Stair width

[Mike Schulz]

What is the minimum width for stairs?
Inside the garage there is a set of stairs up to the platform to the interior door. The stairs where 24" wide but the path was only 22" because of the post.

[A.D. Miller]

Mike:

36" wall to wall.
31.5" one handrail to wall.
27" rail to rail with two handrails.

Must be 4 risers high to be called stairs.

Aaron

[Vern Heiler]

Unobstructed 36" clear passage for egress. That means the stairs are not wide enough either.

[Scott Patterson]

What is the minimum width for stairs?
Inside the garage there is a set of stairs up to the platform to the interior door. The stairs where 24" wide but the path was only 22" because of the post.

What was the size of the door to the interior from the garage?

[Mike Schulz]

Here is the picture. Sorry I have been writing a report.

[A.D. Miller]

Here is the picture. Sorry I have been writing a report.

Mike:

Wall to one rail 31.5".

Aaron

[Scott Patterson]

Here is the picture. Sorry I have been writing a report.

Well, not much can be done about that screwy design. About all you can do is to report what you found. I don't think I would even attempt to give a recommendation simply because I can't think of a way it could be corrected and still have room to park the car in the garage.

[Mike Schulz]

Thank all you guy's for your quick replies. I'll write it as A.D. has posted.
If they move that freezer on the side of the platform they might be able to locate the stairs there.

[Jerry Peck]

Mike:

36" wall to wall.
31.5" one handrail to wall.
27" rail to rail with two handrails.

Must be 4 risers high to be called stairs.

Aaron

Aaron,

One riser (which will have two treads, the top landing and the bottom landing) is a "stair".

From the 2006 IBC: "STAIR. A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers."

[Jerry Peck]

Mike:

36" wall to wall.
31.5" one handrail to wall.
27" rail to rail with two handrails.

Must be 4 risers high to be called stairs.

Aaron


Mike:

Wall to one rail 31.5".

Aaron

Aaron,

The way you stated it can be confusing in some instances, with better way is to state the required width of 36" wall to wall or wall to railing, then address the projection of the handrail from one or both walls, i.e., the minimum width of a stairway is 36" measured above the handrail height to the minimum ceiling height, with an allowance of 4-1/2" projection for a handrail and below.

That takes into allowance for those instances where the walls below the handrail are not 36" apart, as they are not required to be. The 4-1/2" projection from the wall width at and above the handrail height is for the handrail ... and the wall below it if so designed and constructed.

[A.D. Miller]

Aaron,

One riser (which will have two treads, the top landing and the bottom landing) is a "stair".

From the 2006 IBC: "STAIR. A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers."


Aaron,

The way you stated it can be confusing in some instances, with better way is to state the required width of 36" wall to wall or wall to railing, then address the projection of the handrail from one or both walls, i.e., the minimum width of a stairway is 36" measured above the handrail height to the minimum ceiling height, with an allowance of 4-1/2" projection for a handrail and below.

That takes into allowance for those instances where the walls below the handrail are not 36" apart, as they are not required to be. The 4-1/2" projection from the wall width at and above the handrail height is for the handrail ... and the wall below it if so designed and constructed.

JP:

Yes, you are quite correct.

Aaron

[Jerry McCarthy]

Looks like the HR is non-code complying as well?

[Jerry Peck]

The best thing which can be said about that stair after looking at the photo is: It will be real easy to correct in width and handrail.

It's hard to tell from that photo, but the risers don't look all the same height, or within 3/8" highest to lowest; and the treads look like they are at varying angles.

Could all be optical illusions from the photo.

[brian schmitt]

call it an interior flight of stairs and eliminate the landing to gain some room.

[Brian Robertson]

With that many steps it still requires a landing, even though its inside, doesn't it?

[brian schmitt]

brian,
if the door does not swing over the step no landing is required here,may be different there. check local code?

[Jerry Peck]

call it an interior flight of stairs and eliminate the landing to gain some room.

You can't ... er, okay, "you are not allowed to" ... just call it whatever you want. It *is not* and "interior" stair, so you cannot call it that.

A stair, even a one riser stair, requires a landing at the top and at the bottom, with the floors serving as the landings.

The door opens in (the raised panel door is visible through the storm door). The storm door must therefor open out. There is an exception regarding screen doors and storm doors opening over a stair and not requiring a landing, however, that exception limits those stairs to two or fewer risers, and that stair has five risers, thus the exception cannot be applied, meaning that the landing is required. This is for "exterior doors", and that is an "exterior door".

There is also a requirement for "interior" stairs which requires a landing at the top and bottom of each stairway, with an exception that a floor or landing *is not required* *IF* a door does not swing over the stairs ... meaning that a landing is required anyway, because a door would swing out over the stairs if there was not a landing there. However ... that *is not* an "interior stairway" and that *is not* an "interior door", so this section is moot in this case.

I believe I have also answered Brian Robertson's question also.

[Brandon Whitmore]

You can't ... er, okay, "you are not allowed to" ... just call it whatever you want. It *is not* and "interior" stair, so you cannot call it that.

A stair, even a one riser stair, requires a landing at the top and at the bottom, with the floors serving as the landings.

The door opens in (the raised panel door is visible through the storm door). The storm door must therefor open out. There is an exception regarding screen doors and storm doors opening over a stair and not requiring a landing, however, that exception limits those stairs to two or fewer risers, and that stair has five risers, thus the exception cannot be applied, meaning that the landing is required. This is for "exterior doors", and that is an "exterior door".

There is also a requirement for "interior" stairs which requires a landing at the top and bottom of each stairway, with an exception that a floor or landing *is not required* *IF* a door does not swing over the stairs ... meaning that a landing is required anyway, because a door would swing out over the stairs if there was not a landing there. However ... that *is not* an "interior stairway" and that *is not* an "interior door", so this section is moot in this case.2006 IRC states under the exception that a floor or landing is not required at the top of an interior flight of stairs, including stairs in an enclosed garage, provided the door does not swing over the stairs. (R311.5.4)

If there is a screen door, just remove it if it's an issue. What's the point of a screen/ storm door opening into a garage anyways?

[Jerry Peck]

2006 IRC states under the exception that a floor or landing is not required at the top of an interior flight of stairs, including stairs in an enclosed garage, provided the door does not swing over the stairs. (R311.5.4)

I repeat ... that IS NOT an "interior stair", thus you cannot try to apply that section do it.


If there is a screen door, just remove it if it's an issue. What's the point of a screen/ storm door opening into a garage anyways?.

However, "the door *IS* there", thus *it is* a problem. For whatever reasons the owners had, they wanted that door there, so they had to make the stairway meet the fact that the door swings over the stairway (would swing over the stairway if the landing were not there).

[Brandon Whitmore]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandon Whitmore http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/ca_evo/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/building-interior-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/11005-stair-width.html#post66585)
2006 IRC states under the exception that a floor or landing is not required at the top of an interior flight of stairs, including stairs in an enclosed garage, provided the door does not swing over the stairs. (R311.5.4)


I repeat ... that IS NOT an "interior stair", thus you cannot try to apply that section do it.

Jerry, you've got me a little confused.

I am interpreting the exception to mean that you do not have to have a landing in an enclosed garage. R311.5 is for stairways (interior/ exterior) from what I can tell, so why can't you use the wording spec'd out in 311.5.4?

I am trying to picture when a garage would be considered an "interior stair"/ "exterior stair".

It seems to me the code writers are placing garage stairs under the interior stairs category.

[Richard Pultar]

Any component of the means of egress has specific requirements. ie width, landings, handrails , side swinging ,locks, etc per the IRC.
That garage door is not a required means of egress so any similarities to code compliance is coincidental.
The house needs one complying means of egress and this probably is not
It is common to apply code standards to these types of situations but its probably illegal for a AHJ to enforce, since there no code references can be made.

[A.D. Miller]

Any component of the means of egress has specific requirements. ie width, landings, handrails , side swinging ,locks, etc per the IRC.
That garage door is not a required means of egress so any similarities to code compliance is coincidental.
The house needs one complying means of egress and this probably is not
It is common to apply code standards to these types of situations but its probably illegal for a AHJ to enforce, since there no code references can be made.

Richard:


R311.5.4 Landings for stairways. There shall be a floor or
landing at the top and bottom of each stairway.

Exception:Afloor or landing is not required at the top of an
interior flight of stairs, including stairs in an enclosed
garage, provided a door does not swing over the stairs.
A flight of stairs shall not have a vertical rise larger than 12
feet (3658 mm) between floor levels or landings.
The width of each landing shall not be less than the width of
the stairway served. Every landing shall have a minimum
dimension of 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of
travel.

A landing is required at the top and bottom of each
stairway; however, a landing is not required at the top
of interior stairways, including an enclosed garage, if a
door does not swing over the stairway. See Commentary
Figure R311.5.4.

The red text is from the IRC commentary.

JP is right. Remove the screen door and the landing is not required. Leave it and it is.

Aaron

[Jerry Peck]

Any component of the means of egress has specific requirements. ie width, landings, handrails , side swinging ,locks, etc per the IRC.
That garage door is not a required means of egress so any similarities to code compliance is coincidental.
The house needs one complying means of egress and this probably is not
It is common to apply code standards to these types of situations but its probably illegal for a AHJ to enforce, since there no code references can be made.

Richard,

That applies to the door, only one "door" need comply with the means of egress requirements are regards to "door" requirements.

*ALL STAIRS* are required to meet the requirement for stairs.

I.e, that "door" is not required to be 36" wide, it could be (for example) 30" wide, however, THE STAIR would still be required to be 36" wide, have a landing at top and bottom, etc.

[Richard Pultar]

Section R311 is code for means of egress . Section R311.4 Doors and Section R311.5 is for Stairways .

Both subsections are conditions of means of egress.. I do not use the code sections as a buffet . Choosing willy nilly to fit some idea that makes perfect sence , especially ignoring exceptions and notes is wrong.
R309 is the section for garages

[Jerry Peck]

Section R311 is code for means of egress . Section R311.4 Doors and Section R311.5 is for Stairways .

Both subsections are conditions of means of egress.. I do not use the code sections as a buffet . Choosing willy nilly to fit some idea that makes perfect sence , especially ignoring exceptions and notes is wrong.

ANY door is a means of egress (except closet doors and the like), they are not, however, *REQUIRED* means of egress. Thus, only "one" exterior door is required to meet the requirements for *THE REQUIRED MEANS OD EGRESS DOOR*.

*ALL* stairways are "means of egress", there are no exceptions allowing for "required means of egress" versus "non-required" means of egress.

Thus, *all stairways* must meet the requirements for stairways.

*Only the one required door* must meet the requirements for the required means of egress door.


R309 is the section for garages

Not sure what you are referring to there???? :confused:

The door from the house to the garage *is not an interior door*, it is an *exterior door* in that it must meet all the requirements of any exterior door leading from the thermal envelope of the house, plus it must meet any special requirements for the door to the garage, which, by the way, are fulfilled by using any exterior door: sealed with weather striping, 1-3/4" solid wood or metal skinned with foam core, etc.

