Thread: Stair width

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.

Similar Threads:

• Stair step cracks ,no crack in foundation ,8 foot from window
• Stair riser & nosing
• Hall width to stair guardrail
• Door (?) opening over stair
• New construction - stair step cracks

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

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

Originally Posted by Mike Schulz

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

Mike:

Wall to one rail 31.5".

Aaron

Originally Posted by Mike Schulz

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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

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."

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

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.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

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."

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Brandon Whitmore

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandon Whitmore
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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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????

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.

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,
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!

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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!

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???

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

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

JP:

Here it is.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

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.

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

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

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).

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?

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).

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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? happy new year! have a cold one and beware of black/worm holes

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

Originally Posted by 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? happy new year! have a cold one and beware of black/worm holes

.

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 because you keep repeating the same thing without looking at what is going on around you.

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. )

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.

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

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

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!

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

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

Capische?

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

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.

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

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

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.

ibc for 1 and 2 families too

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:

Originally Posted by Richard Pultar

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).

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 feel free not to repli

brian,nottoworryiwhiznowandthentooalldependsonhowm uchihadtodrinkaftermylastwhiz

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

Originally Posted by 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.

I produced a 10-minute training video for stairway inspections. Free. No cost.
Inspecting a Stairway - NACHI.TV Episode 16

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

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

I produced a 10-minute training video for stairway inspections. Free. No cost.
Inspecting a Stairway - NACHI.TV Episode 16

.

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.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

.

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......

handrail.jpg
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).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

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

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

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.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

.
Go back and read the code again, Dude.

R311.5.6.1

which code ,, what year

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Go back and read the code again, Dude.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Gromicko

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.

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

ibc does not apply to 1 n2 family houses

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

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).

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by Richard Pultar

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.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

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

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

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.