Thread: Code Question , Handrails

Hello,
I have a question about code regarding handrails but it is really about building code in general.

Section R315 (IRC) requires handrails for any staircase which has two or more stairs [Paraphrase].

Georgia code has no such requirement (R315.1) , "[Handrails] shall be provided on at least one side of stairways of 30 inches (762 mm) or more in height." With aviation regulations the more restrictive requirement will often be "the law" where a conflict or contradiction exists.

I am wondering if there is a similar logic to building codes. And if it is not "law" is it in the "spirit" of the codes or should I stick to local regulations only (except in extreme cases)?

I kind of answered my own question about the picture but was wondering if anyone could share some insight on this matter in general. Thanks

Thank You.

Similar Threads:

• Code of ethics planned for property inspections - Stuff.co.nz
• Change to NAHI Code of Ethics
• Code reference for b-vent support
• Code Change
• Need help with code reference

The IRC is 4 or more risers require a handrail, not 2.

http://www22.pair.com/routt/building...s/handrail.pdf

Code aside, you can always use common sense. Is there a law that says a home inspector cannot use common sense to make good recommendations?

Originally Posted by John Dirks Jr

The IRC is 4 or more risers require a handrail, not 2.

http://www22.pair.com/routt/building...s/handrail.pdf

Code aside, you can always use common sense. Is there a law that says a home inspector cannot use common sense to make good recommendations?

Sorry guess I referenced old code , thanks for the update.

Originally Posted by Raghav Singh

Hello,
I have a question about code regarding handrails but it is really about building code in general.

Section R315 (IRC) requires handrails for any staircase which has two or more stairs [Paraphrase].

Georgia code has no such requirement (R315.1) , "[Handrails] shall be provided on at least one side of stairways of 30 inches (762 mm) or more in height." With aviation regulations the more restrictive requirement will often be "the law" where a conflict or contradiction exists.

I am wondering if there is a similar logic to building codes. And if it is not "law" is it in the "spirit" of the codes or should I stick to local regulations only (except in extreme cases)?

I kind of answered my own question about the picture but was wondering if anyone could share some insight on this matter in general. Thanks

Thank You.

???

Raghav Singh,

Making references to an unidentified (2000) edition of the IRC isn't helpful.

Georgia adopted statewide the 2006 IRC with Georgia ammendments (made in 2007, and additional ammendments made each year sucessively since).

Handrails are not guards, guards are not handrails.

The SMA (stairway manufacturer's assoc) interp. of the 2006 IRC "stair code" may prove helpful. Be mindful of the Georgia 2007 ammendments to applicable sections.

Means of egress R311, or Guards R312 2006 edition of the IRC.

IF your jurisdiction has adopted the property maintenance code and enforces it....well...then that would be applicable. That landing and stair way construction looks to be far more than six years old.

Risers is what is counted not steps. Cant see the grade - don't know if the first riser edge is pictured (under the vines) or not. Stucture, stringers, treads questionable, doesn't appear to be 5/4 or better but 1x6's. Two trip hazards obvious decking, no hangers, stringers questionably cut.

The overall elevation of the porch/deck above grade is unknown and not pictured.

Should that be serving the primary exit means of egress of an occupiable, yet dilapidated structure - there'd be plenty to question, esp. without a scale to go by (assuming 2x stringer material). At a minimum, the stairway/exit pathway/means of egress must remain clear and be traveled unencumbered.

The language to which you refer (2000 IRC) is referring to a continuous or continuity requirements for handrails when they are required, (exceptions to continuity further noted) where they travel over "stairs" with two or more risers. That language has been "upgraded" and "clarified" in more recent editions, including the standard in GA, 2006 IRC with Georgia ammendments.

I suggest you always reference which edition you refer to any code reference now, here, elsewhere, in the future. I further suggest you utilize at least the 2006 IRC with Georgia ammendments or a more recent edition, and/or the property maintenance code, appropriate edition and ammendments, when delving into code references in Georgia HI.

Until you acquire more updated reference materials, you can review unammended "I-codes" of all editions 2000 and forward from this (clickable) link: International

With regards to statutory construction and applicaton, I suggest you start your investigations here (another clickable link, this one to a page on Georgia DCA site): DCA | Georgia's Construction Codes

HTH.

P.S.

I negelected to offer you a clickable link where you can source (free) a download of the SMA's "Visual Interpretation of the stair code 2006 IRC"

You can acquire it here (clickable link): SMA - SMA Bookstore

Then selecting the 2006 IRC version. I sugest you do download and save it, as an aspiring HI you may find you will refer to it often intitally, and occasionally in the future.

again, HTH.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

P.S.

I negelected to offer you a clickable link where you can source (free) a download of the SMA's "Visual Interpretation of the stair code 2006 IRC"

You can acquire it here (clickable link): SMA - SMA Bookstore

Then selecting the 2006 IRC version. I sugest you do download and save it, as an aspiring HI you may find you will refer to it often intitally, and occasionally in the future.

again, HTH.

Thanks for your response and the clarification and yes I should not have referenced that code without researching it a little more , I was making a mock report and in a frenzy to get info -not an excuse , if anything that makes it worse.

Anyway I won't make that mistake again thank you for being patient and helpful.