The only time an exterior door would not necessarily meet those requirements would be *IF* that was was treated as a "fire-rated wall assembly" and there was a requirement for a "20-minute rated door" as that would mean the door would be required to be labeled as a "20-minute rated door", meaning it would have to have been tested, listed and labeled as such -i.e., the door would have to have a permanent label showing its fire rating. I am not aware of any residential (one-and-two-family or townhouse) code which requires a door like that between the living area and the garage.

If you get into other types of dwellings (condos, apts, high-rises, etc.,) then yes, a properly labeled door is required.

[A.D. Miller]

Richard:

OK, I took my own advice, wiped off my spectacles and found that you are correct.

Page 38 of the 2006 IRC Q&A states that no landing is required for an exterior door (even in garages I assume) that is not the designated exit door.

I have read that wrong all along.

Can't blame it on the glasses, I guess.

I would post the scan of this, but the Hann's foo dogs won't allow anything but teeny pdf files. Adobe won't compress this that much.

Crow eaten, I'll duck now for the JP tidal wave . . .

Aaron:(

[brian schmitt]

brian,
i stand by my opinion as validated by others except ec jerry as usual. we require self closing solid wood or 20 minute rated doors into the garage so a storm or screen door would not be applicable .it may different in florida or your area so check local codes as i mentioned!:D

[Jerry Peck]

Richard:

OK, I took my own advice, wiped off my spectacles and found that you are correct.

Page 38 of the 2006 IRC Q&A states that no landing is required for an exterior door (even in garages I assume) that is not the designated exit door.

Aaron,

Could you post that question and answer? Thanks.

According to the IRC, there "shall be" a floor or landing on each side of each exterior door and that landing shall not be lower than 1-1/2" below the top of the threshold ... unless:
- a) There is a stairway with two or fewer risers.
- - 1) Unless the door is the required exit door, in which case exception a) does not apply. I.e., The exception is excepted out.

- b) The door, other than a screen or storm door, does not swing over the stairway, in which case the landing may be 7-3/4" lower than the top of the threshold.
- - 1) If the door which swings over the stairway is a storm or screen door, the landing can still be 7-3/4" lower than the top of the threshold.

- c) The height of the floors at exterior doors shall not be more than 7-3/4" lower than the top of the threshold.
- - 1) Unless the door is the required exit door, in which case exception a) does not apply. I.e., The exception is excepted out.

A landing *IS REQUIRED* at all exterior doors, both sides. If there were no landing, you would step through the door into a black hole, falling through who-knows-what and exiting who-knows-where ... maybe falling out in China or whatever is opposite that black-black-hole-where-the-landing-should-have-been.

The elimination of the landing on the sides of the door is not addressed, the landing at the top of a stairs is addressed, with limitations.


I have read that wrong all along.

Not sure what your stance was before, but your current stance of saying "no landing is required for an exterior door" is incorrect.

[Jerry Peck]

brian,
i stand by my opinion as validated by others except ec jerry as usual. we require self closing solid wood or 20 minute rated doors into the garage so a storm or screen door would not be applicable .it may different in florida or your area so check local codes as i mentioned!:D


Brian,

Sounds like you are agreeing with me, so I'm not sure what part you are saying you were validated by others except for me??? :confused:

Mind cluing me in on what you are referencing? Thanks.

[brian schmitt]

jerry,
NO LANDING IS REQUIRED PER THE EXCEPTION! o.k? capische? a landing is a 3' x 3' or larger surface that is normally required on each side of a door. o.k.? exception says "landing not required in garage or interior stairs".o.k.? how many basement stairways have you seen that open to a step where the door does not swing over the step? no landing just a step. it's o.k.! if you think you need landings to avoid black holes and worm holes go for it:D

[A.D. Miller]

JP:

Here it is.

[Jerry Peck]

Page 38 of the 2006 IRC Q&A states that no landing is required for an exterior door (even in garages I assume) that is not the designated exit door..

As I suspected, you have read that incorrectly.

That states:

Q: Figure 3-34 shows an exterior door with a two-riser stair down to grade level. We believe that this situation, noted as Exception 1, can only be used for exterior doors that are not the designated exit door required by Section R311.4.1. Is this correct?

A: Yes. All other exterior door can use this provision.

However, that question ONLY applies to "with a two-riser stair" (or a one-riser stair).

The photo in question and under discussion shows a stair with more than two risers, thus the exception does not apply.

That is what I have been saying, and pointing out.

A) That the exception DOES NOT apply to the required door. That Q&A also states that.

B) That the exception DOES NOT apply to stairways with more than two risers. That Q&A also states that.

[Jerry Peck]

jerry,
NO LANDING IS REQUIRED PER THE EXCEPTION! o.k? capische?

Brian,

A landing *IS* required at the stair shown in that photo.

Capische?

If no comprehendo, then you need to go back and re-read it, as does Richard.


exception says "landing not required in garage or interior stairs".o.k.?

That exception does not say that a landing is not required for the stair shown in that photo.

Capische?

If no comprehendo, then you need to go back and re-read it, as does Richard.


if you think you need landings to avoid black holes and worm holes go for it:D

If you think you don't need a landing, please describe what you will be stepping out onto?

I've got to hear your answer for that.

Here is a hint: Say you are in an airplane, you open the door, and step out ... yep ... NO LANDING ... OH $HIT! (you say as you go down). :eek:

Now, here is another hint, let's say you step out your garage side door, and step on grass, that you mow as needed (or not mow, your choice), what did you just step onto? :rolleyes:

Not going to give you the answer, but that grass is a L-A-N-D-I-N-G (remove all of the "-" to get your answer). :p

[Michael Greenwalt]

The 2006 IRC was changed for clarification in this issue

Change Summary. Language has been added to clarify that a landing is *not* required at a flight of stairs between an attached garage and a dwelling where a door does not swing over the stairs.

