Thread: stairway guardrails

The code check book mentions the requirement for a handrail, but I am not seeing any requirement for a guardrail when one side of the stairway is open to a room. Common sense tells me that this is a reportable safety hazard, but I would like to be able to back it up. Any thoughts?

Similar Threads:

• Stairway bottom landing
• Interior stairway riser height
• Light fixture location - stairway
• Stairway Illumination
• From the old board, Stairway windows?

Yes, a guard rail is required for the open sides of stairs.

That requirement goes back as far as I can remember. The guard rail was required, the opening sizes in the guard rail have gotten smaller over the decades, though.

Also, those stairs look pretty steep too.

From the IRC stairway guide

Open sides of stairs with a
total rise of more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the
f oor or grade below shall have guards not less than
34 inches (864 mm) in height measured vertically
from the nosing of the treads.

A violation of IBC Section 1012 and ADA regulations.
ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) see
Section 4.9.4

Check out your carpet and refer to the ADAAG Section 4.5.3

Almost 100% sure is 4" between vertical pickets/rods for the handrailing.

Almost 100% sure is 4" between vertical pickets/rods for the handrailing.

Per IRC, it says a 4 3/8" sphere can not pass through the guard openings at the stairs ('06). Of course, in Oregon they allow 5" at the stairs.......... so it kinda depends....

yes, i am sure there some space for interpretation too..and some jurisdictions will have their own codes which kind of stumbles me. I can understand changes in code due to nature related issues like more fasteners due to a higher FM rating on a roof in areas subject to strong winds but rules are not consistent within states in matters like ingress/egress.... and then this question comes to mind: what code allows people to build wood-framing houses in hurricane subject areas without serious perimeter steel strapping being installed, never mind inspected properly. Sometimes design professionals are not my best friends... I am already getting wired again ;0

Back to the subject:
In RI and MD where I used to make hundreds of stairs and handrails sections, 4" was the rule because inspectors used a 4" sphere. I learned early with other people's mistakes that - 4" was de-facto standard for me to stay out of trouble. Sometimes if the installing crew was not working properly the inspector would go through everything and in some occasions those pickets at the angle change of the handrail would have to be worked on.

found this too from 2006 IRC......
R312.2 Guard opening limitations.
MUST NOT
Required guards on open sides of stairways, raised
ALLOW
floor areas, balconies and porches shall have
PASSAGE OF
intermediate rails or ornamental closures which do
4-3/8” SPHERE
not allow passage of a sphere 4 inches (102 mm) or
more in diameter. PHOTO 37.
Exception: 1. The triangular openings formed by the
riser, tread and bottom rail of a guard at
the open side of a stairway are permitted
to be of such a size that a sphere 6 inches
(152 mm) cannot pass through. PHOTO
38.
2. Openings for required guards on
the sides of stair treads shall not allow
a sphere 43⁄8 inches (107 mm) to pass
through. PHOTO 38.

Originally Posted by Richard M. Pinkerton

A violation of IBC Section 1012 and ADA regulations.
ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) see
Section 4.9.4

Check out your carpet and refer to the ADAAG Section 4.5.3

Those do not apply apply to one- and two-family dwelling units and townhouses or apartments/condos where there are fewer than 4 units.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Those do not apply apply to one- and two-family dwelling units and townhouses or apartments/condos where there are fewer than 4 units.

JP and All: Not to be a nit-picker, but they are not "guard rails", but rather "guards". From IRC Chapter 2:

GUARD.

A building component or a system of building components
located near the open sides of elevated walking surfaces
that minimizes the possibility of a fall from the walking
surface to the lower level.

A guard is a component or system of components
whose function is the prevention of falls from an elevated
area. Placed adjacent to an elevation change, a
guard must be of adequate height, strength and configuration
to help prevent people, especially small children,
from falling over or through the guard to the area
below.

Aaron

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP and All: Not to be a nit-picker, but they are not "guard rails", but rather "guards".

Yes, the current codes refer to them as "guards", however, older timers have know them by other names due to other codes.

Some other codes called them "guardrails" and some "safe guards".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Yes, the current codes refer to them as "guards", however, older timers have know them by other names due to other codes.

Some other codes called them "guardrails" and some "safe guards".

JP: Tenure is no excuse.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: Tenure is no excuse.

.

Aaron,

How long do you think it is going to take for people to say "luminaire" instead of "light fixture"?

What do you call a "luminaire" which does not have lamps? A 'lampless luminaire'?

But wait, a luminaire, by definition, *includes the lamps*, so is it still even a "luminaire" if it does not have lamps?

Guess we've just added another ponderable to the ponderables ...

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

.

Aaron,

How long do you think it is going to take for people to say "luminaire" instead of "light fixture"?

What do you call a "luminaire" which does not have lamps? A 'lampless luminaire'?

But wait, a luminaire, by definition, *includes the lamps*, so is it still even a "luminaire" if it does not have lamps?

Guess we've just added another ponderable to the ponderables ...

JP: Luminaire? Probably longer than we'll be around.

"Say dear, would you please illuminate the stairwell to 1 candle power just above the treads by utilizing one of the the three-way switches to activate the recessed luminaires?"

That sort of talk around my house might cost me supper.

Aaron

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

That sort of talk around my house might cost me supper.

Aaron

,
You saying She wouldn't let You cook enough for both you and Her ?
.

Ok, then it changes depending on what type of building we are talking about...

Can recall even more complicated stuff in north of portugal where a Draught beer (also known as draft beer or tap beer)is known by "fino" in many other areas is "imperial"
cheers!

Originally Posted by Joao Vieira

Ok, then it changes depending on what type of building we are talking about...

Not really.

When addressing dwelling units, it (the requirements themselves) do not change, only the code changes from dwelling unit type to dwelling unit type.

Cool stair! However.......

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Cool stair! However.......

JM: Well, that just mucks up the black and whiteness of the thing altogether. Jeez!

Aaron, I must assume you're not serious? So assuming that here's another for your collection........ that is assuming you collect code pertinent diagrams?

Aaron,

Not sure where you got that drawing, but it sure is not correct. Never has been.

This is from the IRC. (underlining and red text are mine)

- R312.1 Guards.

Porches, balconies, ramps or raised floor surfaces located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below shall have guards not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height. Open sides of stairs with a total rise of more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below shall have guards not less than 34 inches (864 mm) in height measured vertically from the nosing of the treads.
- - Porches and decks which are enclosed with insect screening
shall be equipped with guards where the walking surface is
located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade

below.

Jeffery Mac has familiar dimmensions.. 42" high and 34-38 on the steps..... used to do the guard rails with 36" on the steps.

we used to use the term "hand-rails" because more often than not you would have the actual hand rail welded below the top "guard" pipe on the interior side of the ramp or stair.

be aware that in commercial applications or in apartment/condos you will need to have the handrail extend 12" on the level plane if the handrail is not continuous; edited: and at the beginning and end of the handrail; I mean extend at least 12" on the top and bottom landings level with the floor..There are many hand rails not compliant out there

Originally Posted by Joao Vieira

be aware that in commercial applications or in apartment/condos

.


A correction note to the above:

"in" as in "in apartment/condos" is incorrect as stated, it would be correct if stated "in apartment/condo building common areas, i.e., not *within* a unit", because "in apartment/condos" implies *within the apartment/condo itself* - which has the same requirement as for dwelling units as an apartment or condo is a "dwelling unit".

Of course, yes, that would be applicable to 'two-story' apartments/condos or ones with high ceilings and lofts.

Originally Posted by Joao Vieira

and at the beginning and end of the handrail; I mean extend at least 12" on the top and bottom landings level with the floor..There are many hand rails not compliant out there

.

Needs correction also.

From the 2006 IBC. (underlining is mine)

- 1012.5 Handrail extensions.

Handrails shall return to a wall, guard or the walking surface or shall be continuous to the handrail of an adjacent stair flight or ramp run. At stairways where handrails are not continuous between flights, the handrails shall extend horizontally at least 12 inches (305 mm) beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser. At ramps where handrails are not continuous between runs, the handrail shall extend horizontally above the landing 12 inches (305 mm) minimum beyond the top and bottom ramps.

- - Exceptions:

- - - 1. Handrails within a dwelling unit that is not required to be accessible need extend only from the top riser to the bottom riser.
- - - 2. Aisle handrails in Group A occupancies in accordance with Section 1025.13.

