×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

NBCC 4.1.5.14 Loads on Guards

NBCC 4.1.5.14 Loads on Guards

NBCC 4.1.5.14 Loads on Guards

(OP)
Hello All,

I'm about to be doing battle with a compliance architect for guard rails. Project specifications note, “railing assemblies and handrail attachments are to resist lateral force of 1kN at any point without damage or permanent set.” The load of 1.0kN is in accordance with NBCC 4.1.5.14 sentence 1 b); however, I interpreted the project specification to mean the guards need full resistance (per CSA-S16) but a load factor in excess of 1.00 could be omitted as the load needs to be resisted without permanent set. The compliance architect is of the opinion that a load factor of 1.50 should have been considered. Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another and feel this is a grey area.

Who agrees one should include a live load factor for loads on guards, and who agrees load factor could be considered to be 1.00?

Thank you in advance for your replies and comments.

RE: NBCC 4.1.5.14 Loads on Guards

I'm in the US, so take it for what's its worth. But I consider them to be a live load. It's certainly not a dead load. But again, I'm under a different code, and I may be wrong even here, but I'm on the conservative side of wrong.

Also, the whole "without damage" to me implies a service load to me. I'd hate to take something to an "ultimate" level and claim it was "without damage".

RE: NBCC 4.1.5.14 Loads on Guards

I count it as live as well.

RE: NBCC 4.1.5.14 Loads on Guards

I've struggled with this too as the language is inconsistent in NBCC between handrail/guardrail and specified/ultimate. Check out item eight of page eleven: Link. If you back calculate the safety factor from the load test values, it's always 1.5 (live).

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: NBCC 4.1.5.14 Loads on Guards

In the Ontario Building Code, which likely has similar wording to the NBCC, it calls for a "specified" load of 1.0 kN. The key word being 'specified'. When you look at various references in the Code, the specified loads are then factored as per the Code. In your example, the 1.0 kN specified load should be factored as a live load x1.5 for ULS calculations. I've completed a lot of guard design and seen a lot of other guard design by other engineers and they are all factoring the loads in 4.1.5.14. (well except for one company .... but that's a long story...)

RE: NBCC 4.1.5.14 Loads on Guards

Yeah, the NBCC handrail references are pretty clear that they should be factored. There's all sorts of other irritating grey areas and inconsistencies in the handling of guards and handrails but I'm pretty comfortable that it's supposed to be factored.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources