2018 Model IRC is this handrail compliant?

[steveray]

Because I hate this argument, I will wade in a bit and stir the pot......In a 29" high screen room because the screen "could be" misconstrued as a guard, does it need to meet requirements?

As long as you are consistent, I don't really care, but IMO, if it is not required, it's art or a decoration or whatever....leave it alone...I have enough issues getting minimum compliance that I am not wading in where I don't have a ministerial duty to do so...

Off the soap box...

 

[Sifu]

Because I hate this argument, I will wade in a bit and stir the pot......In a 29" high screen room because the screen "could be" misconstrued as a guard, does it need to meet requirements?

As long as you are consistent, I don't really care, but IMO, if it is not required, it's art or a decoration or whatever....leave it alone...I have enough issues getting minimum compliance that I am not wading in where I don't have a ministerial duty to do so...

Off the soap box...

Oh man! that does make it messier. Screens can't be considered guards, so if I thought there was a hazard from someone mistaking it for a guard I wouldn't accept it. But I don't think screens are mistaken for guards JMO. Now, the intermediate rail that the screen is attached to that could be mistaken for a guard rail component. Maybe no roofing nails. I do try to be consistent, and fortunately I don't have enough occurrences of this type of thing to be able to provide statistical numbers to demonstrate inconsistency. But I am consistent in my opinion that where an unreasonable hazard is introduced I look for ways to mitigate it.

I generally agree though, unless I have clear code to require compliance when something is provided, but not required, I try to move on. Unless there is a hazard that is created by the non-required item. I have used this totally ridiculous analogy many times to illustrate this approach. Say a proposal comes in for a lowered floor area, say 18", in a living room. Code doesn't require a guard. Now say you fill it with alligators. Codes provide latitude for unsafe conditions, but leaves it up to us to determine what is unsafe.

 

[bill1952]

In other words, play the lable game. I just detest it when I hear from a designer "if we call it this, then we don't have to provide that." Basically the reason I got involved in code development in 1987. Identify the hazard, and mitigate properly. Don't relable it so you dont have to address the hazard.

 

[tbz]

I will jump back to 2006-2008 here for a minute to address guards and the required non-required.

There is a reason certain parts of the guard requirements say required guards and some do not. Additionally, as noted in a previous post, if it is not on the open side of a walking surface as the charging statement defines, then it is not, nor can it be called a guard. As thus, unless it fits the definition of a guard, one cannot technically define it as one even when the plans call it a railing.

So the load requirements for guards are not restricted to required guards only, reason is it is the one aspect of a guards requirements that can't be seen or determined until it fail's.

So as to a railing in the middle of the floor, it is more like a short wall than a guard, so what are the requirements for a wall that height in the middle of the floor?

 

[tbz]

By definition a handrail extension is part of the handrail and the height requirements would apply.

[RB] HANDRAIL. A horizontal or sloping rail intended for grasping by the hand for guidance or support.

But MT,

In the IRC what one calls an extension which are not required, are starting easing's and or returns, there is no limit on their size, and the IRC exempts them from being within the handrail requirements when over landings.

The IRC, under R311.7.8.4 Continuity., as written in exception no. 1, specifically the requirement for continuity, "shall be permitted to be interrupted by...,, at a landing,....."

Thus, the height is interrupted on it's way to returning to the wall.

Though I would agree that if it is not in the IRC, you can revert to the IBC to explain a situation for a requirement, the IRC is explicit here in this case in exempting the height requirement from the nosing to the end of the return by not limiting this area, under exception number 1, the sole reason it exists is to allow for the handrail to be higher or lower.

I don't buy that if something is not required but installed, it has to meet the requirements as if it required.

Bill, if the so called additional handrail is installed completely outside the required heights, 34-38, and there is one at the required height location, then the additional item is technically a handrail at all because none of it is in the right location, which is fine.

However, MT's stand is that the sloped portion of the handrail is within the required zone and that makes the extensions part of the handrail continued, and I agree with him on that point, however he is leaving off the exception specially written into the IRC code to exempt this type of termination, though the first thing that hits me is WTF?, when I see it, a lot, really a lot.....