The handrail for a common area stair (not "within" a dwelling unit, i.e., not within an apartment or condo) is required to turn horizontally vertically above the top riser, then continue horizontally for an additional 12" AT THE TOP. That same handrail is required to CONTINUE to slope for a horizontal distance equal to one tread depth (which could be as little 11", but which must be as much as the depth of the tread) - that bottom of the handrail IS NOT required to then turn and go horizontally. If the handrail were continuous, then, yes, the bottom WOULD STILL SLOPE for the depth of one tread, then the handrail would turn horizontally continue around the landing to the top of the top riser of the next flight of stairs (the lowest flight of stairs could just stop at the end of that one tread depth slope).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Aaron,

Not sure where you got that drawing, but it sure is not correct. Never has been.

This is from the IRC. (underlining and red text are mine)

- R312.1 Guards.

Porches, balconies, ramps or raised floor surfaces located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below shall have guards not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height. Open sides of stairs with a total rise of more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below shall have guards not less than 34 inches (864 mm) in height measured vertically from the nosing of the treads.

- - Porches and decks which are enclosed with insect screening
shall be equipped with guards where the walking surface is
located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade

below.

JP: Though you may not like that graphic, it is directly from the ICC's 2006 IRC and Commentary. A simple cut and paste. No Photo Shop slight of hand with fluttering doves, cute little bunnies, top hats or scarcely clad assistants.

So then, to back up a bit in this thread and quote you, "Guess we've just added another ponderable to the ponderables ..."

Aaron

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Aaron, I must assume you're not serious? So assuming that here's another for your collection........ that is assuming you collect code pertinent diagrams?

JM: I just don't know. Define "serious". I am a fairly serious student of the game though, and do appreciate the diagram.

Jerry,

I don't have the codes in front of me, but I believe your sketch probably is from IBC, not IRC. I and 2 family dwellings require a 36" high guard. All others require a 42" high guard.

Originally Posted by Steve Frederickson

Jerry,

I don't have the codes in front of me, but I believe your sketch probably is from IBC, not IRC. I and 2 family dwellings require a 36" high guard. All others require a 42" high guard.

Steve: I'm not sure to which "sketch" you are referring. If it is to the one in my post, then you are sorely mistaken. Look again at the bottom of a larger screen capture. I don't make this stuff up.

A.D.,

That sketch looks fine. No guard is required on the open sid of stairs if the stair leads to a landing no more than 30" high. The sketch should show a handrail on stair B, but the sketch was probably only intended to address the question of guards.

Originally Posted by Steve Frederickson

A.D.,

That sketch looks fine. No guard is required on the open side of stairs if the stair leads to a landing no more than 30" high. The sketch should show a handrail on stair B, but the sketch was probably only intended to address the question of guards.

Steve: My contention and discussion did not revolve around the correctness of the sketch, but rather the concept of handrail vs. guard.

This brings to mind Buridan's ass: "Buridan's ass is a figurative description of a man of indecision. It refers to a paradoxical situation wherein an ass, placed exactly in the middle between two stacks of hay of equal size and quality, will starve to death since it cannot make any rational decision to start eating one rather than the other." Wikipedia

Better yet, the old Certs commercial. Is it a candy, a breath mint or both?

If you have a handrail attached to the wall and a guard on the open side of the stairs, which is the handrail? Both? Is the guard the handrail when no handrail is present on the closed side of the stairs, or is it just being used as a handrail?

When a code-authoring agency makes a glossary of definitions should they not be a bit more inclusive? Yes, I understand that a comprehensive glossary of anything is out of the question, but . . .

A guard can also serve as a handrail if it compies with certain height requirements. If it's too high to serve as a handrail, then you can mount a handrail to the side of the guard, or to the wall. A handrail is only required on one side for 1 and 2 family dwellings.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: Though you may not like that graphic, it is directly from the ICC's 2006 IRC and Commentary.

.

Aaron,

It's not that 'I don't like' the graphic, it's that the graphic *is wrong*.

That graphic does not depict what the code states as being required. Which is why I unlined the section I underlined.

That is the "TOTAL RISE" of that stair?

- From the 2006 IRC.
- - R312.1 Guards.
Porches, balconies, ramps or raised floor surfaces located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below shall have guards not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height. Open sides of stairs with a total rise of more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below shall have guards not less than 34 inches (864 mm) in height measured vertically from the nosing of the treads.
- - Porches and decks which are enclosed with insect screening shall be equipped with guards where the walking surface is located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade

- R201.3 Terms defined in other codes.

Where terms are not defined in this code such terms shall have meanings ascribed to them as in other code publications of the International Code Council.

- From the 2006 IBC.

- - STAIR. A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers.

The drawing you posted shows a "change in elevation" from the lower floor to the higher floor. Unless you want to count each tread as a "change in elevation".

