6" Sphere? (IBC & IRC) Mid-Landings

[tbz]

So here is a question that has come up on another forum and I thought I would get some opinions here.

This applies to both the IBC and the IRC, but the vast majority of the time this is only seen on IBC projects.

This question is specific to Mid-Landings, and we are defining for this question that a Mid-Landing is only accessible from 2 or more stair flights, NO level walkway access or Ramps, only stair flights!

• You have a stairway with 2 stair flights connected by a "Mid-Landing"
• The guard manufacture has fabricated the guard with a bottom horizontal connecting all the infill together
  • The treads at the edges between the bottom of the guard, the face of the riser and the top of each tread forms a triangle that complies with exception 2 of IBC 1015.4, the opening is less than 6 inches, but more than 4 inches. Hence compliant.
  • However, the bottom riser of the top flight forms the same triangle from the bottom of the guard, face of the riser and now the "Mid-Landing".
    • The "Mid-Landing" is not accessible from anything other than a stair flight,
    • The 6" sphere is a long standing exception, specifically allowed because it has been found that the 99% of children have grown large enough for this to be a safe exception on stairs because; again the children have grown to a point to be able to negotiate a stair flight that does not present a significant danger, simply they are to big by now to squirm through the triangular opening.
    • Getting to this position on a "Mid-Landing" would require either descending the upper flight or ascending the lower flight, noted again for reference.

So if you found this triangular opening on a "Mid-Landing" which complied with exception #2's 6 inch sphere dimensions, would you flag it or pass it?

And I am interested in hearing points on this specific yes or no for flagging or passing.

Thanks for the input everyone - Tom

 

[steveray]

If it is a guard related to a stair or stairway....Yes...Approve. You need to because the guard has to continue to and through the landing and it would be ridiculous IMO to drop it to 4-3/8" or 4" just because you cleared the last riser (I assume that is the debate?)

 

[tbz]

If it is a guard related to a stair or stairway....Yes...Approve. You need to because the guard has to continue to and through the landing and it would be ridiculous IMO to drop it to 4-3/8" or 4" just because you cleared the last riser (I assume that is the debate?)

Yes that is the question exactly

 

[steveray]

I stand by my previous statement...

 

[Joe.B]

I could be convinced to go either way, and I would not make that call without discussing it thoroughly with my supervisors/bosses.

I have an extension of that question. Guards are supposed to be 42" (at least they are in CA) when over 30" AFF, but stairways are allowed to be 34-38" using the top as the grip. Would you allow the guard on a mid-landing to be 34-38" using the same logic you presented for the 6" space?

 

[steveray]

I have an extension of that question. Guards are supposed to be 42" (at least they are in CA) when over 30" AFF, but stairways are allowed to be 34-38" using the top as the grip. Would you allow the guard on a mid-landing to be 34-38" using the same logic you presented for the 6" space?

Probably not.....I do not fully agree that it is the same logic....

 

[mtlogcabin]

Pass it. A landing is a landing the code does not distinguish any differences as to the landings location and the code requirements

[BE] STAIR. A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers.

[BE] 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.

 

[Paul Sweet]

I believe that the exception for a 6" sphere is limited to the triangular area at steps because the bottom rail would have to be below the nosing line if the sphere was limited to 4" or 4 3/8". I've always detailed the bottom rail at landings 4" above the landing.

Joe B,
California might be different, but I believe that the 34" - 38" guard height is limited to residential units. Landing guards need to be 42" high

 

[steveray]

I've always detailed the bottom rail at landings 4" above the landing.

I believe Tom was talking about the "last triangle" over the landing not the whole landing...They use stair and not stairway which is the rub....

 

[Joe.B]

I believe that the exception for a 6" sphere is limited to the triangular area at steps because the bottom rail would have to be below the nosing line if the sphere was limited to 4" or 4 3/8". I've always detailed the bottom rail at landings 4" above the landing.

Joe B,
California might be different, but I believe that the 34" - 38" guard height is limited to residential units. Landing guards need to be 42" high

You are correct, CBC specifies that the height reduction for guards is only applicable for R-3, or within individual dwelling units of R-2.

 

[tbz]

I could be convinced to go either way, and I would not make that call without discussing it thoroughly with my supervisors/bosses.

I have an extension of that question. Guards are supposed to be 42" (at least they are in CA) when over 30" AFF, but stairways are allowed to be 34-38" using the top as the grip. Would you allow the guard on a mid-landing to be 34-38" using the same logic you presented for the 6" space?

Joe B.,

The Model IBC exceptions 1, 2 & 3 of 1015.3 height (2018) are specific in allowing the guard height to be reduced,

Cali, does not allow the reduction of guard height to 36" per exception 1 nor do they allow the 36" min in the adopted IRC.

Thus in Cali, I would agree that the guard needs to be 42" high around the MID-LANDING, the clear intent in Cali, is to only allow the 34-36 when it doubles on a stair flight as the handrail.

For the record, I have submitted another exception to this height requirement for R-2 & R-3, for the 2024 code cycle. When you get a minute and to that section I am open for comment and questions.

 

[tbz]

Steveray is correct,

I am only looking and asking about the last triangle spaced at "MID-LANDINGS"

The bottom of the guard is descending down on an angle and do you allow that same triangle to carry to the "mid landing"

I am not saying its right or wrong, I am asking if you saw it on a project at an inspection, would you flag it or not?

please remember how I defined "Mid-Landing", only accessed by stair flights requiring someone to ascend or descend to get to that "MID-LANDING".

 

[Joe.B]

Joe B.,

The Model IBC exceptions 1, 2 & 3 of 1015.3 height (2018) are specific in allowing the guard height to be reduced,

Cali, does not allow the reduction of guard height to 36" per exception 1 nor do they allow the 36" min in the adopted IRC.

Thus in Cali, I would agree that the guard needs to be 42" high around the MID-LANDING, the clear intent in Cali, is to only allow the 34-36 when it doubles on a stair flight as the handrail.

For the record, I have submitted another exception to this height requirement for R-2 & R-3, for the 2024 code cycle. When you get a minute and to that section I am open for comment and questions.

I kind of figured CA was throwing it's own twist on those regs. I frequently get asked if I'll allow a variance on the 42" guard height for residential decks as it cuts into the view at eye level when sitting down. "I'm from __________ and that's the way we do it there." Or, "I'm short, so that doesn't need to apply to me right?" I don't have a personal opinion on the matter. From a code enforcement standpoint it's all about life and safety and I tend to lean towards caution. I assume there's a reason for 42" height instead of 36", presumably people have died from falling over railings. Maybe it's because we have lots of hi-rise in parts of CA, or maybe we have taller people here (joking), or it's just another way to justify having our own codes? I don't know... I've seen some very creative ways to work around that height issue, but they all take $$$. As usual if you have the dough you can usually get what you want, at least it seems that way from way down here.

 

[Paul Sweet]

6" is fine for the first riser going up from a landing.

A 6" sphere was the maximum for BOCA in the late 80s. Unfortunately some people thought that it was safe to leave toddlers unattended on high rise balconies and a few crawled between the pickets and fell off. That's when the sphere size was reduced to 4" sometime in the 90s.