 

[bill1952]

Bill, if the so called additional handrail is installed completely outside the required heights, 34-38, and there is one at the required height location, then the additional item is technically a handrail at all because none of it is in the right location, which is fine.

I suspect you intended "...technically not a handrail..." ?

Feels a little like the lable game.

 

[steveray]

So as to a railing in the middle of the floor, it is more like a short wall than a guard, so what are the requirements for a wall that height in the middle of the floor?

5 PSF lateral....

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I suspect you intended "...technically not a handrail..." ?

Feels a little like the lable game.

If there is a handrail on both sides on the stairway and since only one side is required to have a hand rail would the handrail on the other side need to meet code?

 

[Glenn]

However, the point is moot. The handrail is not necessary since there are only 3 risers.

Exactly my first thought. If an inspector came to my house and made any comment about this handrail, I would remove it before they returned and thank them for for keeping my family so safe.
I say this out of frustration with the growing sickness of government authorities getting too excited about their authority. In all government services, not just codes.

 

[bill1952]

If there is a handrail on both sides on the stairway and since only one side is required to have a hand rail would the handrail on the other side need to meet code?

Good question. I held back.

 

[mtlogcabin]

2. Where handrail fittings or bendings are used to provide continuous transition between flights, transitions at winder treads, the transition from handrail to guard, or used at the start of a flight, the handrail height at the fittings or bendings shall be permitted to exceed 38 inches (956 mm)

I believe exception 2 is limited in its application as depicted in the drawing below. If the top of the handrail is 38" following the nosing on the stairs then the fittings and bendings at the bottom will exceed the 38" maximum height requirement.

 

[tbz]

2. Where handrail fittings or bendings are used to provide continuous transition between flights, transitions at winder treads, the transition from handrail to guard, or used at the start of a flight, the handrail height at the fittings or bendings shall be permitted to exceed 38 inches (956 mm)

I believe exception 2 is limited in its application as depicted in the drawing below. If the top of the handrail is 38" following the nosing on the stairs then the fittings and bendings at the bottom will exceed the 38" maximum height requirement.

View attachment 10243

It is not limited because what you show is nearly never over a landing, it is mainly over the flight and bottom tread.

The intent and the hours of discussion when this was hashed through the ICC-CTC and later hearings, and if you contact the code rep from the SMA and get an interp from the ICC also they will not agree with your single point application only.

Again, you are thinking a singular wood method and not about the 100's of other similar terminations that are compliant and done with metal, glass, plastic or composite, to name a few.

The wording you show in your post is not the wording in the model 2018 IRC and starting easing's are actually in the exception to be allowed to start over the lowest tread, and are noted to allowed to be anything after the riser, hence at a landing.

 

[tbz]

If there is a handrail on both sides on the stairway and since only one side is required to have a hand rail would the handrail on the other side need to meet code?

Rick,

It is simple, it is like a electrical outlet in a home, you need them by code in specific locations, if you add more, they still need to comply, the same is true of attic access stairs a debate that went through many cycles before the lates publication with an exception, we will see what AHJ adopt it.

The code says you need a minimum of 1 side, if the duck is between 34-38 and meets the graspability requirements and is over the flight from the bottom riser to the top riser, I would argue yes it is a handrail and needs to comply.

If it is outside the 34-38 over the flight, either higher or lower, based on code it does not meet the main parameters and as thus is considered artwork IMO.

If it is marked on the plan set, as an additional NON-Required Higher Handrail or lower handrail and there is one at the required height, I would verify it meets the graspability and all other requirements except the height because it is noted as a handrail on the drawings for a specific reason. but if not on the plans, then wall art.

JMO

Regards Tom

 

[mtlogcabin]

The wording you show in your post is not the wording in the model 2018 IRC

Right out of the 2018 I-Quest that I use.

 

[tbz]

Right out of the 2018 I-Quest that I use.

View attachment 10249

Mt, so you are looking under height and I am looking under continuity, but still.

Right in exception #2, second line after guard, "or used at the start of a flight, the handrail height at the fittings or bendings shall be ... to exceed 38"...

Now I get you are narrowing it to specific point, and by fitting, you are I am guessing defining it as a point of transition, were as, as a fabricator, we look at the extension as a fitting, as that is how we return from the required run area.