The confusing part of the codes and "stair", "stairway", "flight of stairs" is the inconsistency of the definitions, and then the intermixed use of the words (i.e., using "stair" when "stairway" is meant - based on the definitions). This has ALWAYS been a pet peeve of mine. There needs to be clear and concise definitions for the terms used in the codes regarding "stairs/stairways".

Then, to make matter worse, the code prohibits/allows/prohibits the use of winders in a straight "stair/stairway/flight of stairs".

Originally Posted by Steve Frederickson

A.D.,

That sketch looks fine. No guard is required on the open sid of stairs if the stair leads to a landing no more than 30" high. The sketch should show a handrail on stair B, but the sketch was probably only intended to address the question of guards.

Incorrect, see my post above.

If the stairway lead to a change in elevation of not more than 30" high, then that would be correct, but then there would not be a stairway going off to the left.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

If you have a handrail attached to the wall and a guard on the open side of the stairs, which is the handrail? Both? Is the guard the handrail when no handrail is present on the closed side of the stairs, or is it just being used as a handrail?

Aaron,

The answer to that is "It depends."

Steve answered it pretty well - much depends on the height of the top of the guard ... but there are other things to consider as well, such as - does the top of the guard meet the graspability requirements? If it does not, then it cannot serve as the handrail regardless of its height.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Incorrect, see my post above.

If the stairway lead to a change in elevation of not more than 30" high, then that would be correct, but then there would not be a stairway going off to the left.

Jerry,

I think the sketch is correct because of the presence of a landing. The stair below the landing is considered a separate stairway, with no need for a guard. If the stair was continuous, without a landing, the guard would be required for its full length

Originally Posted by Steve Frederickson

The stair below the landing is considered a separate stairway, with no need for a guard. If the stair was continuous, without a landing, the guard would be required for its full length

See the problem?

"The stair" below the landing ...
- "The stair" below the landing is a "flight of stairs".

"is considered a separate stairway" ...
- A "stairway" includes all "flights of stairs" and all "landings". Thus, "the stairway" is from the lower floor to the upper floor, and that "stairway" contains two "flights of stairs" with a "landing" at the bottom, between the "flights of stairs", and at the top.

The following definitions are from the IBC:

- STAIR.A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers.

- STAIRWAY.One or more flights of stairs, either exterior or interior, with the necessary landings and platforms connecting them, to form a continuous and uninterrupted passage from one level to another.

From the 2006 IBC: (underlining and red text are mine)
- 1013.1 Where required.Guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces, mezzanines, industrial equipment platforms, stairways, ramps and landings that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below. Guards shall be adequate in strength and attachment in accordance with Section 1607.7. Where glass is used to provide a guard or as a portion of the guard system, the guard shall also comply with Section 2407. Guards shall also be located along glazed sides of stairways, ramps and landings that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below where the glazing provided does not meet the strength and attachment requirements in Section 1607.7.

- - (there are exceptions listed, none of which apply to this discussion)

From the 2006 IRC: (underlining and red text are mine)
- R312.1 Guards.Porches, balconies, ramps or raised floor surfaces located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below shall have guards not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height. Open sides of stairs with a total rise of more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below shall have guards not less than 34 inches (864 mm) in height measured vertically from the nosing of the treads.
- - Porches and decks which are enclosed with insect screening shall be equipped with guards where the walking surface is located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below.

Now comes the $64,000 question: Is that referring to "a flight of stairs" or "the stairway"?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

It's not that 'I don't like' the graphic, it's that the graphic *is wrong*.

JP: You'll need to contact the ICC who publishes the codes. I just read them. I do not publish them.

The answer to that is "It depends."

JP: Yes, everything always depends.

Aaron

Ron,

Do these stairs look familar. Must have been a railing shortage the time these homes were built.

The good thing about this one was that if you were to trip and fall down these stairs at this home, you could grab a hold of the nicotine on the wall for support.

Check out the ghosting of the nicotine on these walls.

rick

Ive come to the conclusion that nobody should post questions about stairs or any part there of. The infinite amount of time Jerry Spends Proving people and codes wrong on this issue has got to be cutting into the time he can spend actually inspecting a home. Not to mention the amount of time everybody spends reading each thread.My brain hurts!!!

