'without failure or permanent set' idea.
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

The requirement is single load of 200 lbs applied in any direction ( CFR 1910.23(e)(5)(iv)), at any section of the top rail.
Check out OSHA requirements:
These include following the proper building codes which can vary from state to state and, sometimes, even county to county.
REFERENCE STANDARDS:
Uniform Building Code 1997 - Section 509, Table 16-B "Guardrails"
BOCA National Building Code 1993 - Sections 1615.8.2 "Guard Designs and Construction" and 1615.8.2.1 "Infill Areas"
National Building Code of Canada 1995 - Section 4.1.10.1 "Loads on Guards"
Here are a couple of sites that explain it:
<<
I would caution on using the 1/3 stress increase, recent legislation removes this from design codes.
 
I agree also but depending on Railing material I limit deflction to l/200. I find it necessary to use a 3D frame anaysis program to model many railings and/or stairs. A railing post is not a flag pole, nor does it have to be designed as such.
 
The 1/3 stress increase was a load combination adjustment factor that accounted for the reduced probability that two or more loads, other than dead load, acting concurrently will each attain its maximum at the same time.

The new 2000 IBC building code (1605.3.1.1) does not permit this factor unless you have two or more "transient" loads applied. Current BOCA also does not allow the increase for seismic loading conditions unless using Load Factor design. Many states have adoped this code change. Florida also recently changed (rule 9B-72) to multiply the steel values by 0.75 to negate the 1/3 stress increase

 
boo1,
Sorry to tell you this, but IBC does allow this increase in handrails & gaurdrails. See Section 1607.7.1.3

BTW, I limit the deflection to L/180 which is only a quarter inch (most cases). If I hit the rail with 200# of force, it's going to hurt so freakin bad I don't care how much it deflected as long as I don't fall.
Chip
 
Alohabob said "check deflections".
My question is: What is the criteria for the deflection of a post or guardrail??. I know we all have our "comfort" levels. But when it comes down to rejecting the rail design (we don’t design it, but as the SER we check it), I can't, in good faith reject it on the basis of deflection, because I have NEVER found deflection criteria. I even wrote a letter to OSHA, to see if they had a recommendation. They didn't get back to me.
has anyone got a reference for deflection of a guardail??
 
There are only two "official" deflection recommendations that I am aware of.
One is in the military Engineering Manual 385-1-1 , paragraph 21.B.02. This is available at:
This reference allows deflection of up to 3 inches. That's a heck of a lot.

The other is at
This reference allows deflection of up to 3.5 inches (L/12), and says that the rail is OK if it comes back to within 1/2" of its original position after removal of the load. This does not sound acceptable to me. You'd really have to replace the rail after it served its purpose just once.

There is another web page that ~claims~ to offer some information about allowable deflection, but doesn't seem to:

I am with ChipB in that if the railing deflects some while saving a life, but doesn't actually go plastic in the process, then so be it. BUT, I do know that rails that are too springy can be a pain. Particularly if you have a long, straight segment of railing, you don't want to set up a resonant vibration in the entire length of railing if you grab it somewhere and start shaking (I have personally shaken rails like this - using a lot less than 200# of force - and I wasn't impressed).

So perhaps there isn't really a reasonable prescribed deflection limit, but we should try to make sure that the rails don't look and act "wobbly". Maybe breaking up a long straight length of rail into some shorter discontinuous sub-lengths would be a consideration.

boo1, I appreciate your references to the 1/3 overstress issue, but these are references that deal with structural steel design, not guardrails. IBC2000 has specifically singled out guardrails in 1607.7.1.3 and says that for the prescribed loads (which are actually very high), the 1/3 overstress is OK.

I'm eagerly waiting for someone else who remembers that old language - "without failure or permanent set". Anyone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top