• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Railing on Ramp 30" Up

J

Jeff L.

Registered User
Joined
Sep 6, 2018
Messages
1
Location
Amherst MA
I'm hoping for some sort of exemption or solution to the over 30" off the ground deck railing code for a ramp section.

We have a ramp that starts at around 34" off the ground - runs down through 2 turning platforms and lands on grade. We've installed two rows of continuous handrail on the inside of the ramp, but the inspector was poking at how the last section of ramp technically surpasses the 30" deck/railing rule. He wasn't sure if ramps were somehow exempt or if there was another option, but otherwise he was looking to have that section of handrail have a baluster railing installed to prevent kids from falling off under the two handrails. It's going to make the ramp look pretty ugly to have one section of baluster railing while the rest of it is just handrail, and we didn't price in adding baluster railing to the whole length of the ramp.

Anyone have any bright ideas or pieces of the building code that might allow us to keep just a simple 2 handrail system over 30" up?
 
Nope. Over 30" is pretty clear that you have to have a guard (which is not the same as a rail).

Residential:
R312.1.1 Where required. Guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, ramps and landings that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically to the floor or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally to the edge of the open side. Insect screening shall not be considered as a guard.

Commercial:
1015.2 Where required. Guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces, including mezzanines, equipment platforms, aisles, stairs, ramps and landings that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically to the floor or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914mm) horizontally to the edge of the open side. Guards shall be adequate in strength and attachment in accordance with Section 1607.8.
Exception: Guards are not required for the following locations:
1. On the loading side of loading docks or piers.
2. On the audience side of stages and raised platforms, including stairs leading up to the stage and raised platform.
3. On raised stage and platform floor areas, such as runways, ramps and side stages used for entertainment or presentations.
4. At vertical openings in the performance area of stages and platforms.
5. At elevated walking surfaces appurtenant to stages and platforms for access to and utilization of special lighting or equipment.
6. Along vehicle service pits not accessible to the public.
7. In assembly seating areas at cross aisles in accordance with Section 1029.16.2.
 
First, read the code when you design a project. Second, comply with the code.
Third, do not try to read between the lines. Fourth, raise the grade to be less
than 30 inches within 36 inches of the platform and ramp.
 
I appreciate JCraver saying their is a difference between a guard and a handrail. To clarify:
- A handrail helps you steady/stabilize yourself to keep you from falling over, especially when changing vertical levels (ramps, stairs, etc.). You need hands in order to grab and use it.
5_blog_use_handrail.png

- Once you have fallen, or leaned over and are about to fall, etc. A guard keeps you from falling over a ledge and further hurting yourself. You don't need hands to have a guard help keep you on the upper level.
- A handrail can also be part of a guard, but that's just happy coincidence.
839-07800988en_Masterfile.jpg



There are a few exceptions to the guard requirement, which kicks in at >30" height difference. Lower than that, the code assumes you will survive the fall OK enough to be worth the risk not to install guards. this is very handy - - otherwise, every street curb would need a guardrail.
The Commish recommends raising the lower ground level so it becomes less that 30" difference in height.
There are some other guard exceptions for performance areas (balconies, stages), train platforms, loading docks, etc.; but in general, the Commish has the best solution.

***

On the separate-but-related subject of nomenclature (off-topic now):
- some senior care facilities provide a rail along long corridors to help people walk. Try not to call that "handrail" if it's not code-required. Call it "armrest" or something innocuous that doesn't make someone start looking in the wrong place in their code book.
- people should not use the word "handrail" when they mean "grab bar" for a toilet, tub or shower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
Easy fix, bring in some fill and raise finished grade by 4-inches (or more) where surface is >30-inches
 
I will be inspecting a bridge in a gulf course soon. I guess it will be for gulf carts and walking. There is no floor or grade under the bridge. Do I measure to the water surface or the bottom of the body of water to see if barriers are required?
 
Rick18071 said:
I will be inspecting a bridge in a gulf course soon. I guess it will be for gulf carts and walking. There is no floor or grade under the bridge. Do I measure to the water surface or the bottom of the body of water to see if barriers are required?
Click to expand...

Not a building code question unless it's attached to a building.

If the bridge is part of an "accessible route" on the course then you probably have to do whatever your State ADA code says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
Rick18071 said:
Not a building but a structure so it is under the IBC. Signs, tanks, cell towers are not buildings but still are covered under the IBC.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Tanks I'll maybe give you, but signs not attached to a building have nothing to do with the IBC and neither do cell towers. Nor do bridges, which is the question here. There is no justification for requiring a bridge between holes on a golf course to comply with anything in the IBC that will stand up in court. Access and ADA requirements maybe, but you'll never convince a judge with a brain that a bridge not attached to a building is a structure under the IBC. Can you build a bridge prescriptively using the IBC? Then there's your answer...
 
JCraver said:
I disagree. Tanks I'll maybe give you, but signs not attached to a building have nothing to do with the IBC and neither do cell towers. Nor do bridges, which is the question here. There is no justification for requiring a bridge between holes on a golf course to comply with anything in the IBC that will stand up in court. Access and ADA requirements maybe, but you'll never convince a judge with a brain that a bridge not attached to a building is a structure under the IBC. Can you build a bridge prescriptively using the IBC? Then there's your answer...
Click to expand...

IBC 101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenance connected or attached to such buildings or structures.

IBC definition structure That which is built or constructed

Also this state adopted Appendix H Signs

IBC 105.2 Work exempt from permit:
Building:
6. Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30" above adjacent grade, and not over any basement or story below and are not part of an accessible route.
This bridge is over 30" above adjacent grade.
Electrical:
Radio an television Transmitting stations: The provisions of this code shall not apply to electrical equipment used for radio and tv transmissions, but do apply to equipment and wiring for a power supply and the installations of towers and antennas.

PA replaced IBC chapter 1 with it's own law but it basically says the same thing.
 
JCraver said:
I disagree. Tanks I'll maybe give you, but signs not attached to a building have nothing to do with the IBC and neither do cell towers. Nor do bridges, which is the question here. There is no justification for requiring a bridge between holes on a golf course to comply with anything in the IBC that will stand up in court. Access and ADA requirements maybe, but you'll never convince a judge with a brain that a bridge not attached to a building is a structure under the IBC. Can you build a bridge prescriptively using the IBC? Then there's your answer...
Click to expand...


The IBC is not prescriptive for design....
 
I know. Probably a poor choice of words. :shrugs:

The point was, I think it's a stretch to try to claim jurisdiction on a golf course bridge using the IBC. I wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't want to have to argue for it in court.
 
ADA "is not" a code, it is a minimum guideline; as such know that Mass has an extensive access section in its code. POT's require wayfinding for sight impaired and fall protection for drop-offs which your bridge appears to have; that being the case why would you want to forgo providing guards/cane detection?

Also, bridges span and support so why wouldn't they require permits?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top