Handrails on deck - InspectionNews

Ryan Stouffer · #1 (**permalink**) 10-04-2009, 10:22 AM

disregard this post

Jerry Peck · #2 (**permalink**) 10-04-2009, 10:38 AM

Just clarifying, yes, that needs handrails.

Ryan Stouffer · #3 (**permalink**) 10-04-2009, 10:41 AM

Jerry, it does need handrails because it is considered 4 or more risers. Correct?

Jerry Peck · #4 (**permalink**) 10-04-2009, 10:43 AM

Ryan,

Correct.

Ryan Stouffer · #5 (**permalink**) 10-04-2009, 10:54 AM

Thanks. With rookies like myself, I just want to make sure.

Erby Crofutt · #6 (**permalink**) 10-04-2009, 03:08 PM

disregarded!

Richard A Hetzel · #7 (**permalink**) 10-04-2009, 10:50 PM

LOL it's only 3 1/2 risers, which brings another code issue into play.

ben jacks · #8 (**permalink**) 10-05-2009, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Stouffer

Thanks. With rookies like myself, I just want to make sure.

Ryan, We are not alone. After 50+ years in the construction industry, I still consider myself a student in learning...BTW, you might check with the AHJ and see if they waive the 4 riser clause because the 'decking' is less than 24" above grade. That is the old UBC standard on the Left Coast. rbj

Craig Ervin · #9 (**permalink**) 10-05-2009, 10:14 AM

What is the code for steps? I thought you could have 1 step without a hand rail, after that you needed something.

Ryan Stouffer · #10 (**permalink**) 10-05-2009, 12:52 PM

4 or more risers.

ben jacks · #11 (**permalink**) 10-05-2009, 12:59 PM

Moderator, why are some of my replies being omitted?

Ryan Stouffer · #12 (**permalink**) 10-05-2009, 01:15 PM

whose the moderator

ben jacks · #13 (**permalink**) 10-05-2009, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Stouffer

whose the moderator

Beats me. I replied to Craig's comment about an hour ago along with two other threads that dropped out. Must be me or the provider not getting through. Usually I do not have any problems with my old mind. Anyway, I answered about the 4 riser as really being dependent upon the dimensional code requirement being enforced by the AHJ's adoption to a code such as the IRC or UBC that might be in place. Usually the min-max riser can be at least 6" to 9.5 max. A 1 inch riser is not considered in stairwell applications. The tolerance for multiple risers are + or - 1/4" at the most. A hand rail is not required if the top landing is not over 24" from grade. So that is where the 4 riser comes into play.(i.e. 4 x 6") rbj

Jerry Peck · #14 (**permalink**) 10-05-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ben jacks

Anyway, I answered about the 4 riser as really being dependent upon the dimensional code requirement being enforced by the AHJ's adoption to a code such as the IRC or UBC that might be in place.

Any change in elevation is a "riser", which must conform to the dimensional tolerances of the code and the maximum variation from the other risers.

I'm not sure what the UBC says.

Quote:

Usually the min-max riser can be at least 6" to 9.5 max.

No minimum in the IRC, 4" minimum in the IBC; 7-3/4" maximum in the IRC and 7" maximum in the IBC.

Quote:

The tolerance for multiple risers are + or - 1/4" at the most.

The tolerance is 3/8" between adjacent risers and 3/8" between the highest and the shortest risers.

Quote:

A hand rail is not required if the top landing is not over 24" from grade. So that is where the 4 riser comes into play.

The 4 or more rises come into play because the code say 4 or more risers and does not address a height.

If the stairway, deck, etc., is more than 30" high above the level below, then a guard rail is required. Maybe that is what you were thinking of?

Ken Bates · #15 (**permalink**) 10-05-2009, 10:30 PM

In my State (Mass.) 3+ risers require handrails regardless of related heights.
(e.g. 30" for decks, landings,etc)

ben jacks · #16 (**permalink**) 10-05-2009, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Any change in elevation is a "riser", which must conform to the dimensional tolerances of the code and the maximum variation from the other risers.

I'm not sure what the UBC says.

No minimum in the IRC, 4" minimum in the IBC; 7-3/4" maximum in the IRC and 7" maximum in the IBC.

The tolerance is 3/8" between adjacent risers and 3/8" between the highest and the shortest risers.

The 4 or more rises come into play because the code say 4 or more risers and does not address a height.

If the stairway, deck, etc., is more than 30" high above the level below, then a guard rail is required. Maybe that is what you were thinking of?

Thanks for the update Jerry. It's been a long time since contracting residential and I am out of touch with the latest codes since UBC requirements that go back to Medieval times. I do question the conflict in the IBC to the guard rail statement though.....
30"/4 = 7.5" rbj

Jerry Peck · #17 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ben jacks

I do question the conflict in the IBC to the guard rail statement though.....
30"/4 = 7.5" rbj

There is no conflict.

The 30" is for the guardrail.

The 4 or more rises is for the hand rail.

Two totally different things, with two totally different requirements.

ben jacks · #18 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

There is no conflict.

The 30" is for the guardrail.

The 4 or more rises is for the hand rail.

Two totally different things, with two totally different requirements.

Really JP,

Consider a handrail on a wall, yes....but to a deck without a guardrail,,, I would think about it. rbj

Jerry Peck · #19 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ben jacks

Really JP,

Consider a handrail on a wall, yes....but to a deck without a guardrail,,, I would think about it. rbj

Ben,

There still is no conflict.

That does not mean one does not, should not, use common sense for each of the two distinct and different things.

If you have 4 risers of 7" high then the total height is 28" - which means no guard on the stairs and no guard on the deck, but it does required a handrail on the stairs.

If you have 4 risers of 7-3/4" then the total height is 31" - which means a guard is now required on the stairs and on the deck, along with the handrail on the stairs.

However, each (the guard and the handrail) serves a different purpose.

ben jacks · #20 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Ben,

There still is no conflict.

That does not mean one does not, should not, use common sense for each of the two distinct and different things.

Evidently the authors of the IBC didn't have someone on their panel that has common sense as you suggest. rbj

Jerry Peck · #21 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ben jacks

Evidently the authors of the IBC didn't have someone on their panel that has common sense as you suggest. rbj

Ben,

They do have common sense, it is just that the code does not address "common sense" standards, the code only addresses "minimum" standards. The code leaves "common sense" to each builder, and some have it, many do not.

ben jacks · #22 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Ben,

They do have common sense, it is just that the code does not address "common sense" standards, the code only addresses "minimum" standards. The code leaves "common sense" to each builder, and some have it, many do not.

I agree with you there. rbj