2006 Code: R311.5.4 Landings for Stairways. There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway.

Exception: A floor or landing is not required at the top of an interior flight of stairs, including stairs in an enclosed garage, provided a door does not swing over the stairs.

A flight of stairs shall not have a vertical rise greater than 12 feet (3658mm) between floor levels or landings.
The width of each landing shall not be less than the stairway served. Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.

Change Significance. Stairs between an attached garage and a dwelling are now specifically identified as interior stairs for the purpose of landing requirements. Consistent with the allowances for other stairs within the dwelling, a landing is not required at the top of the stair flight, provided a door does not swing out over the stairs. In some cases, the garage stairs were previously considered exterior stairs, as they were viewed as being outside of the dwelling portion of the structure, and such stairs were often required to be provided with a complying landing on the garage side of the door to the dwelling. The new language recognizes that the stairs between the garage and the dwelling should be considered interior stairs.



I quote this from the publication "significant changes to the IRC, 2006 edition", ICC council

Hope this helps.

[Jerry Peck]

(highlighting with red text is mine - everyone seems to keep missing this in relation to the photo under discussion)

The 2006 IRC was changed for clarification in this issue

Change Summary. Language has been added to clarify that a landing is *not* required at a flight of stairs between an attached garage and a dwelling where a door does not swing over the stairs.

2006 Code: R311.5.4 Landings for Stairways. There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway.

Exception: A floor or landing is not required at the top of an interior flight of stairs, including stairs in an enclosed garage, provided a door does not swing over the stairs.

The stairway in the photo HAS A DOOR which swings out over the stairs.

[brian schmitt]

jerry,
i would not and have not required a landing in the garage stairways or other INTERIOR stairways where the door does not swing over the stairs. i would aks you to read post# 22 again for your reading enjoyment! how come i feel like the AFLAC duck on the yogi berra commercial?:D happy new year! have a cold one and beware of black/worm holes:D

[Michael Greenwalt]

Jerry,
Exactly, which is why I posted that. It is easy to see by the photo the door is opening over the stairway, thus the exception does not apply. The clarification does *not* remove the requirement when a door swings over the landing. It does address the requirement when no door swings over the stairway.
Thanks

[Jerry Peck]

jerry,
i would not and have not required a landing in the garage stairways or other INTERIOR stairways where the door does not swing over the stairs. i would aks you to read post# 22 again for your reading enjoyment! how come i feel like the AFLAC duck on the yogi berra commercial?:D happy new year! have a cold one and beware of black/worm holes:D.

Brian,

Maybe you need to go back and look at the photo in post #5, then report back here with how many doors you see in that photo and which way they swing.

Yeah, you are acting like that AFLAC duck which keeps getting banged up :eek: because you keep repeating the same thing without looking at what is going on around you. :D

How many doors are in that photo?

Which way do they swing?

Now, answer the following question: Does that photo show a door which swings over the stair?

(That is a yes or no answer question .. actually ... that is a yes answer question ... no does not apply to that question. :p )

Now, being as we have established that *A DOOR DOES SWING OVER THE STAIR*, explain how you apply what code section to it and whether or not it requires a landing *AS DEPICTED IN THE PHOTO* without making other changes.

I think that door just swung out and hit your AFLAC duck, knocking it down the stairs.

[brian schmitt]

jerry,
pay attention to details son! i never mentioned the situation in photo #5 i can view the photo in post 5 in very small detail .if the door swings over the landing then the landing is required! i get that,no problem with that. i can barely see any door period.i have referred all along to code exceptions for no landing at interior doors where the door does not swing over the steps. capische? screen or storm doors could not be used in a garage/house seperation here.installed yes, used no. clean your glasses:D

[Jerry Peck]

jerry,
pay attention to details son! i never mentioned the situation in photo #5

Brian,

Hey, Boy, wake up and read the posts and the treads! :eek:

THIS ENTIRE THREAD and its posts *were discussing that photo* and what was in it. :rolleyes:

Dang, Boy! If you can't follow what is being discussed, you should not be interrupting those who are! :p

Capische?

[brian schmitt]

mike,
36" minimum!
jerry,
that is what the thread is about son:D read it and weep:D

[Richard Pultar]

please provide a code reference..to 36 inches
the i r c 311.5 can not be used since that is a subsection of 311.
if you are using a local standard thats fine ,
I wonder what code violation you could site if that door opened to that garage without any stair at all? since its not a component of a means of egress.

[brian schmitt]

richard,
1009.1 exc #1 here. have no clue what is enforced there!

[Richard Pultar]

1009 what code ,what edition
nj uses its own law the UCC uniform construction code

[brian schmitt]

richard,
2006 ibc with calif amendments. what code is eforced in nc? where op is from? that is the question and where to find his answer.

[Richard Pultar]

ibc for 1 and 2 families too

[Jerry Peck]

I'll let you two partial-sentence-writing-guys-with-no-capital-letters-and-only-partial-ideas banter back and forth about who knows what, but here is a correction (again) for Richard:


the i r c 311.5 can not be used since that is a subsection of 311..

Section 311.5 of the IRC does indeed apply to ALL stairs in dwelling units which fall under the IRC (which means it does not apply to dwelling units which fall under the IBC).

