Thread: IBC 2006 Code

Why we need the IRC, especially in the new CBC 2007, which is an adoption of the 2006 IBC and will become effective 01-01-2008.
IBC 2006 – Guards – 1013.2; No mention of minimum guard rail height of 36 inches above floor in R-3 Occupancies. Go figure?

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

Jerry Mc.,

Why do you need the IRC, that shows a minimum height requirement of 42", which is even better, and is what is considered "safe" for all buildings.

Why would you want to get something which lowers the height to some point (36") below the "safe" height?

I've never understood why 'the margin of safety' is allowed drop at ones home, it's not like the owner and no one else ever goes there (see a recent post on this very subject).

Jerry
What I'm looking for is consistancy. Guess I wasn't clear on that?

Jerry Mc.,

Guess I'm still lost.

The IRC does not apply to R-3 occupancies. Just to one- and two-family dwellings, which is but one of five listed occupancies for R-3.

Or are you referring to consistency from your previous code?

Oh contraire, Jerry P if you refer to the IRC 2006 Preface, “Introduction”, paragraph 2: This 2006 edition is fully compatible with the International Building Codes including the IBC, etc. I think you’ll see my point. As per your statement that the IRC does not apply to R-3 Occupancies I beg to differ: The IRC 2006 covers R--3 under 310.1: “R-3 Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as Group R-1, R-2, R-4 or I, including Buildings that do not contain more than two dwelling units.”
Bottom line, I don’t see full compatibility on the guard height issue in that if the IBC wants the guard rail minimum height to be 42” throughout all occupancies why designate 36” in the IRC? My argument is you can’t have it both ways. (however, I could be wrong?)

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Oh contraire, Jerry P if you refer to the IRC 2006 Preface, “Introduction”, paragraph 2: This 2006 edition is fully compatible with the International Building Codes including the IBC, etc. I think you’ll see my point.

Same paragraph: " ... stand-alone residential code establishes minimum regulations for one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses ... '

Thus, as I stated in my previous post (I am underlining the must-read part), "The IRC does not apply to R-3 occupancies. Just to one- and two-family dwellings, which is but one of five listed occupancies for R-3."

As per your statement that the IRC does not apply to R-3 Occupancies I beg to differ: The IRC 2006 covers R--3 under 310.1: “R-3 Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as Group R-1, R-2, R-4 or I, including Buildings that do not contain more than two dwelling units.”

Refer to what I just reposted above: "The IRC does not apply to R-3 occupancies. Just to one- and two-family dwellings, which is but one of five listed occupancies for R-3."

This is the entire paragraph I posted previously: "The IRC does not apply to R-3 occupancies. Just to one- and two-family dwellings, which is but one of five listed occupancies for R-3."

The IRC *does not* "apply to R-3 occupancies". *It does* "apply to" *ONE* type of R-3 occupancy, but not to all R-3 occupancies.

Bottom line, I don’t see full compatibility on the guard height issue in that if the IBC wants the guard rail minimum height to be 42” throughout all occupancies

The 42" height is not applicable throughout all occupancies in the 2006 IBC.


1013.2 Height.

Guards shall form a protective barrier not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) high, measured vertically above the leading edge of the tread, adjacent walking surface or adjacent seatboard.

- Exceptions:

- - 1. For occupancies in Group R-3, and within individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2, guards whose top rail also serves as a handrail shall have a height not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) measured vertically from the leading edge of the stair tread nosing.

- - 2. The height in assembly seating areas shall be in accordance with Section 1025.14.

why designate 36” in the IRC? My argument is you can’t have it both ways. (however, I could be wrong?)

The IRC is in full compatibility with the IBC, it specifies the guardrail height to be:

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. (Jerry P's note: Isn't 36" in height between the "not less than 34 inches" and "not more than 38 inches"? Yes, it is. Isn't the 34" at the stairs "not less than 34 inches"? Yes, it is. I don't see any lack of "full compatibility" there.)

- 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.

As I said, "Guess I'm still lost." on what you are referring to.

The IRC is limited to one- and two-family dwellings, which is but one type of R-3 occupancy listed in the IBC, with the guardrail heights fully compatible between the two codes. One just needs to address what the IRC addresses through the IRC and address what the IRC does not address through the other codes (IBC, IFGC, IMC, IPC, etc.)

You know that old saying: "The lights on, but no one is home."? Well, I'm hoping that something you say will turn the light on, I'm home, but I'm in the dark.