Originally Posted by Shawn Best

Ive come to the conclusion that nobody should post questions about stairs or any part there of. The infinite amount of time Jerry Spends Proving people and codes wrong on this issue has got to be cutting into the time he can spend actually inspecting a home. Not to mention the amount of time everybody spends reading each thread.My brain hurts!!!

Shawn: His most certainly does too, I venture to say . . .

Even Jack speaks about the walls.

Sometimes we just can't handle the truth. Jerry just puts in writing to show us the truth.

YouTube - A Few Good Man "You Can't Handle the Truth"

Jerry,

Sorry, but I still have to disagree with you. You say yourself that guards are not required on open sides of stairs with a height of 30" or less. The lower flight is a stair, with a height not exceeding 30".

I am in code enforcement and I've sat on many BOCA and now ICC committees and attended ICC egress seminars. I've never heard that the lower stairs shown in the sketch needs a guard.

I just don't want to lead anyone down the wrong path who might be tempted to write this up in a report, but I agree, the topic is getting worn out. Just refer to the sketch. It was provided by ICC and, in my opinion, it's correct.

I concur with Jerry P on this issue per the 2006 IRC Code and I suspect that some folks miss the core of his argument which is we are looking at a “stairway” with a mid landing rather then two separate “stairs.”
IRC diagrams can be confusing at times no differently than folks who interpret the building codes differently, but then we live in an imperfect world.
My diagram showing the guards at 42” in height is IBC, but for those living and practicing in California please be aware that under the 2007 CBC Section 1013.2 Height; It is no longer 36 inches, but rather 42 inches for Residential Construction. Both of my diagrams reflect that change and if I don’t look out for the west coast guys who will?

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

I concur with Jerry P on this issue per the 2006 IRC Code and I suspect that some folks miss the core of his argument which is we are looking at a “stairway” with a mid landing rather then two separate “stairs.”
IRC diagrams can be confusing at times no differently than folks who interpret the building codes differently, but then we live in an imperfect world.
My diagram showing the guards at 42” in height is IBC, but for those living and practicing in California please be aware that under the 2007 CBC Section 1013.2 Height; It is no longer 36 inches, but rather 42 inches for Residential Construction. Both of my diagrams reflect that change and if I don’t look out for the west coast guys who will?

JM: I don't disgree with JP on his interpretation of the code here, only with his inssitence that I am somehow responsible for the IRC diagram I posted. Jeez, what is wrong with the boy?

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

for those living and practicing in California please be aware that under the 2007 CBC Section 1013.2 Height; It is no longer 36 inches, but rather 42 inches for Residential Construction. Both of my diagrams reflect that change and if I don’t look out for the west coast guys who will?

WC Jerry,

The South Florida Building Code (both the Dade County and Broward County editions) required a 42" high guard rail in residential, however, most of the rest of the state was under the SBCCI codes, and, when the Florida Building Code came in in 2001, based on the Standard Building codes, the height dropped to the 36" of the SBC, which was incorporated into the IRC.

As with every code change (changing from one code to another) we have gone through here in Florida, each successive one is weaker and more lenient than the previous code - the race to the bottom, one could say.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JM: I don't disgree with JP on his interpretation of the code here, only with his inssitence that I am somehow responsible

Aaron,

Go back and read my posts, not once have I said *YOU* were responsible, I've said the drawings are incorrect.

If you find where I said you were responsible, please show me, so I can change it (somehow, though, I think you will find that there is nothing I have to change in that regard ). Please let me know.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Aaron,

Go back and read my posts, not once have I said *YOU* were responsible, I've said the drawings are incorrect.

If you find where I said you were responsible, please show me, so I can change it (somehow, though, I think you will find that there is nothing I have to change in that regard ). Please let me know.

JP: OK then, we're cool.

THIS JUST IN FROM THE J.PECK CENTER FOR STAIRWELL RESEARCH, L.L.C.:

YouTube - to be a stair rail

A-man,

Next those guy's will be in line to understand what its like to be a "door handle".

rick

jeeezzz...this is a hot topic

As anyone mentioned that there is also indeed a jurisdiction factor Jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that may or may not make all the irc's and ibc's out there meaningless??

Originally Posted by Joao Vieira

jeeezzz...this is a hot topic

As anyone mentioned that there is also indeed a jurisdiction factor Jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that may or may not make all the irc's and ibc's out there meaningless??

Joao: Most jurisdictions here adopt the codes as written or with minor amendments. Then the AHJs proceed as if there were no code at all other than that which resides (from time to time) in their bilogical hard drives (when so equipped).

Aaron