[brian schmitt]

richard,
no irc just calif amendments addressing 1 and 2 family dwellings incorporated into the ibc
jerry,
i did grdate from kinnergarten. sori i aint a whiz like you:D feel free not to repli

[Jerry Peck]

brian,nottoworryiwhiznowandthentooalldependsonhowm uchihadtodrinkaftermylastwhiz

[brian schmitt]

Jerry,
Besides being a great source of information for many(me included) you have shown a great ability to communicate with people of all levels of verbal and grammatical abilities. Keep up the good work thru 2009! Being from Florida i hope your participles don't dangle or hang this year. i hope the depends and the whiz thing improves for you:D

[Benjamin Gromicko]

What is the minimum width for stairs?
Inside the garage there is a set of stairs up to the platform to the interior door. The stairs where 24" wide but the path was only 22" because of the post.

I produced a 10-minute training video for stairway inspections. Free. No cost.
Inspecting a Stairway - NACHI.TV Episode 16 (http://www.nachi.tv/episode16)

[Ralph Smith]

Brian and Jerry, that's quite the whizzen contest ya got going there!;)

[Jerry Peck]

I produced a 10-minute training video for stairway inspections. Free. No cost.
Inspecting a Stairway - NACHI.TV Episode 16 (http://www.nachi.tv/episode16).

Benjamin,

"First, let's start with the handrail."

That's not the "handrail", that is the "top of the guard rail". The top of the guard rail "may be used as" the handrail given some conditions, one being that the top of the guard rail is within the allowable height for a handrail.

"Where there is a transition from handrail to guard rail, the handrail is allowed to go higher than the maximum 38"."

No, it is not. The handrail must not exceed the allowable limits of 34" to 38" above the plane of the nosings (formerly known as "the line of the nosings")

She forgot to mention newel post, which is what is shown in the video clip.

I didn't go through any further than that, but you need someone to edit that for correctness (there are other glitches and incorrect comments in there).

The idea is good, though.

[Benjamin Gromicko]

.

Benjamin,

"First, let's start with the handrail."

That's not the "handrail", that is the "top of the guard rail". The top of the guard rail "may be used as" the handrail given some conditions, one being that the top of the guard rail is within the allowable height for a handrail......

9740
Dude, that's a handrail if I ever saw one. :)

I believe IRC calls it a handrail too.

R311.5.6.1 Height. Handrail height, measured vertically from the sloped plane adjoining the tread nosing, or finish surface of ramp slope, shall be not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm).

[Jerry Peck]

The top of the guard rail "may be used as" the handrail given some conditions,


Dude, that's a handrail if I ever saw one. :)

I believe IRC calls it a handrail too..

Dude,

Nope on both.

That, as I stated, "MAY BE USED AS" a handrail "given some conditions", it is, however, the top rail of the guard rail - .

With the handrail on the wall, that top rail of the guard rail does not need to meet the requirements of a handrail. That top rail of the guard rail "MAY", however, meet those requirements, and thus "MAY" be used as a handrail.

The IRC *does not* call it a handrail, but it "may be used" as one.

Go back and read the code again, Dude.

[Benjamin Gromicko]

.
Go back and read the code again, Dude.
R311.5.6.1

[Richard Pultar]

which code ,, what year

[Jerry Peck]

Go back and read the code again, Dude.


R311.5.6.1


R311.5.6.1 Height.

Handrail height, measured vertically from the sloped plane adjoining the tread nosing, or finish surface of ramp slope, shall be not less than 34 inches (864 mm)and not more than 38 inches (965 mm).


Benjamin,


That says nothing which backs up what you/she said, other than the height, and "height" does not a handrail make.


If "height" made something a handrail, then a chair rail nailed to a wall would be a handrail as it is typically installed within that height range also.


You really need to learn to read the code and understand what it is saying, and what it is not saying.

Here is an example for you:

R311.5.6 Handrails.

R312.1 Guards.

Not even the same code section.

[Brian Robertson]

IBC 2003 says handrails needed on both sides of stairs, but 1009.11 says an exception is in a dwelling unit, where it can have handrail on one side only. My question is, dwelling unit, is that just any residential building, in other words, a house? Thanks:)

[Richard Pultar]

ibc does not apply to 1 n2 family houses

[Vern Heiler]

R311.5.6.1 Height.

Handrail height, measured vertically from the sloped plane adjoining the tread nosing, or finish surface of ramp slope, shall be not less than 34 inches (864 mm)and not more than 38 inches (965 mm).



Benjamin,


That says nothing which backs up what you/she said, other than the height, and "height" does not a handrail make.


If "height" made something a handrail, then a chair rail nailed to a wall would be a handrail as it is typically installed within that height range also.


You really need to learn to read the code and understand what it is saying, and what it is not saying.

Here is an example for you:

R311.5.6 Handrails.

R312.1 Guards.

Not even the same code section.




Jerry is this a NC amendment to the code or is it changed in all states? Under lining is in the code.

2006 North Carolina Residential Code.

R311.5.6 Handrails. Handrails shall be provided on at least one side of each continuous run of treads or flight with four or more risers.

R311.5.6.1 Height. Handrail height, measured vertically front the sloped plane adjoining the tread nosing, or finish surface of ramp slope, shall be not less than 30 inches (762mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm).

[Jerry Peck]

IBC 2003 says handrails needed on both sides of stairs, but 1009.11 says an exception is in a dwelling unit, where it can have handrail on one side only. My question is, dwelling unit, is that just any residential building, in other words, a house? Thanks:)

Brian,

For one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses, you need to use the IRC, not the IBC.

In the IBC, the dwelling unit part refers to dwelling units in other than "one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses", i.e., dwelling units in condominium buildings, apartments, etc..

Also a "residential building" could be a 53 story condominium/apartment building.

When talking dwelling units or residential buildings, the first thing is to verify what is being discussed, "one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses" or 'other than those'.