JP: Thus, as I stated in my previous post (I am underlining the must-read part), "The IRC does not apply to R-3 occupancies. Just to one- and two-family dwellings, which is but one of five listed occupancies for R-3."
JM: R-3 in an integral part of Section 310-Residentiqal Group R. Of the 4 described groups R-3 being perhaps the most common, at least as private real estate inspectors are concerned.
JP: Refer to what I just reposted above: "The IRC does not apply to R-3 occupancies. Just to one- and two-family dwellings, which is but one of five listed occupancies for R-3."
JM: Seems we do not have a meeting of the minds on this point and therefore would ask you is it reasonable to assume when the code clearly states: R-3 Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as Group R-1, R-2, R-4 or I, that they are in essence actually defining what a R-3 occupancy is?
JP: This is the entire paragraph I posted previously: "The IRC does not apply to R-3 occupancies. Just to one- and two-family dwellings, which is but one of five listed occupancies for R-3."
JM: Disagree as previously stated.
JP: The IRC *does not* "apply to R-3 occupancies". *It does* "apply to" *ONE* type of R-3 occupancy, but not to all R-3 occupancies.
JM: This is where you lose me as I’ve pondered that statement many times and fail to grasp its meaning?JP: The 42" height is not applicable throughout all occupancies in the 2006 IBC.
JM: I’m only concerned with IBC’s 1013.2 and the 42” minimum height rule when it applies to R-3 in as much as separate from what the IRC designated. If that had been added to their exceptions either as a 36” minimum height under R-3 or the IRC changed their minimum height to 42” at balconies, decks, etc. I’d find that as consistent. That’s what I see as the BIG inconsistency.
PS: I’m fine with the handrail height exceptions and I’ve no problem with the 34-38 min-max height restrictions for stairs, or how else could it work? Not well I’m afraid.
JP: 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. (Jerry P's note: Isn't 36" in height between the "not less than 34 inches" and "not more than 38 inches"? Yes, it is. Isn't the 34" at the stairs "not less than 34 inches"? Yes, it is. I don't see any lack of "full compatibility" there.)
JM: Agree.
JP: The IRC is limited to one- and two-family dwellings, which is but one type of R-3 occupancy listed in the IBC, I Agree with the guardrail heights fully compatible between the two codes. I Disagree One just needs to address what the IRC addresses through the IRC and address what the IRC does not address through the other codes (IBC, IFGC, IMC, IPC, etc.) I Agree.
JM: I plan on taking this entire question to my IRC interpretation committee and will report back what finer minds than mine think.[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

JP: This is the entire paragraph I posted previously: "The IRC does not apply to R-3 occupancies. Just to one- and two-family dwellings, which is but one of five listed occupancies for R-3."
JM: Disagree as previously stated.

Jerry Mc.,

Let's take one at a time.

To clarify - You are stating that the IRC *DOES* "apply to" *ALL* of the Occupancy categories listed under R-3 in the IBC. Is that correct?

It's a 'yes' or 'no' question.

To clarify: You are stating that the IRC applies to all of the occupancies shown below, under Group R-3.
- R-3 Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as Group R-1, R-2, R-4 or I, including:

- - Buildings that do not contain more than two dwelling units. (Jerry P's note: This is where the one- and two-family dwelling falls.)
- - Adult facilities that provide accommodations for five or fewer persons of any age for less than 24 hours.
- - Child care facilities that provide accommodations for five or fewer persons of any age for less than 24 hours.
- - Congregate living facilities with 16 or fewer persons.
- - Adult and child care facilities that are within a single-family home are permitted to comply with the International Residential Code.

West Coast Jerry, I need to know this to know how to address the rest of your items/points.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Jerry Mc.,

Let's take one at a time.

To clarify - You are stating that the IRC *DOES* "apply to" *ALL* of the Occupancy categories listed under R-3 in the IBC. Is that correct?
No.
It's a 'yes' or 'no' question.

To clarify: You are stating that the IRC applies to all of the occupancies shown below, under Group R-3.
- R-3 Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as Group R-1, R-2, R-4 or I, including:

- - Buildings that do not contain more than two dwelling units. (Jerry P's note: This is where the one- and two-family dwelling falls.)
- - Adult facilities that provide accommodations for five or fewer persons of any age for less than 24 hours.
- - Child care facilities that provide accommodations for five or fewer persons of any age for less than 24 hours.
- - Congregate living facilities with 16 or fewer persons.
- - Adult and child care facilities that are within a single-family home are permitted to comply with the International Residential Code.

