Maximum slope before it is considered work at height?

[Logan82]

Hi!

What is the maximum slope angle before it is considered work at height?

 

[GeorgeTheCivilEngineer]

I doubt there is a single answer to this question. In the UK it'd be anything 'liable to cause personal injury'.

Practically I think that could be anything steeper than a 1:3 slope, but it will depend on who is working, what they are doing, how frequently they are there etc etc

 

[JStephen]

In the OSHA scaffold rules, they limit a "ramp" to 1:3 slope maximum.
But I think it would be drop off at the edge, and not just the slope, that determines the safety requirement.

 

[Logan82]

Thank you for your answers. I have a situation with a slope of 1:1.5, however the height is 100 m.

 

[GeorgeTheCivilEngineer]

For me that is an edge that needs to be protected. I don't think it'd class as 'working at height', but (again in the UK), there are requirements to ensure traffic routes etc are safe to use, reasonable precautions considering duty of care etc etc.

 

[LittleInch]

I'm not following your question?

Is it to protect the stick man or vehicle from rolling down the slope? So the top is a "height"??

I don't think working at height is the right wording, more fall protection or simple basic H&S protection of workers.

A 1:1.5 slope you can't stand up on - your ankles don't bend enough and once you start sliding, you don't stop.

So yes, I would regard the edge as being dangerous and needing some protection, the same as if it was vertical or close to it.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[Logan82]

Thank you all! I think the 1:3 ramp slope criteria is interesting.

Is it to protect the stick man or vehicle from rolling down the slope? So the top is a "height"?

It is to protect pedestrians and vehiciles from rolling down the hill. The top is what I thought as a height, however it might not be the correct wording. I talked about work at height since I thought this would be where I would find some slope requirements, but in fact there will be public as well as workers there.

I am trying to find requirements to justify putting a vehicle guardrail (some are at a height of approx. 760 mm I think) that would act also as a pedestrian guardrail (min. height of 1070 mm) (so taller than vehicle guardrail). Justifications for vehicle guardrail are easy with local regulations, but it's harder to justify having a higher guardrail to protect the pedestrians as well, since we are outside (the National Building Code does not apply directly, but can be used as a reference) and it's not a vertical drop so it's not really covered by work at height.

 

[LittleInch]

"Equivalent to..." is always a useful phrase.

But yes, it might just fall under some sort of general "protection from harm" or 3rd party liability type requirements.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[Logan82]

"Equivalent to..." is always a useful phrase.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by that.

But yes, it might just fall under some sort of general "protection from harm" or 3rd party liability type requirements.

Yes I agree.

 

[TLHS]

I've been stuck in this spot before. Sounds like you're in Canada. I found this after it was no longer helpful to me, but the BC MoT has a guideline for pedestrian protection at the top of a slope.

They use 1.5H:1V, which is steeper than I was personally comfortable with.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/d...ac-2019-supplement/bctac2019-chapter-0600.pdf

Look at Situation B on page 660-2 (third page from last).

So BC MoT would require a barrier for pedestrians if they were regularly using it and if people are closer than 3m to the edge.

 

[LittleInch]

What I meant was that the slope was soo steep you could say it was equivalent to a vertical drop

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.