Take a condominium/apartment building for example: For stairways "within" the dwelling units, only one handrail is required, however, for common stairways not "within" a dwelling unit, a handrail on both sides is required.

[Vern Heiler]

ibc does not apply to 1 n2 family houses

Its my understanding you can build to the IBC or the RBC, but you can't mix and match! You have to follow one or the other.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry is this a NC amendment to the code or is it changed in all states?.

Vern,

Must be a NC amendment to change the minimum height to 30". The IRC (and IBC regarding dwelling units) is 34" minimum to 38" maximum height.

edit to correct typo, which is highlighted in red

[Jerry Peck]

Its my understanding you can build to the IBC or the RBC, but you can't mix and match! You have to follow one or the other..

Not really.

The IBC refers "one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses" to the IRC.

If the dwelling unit is not a "one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses", then the IBC takes over.

[Vern Heiler]

.

Vern,

Must be a NC amendment to change the minimum height to 30". The IRC (and IBC regarding dwelling units) is 34" minimum to 48" maximum height.

We got a lot a short people here!

[Matt Fellman]

.

Vern,

Must be a NC amendment to change the minimum height to 30". The IRC (and IBC regarding dwelling units) is 34" minimum to 48" maximum height.


Is that a typo? Isn't it 34-38" ?

[adkjac]

geesh.... what a long thread... quite obvious that the stairs were made narrow for a reason but of course do not meet code. I would think the owner of the home has no need for anyone to tell them this... however... yaa all charge to say something about what you inspect right?
aj

[Brian Robertson]

Jerry, thank you for the complete explanation. I wanted to use my codecheck and realizing it was outside in the van(cold out there right now!) I googled it and found some good info. I'd forgotten why we always refer to the IRC here and not IBC. Thank you:o

[Jerry Peck]

Is that a typo? Isn't it 34-38" ?.
Yes, that was a typo - you are correct that it is 34" to 38".

When I typed: "Must be a NC amendment to change the minimum height to 30". The IRC (and IBC regarding dwelling units) is 34" minimum to 48" maximum height."

I should have typed: "Must be a NC amendment to change the minimum height to 30". The IRC (and IBC regarding dwelling units) is 34" minimum to 38" maximum height."

[A.D. Miller]

JP:

For the life of me I cannot understand why you would waste your time arguing with someone who disseminates free videos on construction.

You got what you paid for, just like the credentials that issue forth from the same general direction.

Aaron:D

[Ben Christianson]

I've tried to carefully read all the comments in this thread because I recently inspected a house that had regulation width stairs from the main level to the finished basement/garage level.

The wrinkle was that this stairwell had an assisted stair lift (electric chair lift on a rail) that effectively reduced the walking width to around 24". Both rails were still attached to the walls and met the dimensional requrements already mentioned.

What would be the proper or correct way of calling it out?

Ben

[Jerry Peck]

(from "referenced standards)
A18.1—2003 Safety Standard for Platforms and Stairway Chair Lifts . R323.2


R323.2 Platform lifts. Where provided, platform lifts shall comply with ASME A18.1.


I have reported them as reducing the width of the stairway making the stairway less than safe to use (the code is minimum safe standard) and, if not needed, I have recommended removing them.

[A.D. Miller]

(from "referenced standards)
A18.1—2003 Safety Standard for Platforms and Stairway Chair Lifts . R323.2


R323.2 Platform lifts. Where provided, platform lifts shall comply with ASME A18.1.



I have reported them as reducing the width of the stairway making the stairway less than safe to use (the code is minimum safe standard) and, if not needed, I have recommended removing them.


JP: But I suppose that the new ADAA would trump all other references?

Aaron

[Jerry Peck]

JP: But I suppose that the new ADAA would trump all other references?

Aaron

Okay, spring it on me ... what new ADAAG?

[A.D. Miller]

Okay, spring it on me ... what new ADAAG?

JP: Not "ADAAG", but rather ADAA. Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (“ADAA”), signed by (not soon enough to become ex-) President Bush on September 25, 2008. This became effective on January 1, 2009. The ADAA broadens the scope of the original Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) as it has been interpreted since it was originally signed into law, overturning several Supreme Court opinions which had narrowed the
protections afforded by the ADA.

Aaron

[Jerry Peck]

JP: Not "ADAAG", but rather ADAA. Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (“ADAA”), signed by (not soon enough to become ex-) President Bush on September 25, 2008. This became effective on January 1, 2009. The ADAA broadens the scope of the original Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) as it has been interpreted since it was originally signed into law, overturning several Supreme Court opinions which had narrowed the
protections afforded by the ADA.

Aaron

Aaron,

Thank.

I tried searching ADAA before I replied and could not find anything.

Today I searched the full name and it is the ADA Amendments Act (you have one too many As there), also know as (I found out) ADAAA (one more A than you had).

All those AAAAAAs get confusing, huh?

This is important "Claims of "no disability." The Act provides that the ADA doesn’t cover claims by nondisabled individuals contending discrimination because of the lack of a disability."

Too bad that was not in some other laws, such as Affirmative Action laws. It would have stopped those "I'm being discriminated against because I am NOT a minority." actions.

Here is a link to the Act: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s3406enr.txt.pdf

[A.D. Miller]

Aaron,

Thank.

I tried searching ADAA before I replied and could not find anything.

Today I searched the full name and it is the ADA Amendments Act (you have one too many As there), also know as (I found out) ADAAA (one more A than you had).

All those AAAAAAs get confusing, huh?

This is important "Claims of "no disability." The Act provides that the ADA doesn’t cover claims by nondisabled individuals contending discrimination because of the lack of a disability."