No. The IRC addresses the design and construction of one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses.
I believe we are in full agreement on those issues?

West Coast Jerry, I need to know this to know how to address the rest of your items/points.

I repeat, my problem is with their statemet (see IRC Preface) that; "the 2006 edition is fully compatible with all the International Codes."

The Jerry’s IRC-IBC debate continued:
Example: you are going to build a home (R-3 single family residential dwelling) in California.
California has not adopted the IRC.
California has published the California Building Code 2007, based upon the 2006 IBC, which becomes effective Jan. 1, 2008 for all CA jurisdictions.
Question: how high do you build the guard railing at a second floor balcony above the balcony deck?
We both know that 42" would pass muster, but what about 36" if the home was designed under the 2006 IRC? In other words, the CBC (IBC) does not default to the IRC, and that is the very heart of my dilemma.

I’m aware you don’t have a copy of the 2007 CBC, but trust me that it mirrors the 2006 IBC Section 1013.2 including Exceptions.

You still have not answered 'yes' or 'no'.

But, I'll continue with what you did post:

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Example: you are going to build a home (R-3 single family residential dwelling) in California.

California has not adopted the IRC.

... if the home was designed under the 2006 IRC?

Why would you design a home to the IRC is, as you've stated above, CA has not adopted the IRC?

In other words, the CBC (IBC) does not default to the IRC, and that is the very heart of my dilemma.

I still do not understand your dilemma. The Florida Building Code does not default to the IRC either. Florida has its own FRC, based on the IRC, but the IRC is not applicable in any way, shape, or form, by default or otherwise.

Question: how high do you build the guard railing at a second floor balcony above the balcony deck?

We both know that 42" would pass muster, but what about 36" ... ?

From the 2006 IBC, also apparently from the 2006 CBC:

1013.2 Height.

Guards shall form a protective barrier not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) high, measured vertically above the leading edge of the tread, adjacent walking surface or adjacent seatboard.

- Exceptions:

- - 1. For occupancies in Group R-3, and within individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2, guards whose top rail also serves as a handrail shall have a height not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) measured vertically from the leading edge of the stair tread nosing.
- - 2. The height in assembly seating areas shall be in accordance with Section 1025.14.

*IF* the top rail serves as a handrail in the one- and two-family dwelling unit, the guardrail *must* be as high as 34", and *may* be as high as 38". Period. End of problem - because that's what it says.

*IF* the top rail does not also serve as a handrail in the one- and two-family dwelling unit, the guardrail *must* be at least 42" high. Period. End of problem - because that's what it says.

Okay?

Now, is your answer to my question 'yes' or 'no'?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

You still have not answered 'yes' or 'no'.
Oh but I did; see my post 8:58 AM. But, I'll continue with what you did post:





Why would you design a home to the IRC is, as you've stated above, CA has not adopted the IRC?
I can't design a residential dwelling to a code our state has not adopted
I still do not understand your dilemma. The Florida Building Code does not default to the IRC either. Florida has its own FRC, based on the IRC,
I wish CA did too!
but the IRC is not applicable in any way, shape, or form, by default or otherwise.




From the 2006 IBC, also apparently from the 2006 CBC:
I'm having my local ICC Chapter meeting soon and I'll ask all the local BO's on their take of what I see as a major glitch by the California Building Standards Commission.

1013.2 Height.

Guards shall form a protective barrier not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) high, measured vertically above the leading edge of the tread, adjacent walking surface or adjacent seatboard.

- Exceptions:

- - 1. For occupancies in Group R-3, and within individual dwelling units in occupancies in Group R-2, guards whose top rail also serves as a handrail shall have a height not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) measured vertically from the leading edge of the stair tread nosing.
- - 2. The height in assembly seating areas shall be in accordance with Section 1025.14.

*IF* the top rail serves as a handrail in the one- and two-family dwelling unit, the guardrail *must* be as high as 34", and *may* be as high as 38". Period. End of problem - because that's what it says.

*IF* the top rail does not also serve as a handrail in the one- and two-family dwelling unit, the guardrail *must* be at least 42" high. Period. End of problem - because that's what it says.

Okay?

Now, is your answer to my question 'yes' or 'no'?

Jerry, I know the code as I've been teaching it for years and the section you keep quoting me is not any part of my argument. I suspect if we had this debate verbally we could solve it in a heartbeat?

JP: You still have not answered 'yes' or 'no'.
JM: Oh but I did; see my post 8:58 AM.