Too bad that was not in some other laws, such as Affirmative Action laws. It would have stopped those "I'm being discriminated against because I am NOT a minority." actions.

Here is a link to the Act: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s3406enr.txt.pdf

JP:

Sorry, I have too many A's in my name and got confused.:p

[Jeff Gunnis]

I may be being a little thick on this, but I don't see where anyone has referenced the clear tread width in this question. With wall to wall width the stringers could be inside the w/w width and with 2x stringers, that could reduce the tread width to 34 1/2". Also is "trim" allowed in the minimum width?

I guess another way to say this is: from the center of the tread (in the direction of travel) what is the minimum dimension to the edge of the walking surface of the tread? (Min width then would be double this number.

Any help will be appreciated. Single family residence in Michigan.

[Jerry Peck]

I may be being a little thick on this, but I don't see where anyone has referenced the clear tread width in this question. With wall to wall width the stringers could be inside the w/w width and with 2x stringers, that could reduce the tread width to 34 1/2". Also is "trim" allowed in the minimum width?

The requirement is not for "clear tread width" but for stairway width measured at and above the handrail height.

You could actually have a 36" wide stairway at and above handrail height, then have bump-out walls which do not project out past the handrails from the handrail height down to the treads and that would meet code.


I guess another way to say this is: from the center of the tread (in the direction of travel) what is the minimum dimension to the edge of the walking surface of the tread? (Min width then would be double this number.

The minimum stairway width is 36", the handrails are allowed to project in 4-1/2" from each side (if there are two handrails installed), that means the wall separation (in my example above) below handrail height could be as little as 27" tread width.

[Wayne Carlisle]

This is from post 55....
With the handrail on the wall, that top rail of the guard rail does not need to meet the requirements of a handrail.



R311.5.6.2 Continuity. Handrails for stairways shall be
continuous for the full length of the flight, from a point
directly above the top riser of the flight to a point directly
above the lowest riser of the flight. Handrail ends shall be
returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals.
Handrails adjacent to awall shall have a space of not
less than 11/2 inch (38 mm) between the wall and the
handrails.


IMO
The handrail pictured on the wall does not meet the requirements for a handrail so the "guardrail" as JP calls it, is actually the handrail as long as it meets the code for specifications of a handrail.



R311.5.6.3 Handrail grip size. All required handrails
shall be of one of the following types or provide equivalent
graspability.
1. Type I. Handrails with a circular cross section
shall have an outside diameter of at least 11/4 inches
(32 mm) and not greater than 2 inches (51 mm). If
the handrail is not circular it shall have a perimeter
dimension of at least 4 inches (102 mm) and not
greater than 61/4 inches (160 mm) with a maximum
cross section of dimension of 21/4 inches(57 mm).
2. Type II. Handrails with a perimeter greater than 61/4

inches (160 mm) shall provide a graspable finger

recess area on both sides of the profile. The finger
recess shall begin within a distance of 3/4 inch (19
mm) measured vertically from the tallest portion of
the profile and achieve a depth of at least 5/16 inch (8
mm) within 7/8 inch (22 mm) below the widest portion
of the profile. This required depth shall continue
for at least 3/8 inch (10mm)to a level that is not
less than 13/4 inches (45 mm) below the tallest portion
of the profile. The minimumwidth of the handrail
above the recess shall be 11/4 inches (32 mm) to
a maximum of 23/4 inches (70 mm). Edges shall
have a minimum radius of 0.01 inch (0.25 mm).

[Jerry Peck]

The handrail pictured on the wall ...

Wayne,

Which photo?

9643 No handrail on wall and the guardrail top does not meet handrail requirements.

9740 Portion of handrail shown on wall but does not meet handrail requirements, guardrail top does not meet handrail requirements.

[Wayne Carlisle]

Sorry...9740

[Jerry Peck]

9740 Portion of handrail shown on wall but does not meet handrail requirements, guardrail top does not meet handrail requirements.


Were the top of the guardrail does not meet the requirements for a handrail. :)

Do you see why it does not? ;)

[Wayne Carlisle]

I don't even know what you are asking here!

I've been reading the code today on a totally different situation (not related to theis forum) and my brain is about dead for the day!:eek:

[Jerry Peck]

9740 Portion of handrail shown on wall but does not meet handrail requirements, guardrail top does not meet handrail requirements.

Wayne,

Okay, s-l-o-w-e-r now until you get settled back in ... ;)

The top of the guardrail in that photo, the one with the lady standing next to the partially constructed stairway ...

... Does the top of that guardrail meet the requirements for a handrail?

Why not?:)

[Wayne Carlisle]

It all depends....If you are speaking of the portion adjacent to the landing or the "Top" rail itself.

But I will say the portion adjacent to the landing. It won't support 200 lbs and the spacing of the spindles appears to be too far apart.

[Jerry Peck]

the "Top" rail itself.


The stairway, treads, risers, handrails, guard rail are all only partially constructed to show typical stairway construction, thus the guard rail balusters are only present near the bottom and near the top, showing two methods of baluster installation (on the treads like at the bottom and on a stringer like at the top), so spacing for the balusters can only be looked at in the bottom portion and the top portion.

Likewise, the handrail is only partially installed, the lower end is not returned to the wall to demonstrate the wrong way to do it.

Thus, with (for my question) the handrail being presumed that the unreturned end 'will be' left that way, the handrail is improperly constructed, so let's 'remove the handrail' and leave that wall blank.

Now we have typical stairway which does not have a handrail mounted on the wall, instead it is relying on the top rail of the guard rail to serve as the handrail.

As installed in the photo, presuming the top rail height is installed between 34" and 38" high above the plane of the nosings, and presuming that the top rail terminate at the newel posts as allowed and as shown, and presuming that the configuration of the top rail meets the configuration requirements for handrail graspability, what requirement for handrails does that top rail 'not' meet?

I understand that photo is for teaching inspecting stairways, but that photo is also basically representative of typical stair construction methods where there is a newel post at the bottom and a newel post at the top and the top rail terminates into the newel posts, thus it is representative of a typical problem with that type of stairway/guard rail construction.

[Wayne Carlisle]

The stairway, treads, risers, handrails, guard rail are all only partially constructed to show typical stairway construction, .

You're kidding me! Aren't you?:p


Now we have typical stairway which does not have a handrail mounted on the wall, instead it is relying on the top rail of the guard rail to serve as the handrail..

Agreed



instead it is relying on the top rail of the guard rail to serve as the handrail.

Technically speaking the right terminology is just "guard" when you are referring to the stair portion of this photo. (Underlining is mine)



As installed in the photo, presuming the top rail height is installed between 34" and 38" high above the plane of the nosings, and presuming that the top rail terminate at the newel posts as allowed and as shown, and presuming that the configuration of the top rail meets the configuration requirements for handrail graspability, what requirement for handrails does that top rail 'not' meet?

OK, you've got me on this one! I can't see anything wrong. Teach me something. And don't give me some kind of cheezy ass answer either. :confused: Make it a legitimate violation please.

[Jerry Peck]

OK, you've got me on this one! I can't see anything wrong. Teach me something. And don't give me some kind of cheezy ass answer either. :confused: Make it a legitimate violation please.

This is not "some kind of cheezy ass answer either.". "Make it a legitimate violation please.", it is indeed a legitimate violation of the technical nature based on the explicit wording specifically stated in the code - the kind which gets ignored day in and day out.

From the 2006 IRC. (underlining and bold are mine)

- R311.5.6.2 Continuity. Handrails for stairways shall be continuous for the full length of the flight, from a point directly above the top riser of the flight to a point directly above the lowest riser of the flight. Handrail ends shall be returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals. Handrails adjacent to a wall shall have a space of not less than 11/2 inch (38 mm) between the wall and the handrails.
- - Exceptions:

- - - 1. Handrails shall be permitted to be interrupted by a newel post at the turn.
- - - 2. The use of a volute, turnout, starting easing or starting newel shall be allowed over the lowest tread.

[Wayne Carlisle]

OK and this picture doesn't do this?

Bold and underline are mine.


R311.5.6.2 Continuity. Handrails for stairways shall be continuous for the full length of the flight, from a point directly above the top riser of the flight to a point directly above the lowest riser of the flight. Handrail ends shall be returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals. Handrails adjacent to a wall shall have a space of not less than 11/2 inch (38 mm) between the wall and the handrails.
- - Exceptions:

- - - 1. Handrails shall be permitted to be interrupted by a newel post at the turn.
- - - 2. The use of a volute, turnout, starting easing or starting newel shall be allowed over the lowest tread.


Teach me something. I'm serious on this because I see this type of installation all the time and allow it.

Doesn't exception 2 make this hand rail in compliance? That would take care of the "lowest" riser and you can't see the upper portion in the picture.

Even though the way the picture shows the starting newel there's not any strength there to meet the 200 lb requirement.

[Jerry Peck]

OK and this picture doesn't do this?

Handrail ends shall be returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals.

Wayne,

The handrail does end in a newel post, which is what I already said was allowed.

It it 'the location of the newel post' that makes the handrail *not* comply with this:


from a point directly above the top riser of the flight to a point directly above the lowest riser of the flight.


The exceptions do not even come into play.

[brian schmitt]

wayne,
you are right,so is jp. he is quoting the rule and you are quoting the exception. if you want a whizzing contest with jp you better stock up on 12 ouncers:D

[Wayne Carlisle]

I can whizz with the best of them!!:eek: I may need to buy extra absorbant depends, but I'll make it through the worst of it.

I love discussions on things like this and hopefully everyone can learn a little something from it.

JP is a sharp guy and is right a lot of the time but then again he is wrong sometimes too. The codes are all how one interpretations the language of the code and that can be a full time job in itself. He may interpret it one way while others see it another way. That does not make the others wrong, if anyone can alter my interpretation that's okay. I've won some...lost uuummm a few!:p If I am wrong..I admit it..if not, I can be as stubborn as JP.:mad: :D

As long as we are all open minded and don't become "set" in our thoughts and are willing to have an open mind we can all learn something.

[Wayne Carlisle]

Jerry, why wouldn't the exceptions apply?

[Jerry Peck]

wayne,
you are right,so is jp. he is quoting the rule and you are quoting the exception.


Wayne

I started to reply with 'but the exception does not apply', then on reading it again (yes, again, after having read it many times before, and several times in this thread) and realized ... oops. :o

I stand corrected.

I was thinking of the volute and starting easing being allowed "over the lowest tread", and forgot (and did not read closely enough) the inclusion of "or the starting newel".

- - - 2. The use of a volute, turnout, starting easing or starting newel shall be allowed over the lowest tread.

[Wayne Carlisle]

Correction noted and appreciated. Whew! I thought have been inspecting wrong for years! But what else is new?:confused:

We can all learn something now and then; and if we keep a civil discussion and agree that we won't always agree the discussion will end and go on the the next one.:)

[Jerry McCarthy]

Came late to the party and all I can say is that little video of stair codes in highly inaccurate. Glad you guys, especially JP, got it straightened out. Our code writers are never the most lucid grammarians.
For the left coast guys & gals.