Ah, I see, says the blind man.

Okay, let's start here.

JP: To clarify - You are stating that the IRC *DOES* "apply to" *ALL* of the Occupancy categories listed under R-3 in the IBC. Is that correct?
JM: No.

Okay, that's a good starting point - when bring the IBC into it at all when discussing one- and two-family dwellings?

JM: the section you keep quoting me is not any part of my argument.

I know, and I can't figure out what part of it you are missing.

JM: I repeat, my problem is with their statemet (see IRC Preface) that; "the 2006 edition is fully compatible with all the International Codes."

I know you keep repeating that, and I keep repeating that the IRC is fully compatible with the IBC, neither of which, though, is applicable to CA.

I say they are fully compatible because the IBC is the "general overall document", with references to dwelling units, both of one- and two-family types and of other types. The IRC is the "specific single document" which specifically and only references one- and two-family dwelling units.

The requirement for the specific document for one- and two-family dwellings - the IRC - meld perfectly into the general requirements of the general document for all dwelling units - the IBC - by the virtue that the "specific requirements" stated in the IRC are within the "general requirements" stated in the IBC.

JM: Jerry, I know the code as I've been teaching it for years

I know you have, and I believe that history is adding to your confusion. You are reading "fully compatible with" as "identical to".

You can have "full compatibility" without having "identical" requirements.

Read this sentence from the IBC, Preface, Introduction, second paragraph:

"This 2006 edition is fully compatible with all the International Codes® (I-Codes®) published by the International Code Council (ICC)®, including the ICC Electrical Code®, International Energy Conservation Code®, International Existing Building Code®, International Fire Code®, International Fuel Gas Code®, International Mechanical Code®, ICC Performance Code®, International Plumbing Code®, International Private Sewage Disposal Code®, International Property Maintenance Code®, International Residential Code®, International Wildland-Urban Interface Code™ and International Zoning Code®."

Now, the IBC will not have "identical" requirements with those other codes, but they are "fully compatible with" each other.

Just like your right hand is "fully compatible with" your left hand, yet your right hand has the thumb sticking out to the right and your left hand has the thumb sticking out to the left. "Fully compatible" with each other? Sure. "Identical" to each other? Of course not.

JM: I suspect if we had this debate verbally we could solve it in a heartbeat?

Maybe. If I could just get you to open your mind up a little bit.

I really think that if you read "fully compatible" in the IRC relating to the IBC, and read the IBC "fully compatible" part relating to all of the I-codes, you will understand what it is saying. Don't just pick the IRC or the IBC, let's pick the IPC - "This 2006 edition is fully compatible with all the International Codes® (I-Codes®) published by the International Code Council (ICC)®, including the International Building Code®, ICC Electrical Code®, International Energy Conservation Code®, International Existing Building Code®, International Fire Code®, International Fuel Gas Code®, International Mechanical Code®, ICC Performance Code®, International Private Sewage Disposal Code®, International Property Maintenance Code®, International Residential Code®, International Wildland-Urban Interface Code™ and International Zoning Code®."

There it is again.

It's in all the I-codes. They are *all* "fully compatible" with *all* of the other I-codes. Yet none say the identical things.

Jerry, my friend, I would readily agree with all you say if California had done it right and adopted both the 2006 IBC and 2006 IRC because they do work together thus allowing folks to select the appropriate code considering the type of building they wanted to build.

However, and this is a very large however, California has published the 2007 California Building Code, which mistakenly dropped the “exceptions” they had included under CBC 2001 - Section 509.2 regarding required minimum height between residential dwellings R-3 and the other occupancies.
This bothered me so much that I placed a call to some of our state code gurus who immediately saw the problem after which they assured me that the first errata printed would “fix” that problem. Turns out it was a glitch in our new state code and it also turns out I’m not the first to notice it.

Thanks for all of your input and I understand without a CBC in front of you and my poorly attempted description of this glitch we where traveling two separate roads in opposite directions. Please rest assured that I have no problems with either the IBC or IRC and have long felt that the IRC was a superior product going back to when it was the One-and Two- Family Residential Dwelling Code. It should be noted that this is a California problem and thankfully not shared by other states.

Jerry Mc.,

Glad to be of help????????

My new goal in life is to be able to read what you two guys are writing about and understand it.

Originally Posted by Jim McClendon

My new goal in life is to be able to read what you two guys are writing about and understand it.

Jim,

When you understand it, please explain it to us.