• 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

Space between stair treads and sidewall

tbz said:
one is inserting personal feelings into something that is personally wanted.
Click to expand...
My understanding of the original post there is neither a guard or a handrail on the rock wall side of the treads, just a 4" gap between the end of a step and the wall. The IRC is a prescriptive code for what is typical in a SFR or 2 family dwelling. The IRC is silent on this specific design. So a BO uses R104.1 to render an interpretation and adopt a policy for that specific design. I look to the other codes adopted or not past or present to render my decisions

"It is important to understand that the IRC contains coverage for what is conventional and common in residential construction practice. While the IRC will provide all of the needed coverage for most residential construction, it might not address construction practices and systems that are atypical or rarely encountered in the industry."
 
tbz said:
additionally, how is this any different if allowed....both are in place for the same reason....
Click to expand...
Actually, they are not for the same reason. The balcony rail is to keep you from walking through the doorway, to keep you from crossing the threshold. The stair handrail is to keep you on the walking surface as you move along the path.
 
steveray said:
I have no issues with MT's interp and admire that he can....here, the State does that...I agree it gets a little sketchy, just don't know if it is a "real" problem that the IRC needs to address or not...
Click to expand...
This is really a question of open gaps in a floor surface, particularly applicable to the open gaps in decking and stair treads - which is not addressed in the IRC.

We look at this as a question of a missing guards - not missing guardrail or riser opening. And it is addressed in the IRC.

We decided the question has to do with an open gap in a walking the surface. We determined that it was a safety hazard, and supported our position based upon the vertical height above the grade below. Anywhere the open space between the treads (standing surface) and the grade level exceeded 30 inches a guard rail was required. (R312.1.1) In lieu of providing guards on the wall side, we suggested the builder extend the treads within 1/2" of the wall, (using the tolerance allowed for in the IBC).

So, why is the IRC silent on the spacing between deck boards at decks and deck stairs?

[Attention: GLEN MATTEWSON - the Deck Code Guru]
 
Thanks for the input, everyone! As the AHJ, I will make an interpretation based on R014.1
mtlogcabin said:
The 4 3/8" is so a toddler cannot get his head through. That just does not work on a set of stairs/walking surface that a toddler can crawl on and get his legs or chest stuck in. Sorry all you get is 1/2 inch opening

R104.1 General.
The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you guys are saying, and I wish the code was more clear on it. I am going to go with:
1. There is no guard on the side with the wall.
2. R312.1.1 ...guards are required on the open sides of walking surfaces, stairs...
3. R312.1.3 Opening limitations - treating the wall/safety glass windows as the guards, therefore an opening of <4" allowed.
 
I was told that someone somewhere (probably CA) was injured when their high-heel got lodged into a gap in a walking surface. They successfully sued the property owner and gaps in walking surfaces were added to codes. It would make sense that IRC would not address this because it doesn't cover "public accommodations" and the like.
 
1910.23(a)(9) refers to floor holes. One of their standard interpretations says: OSHA's construction fall protection rule, 29 CFR Subpart M §1926.500, defines these terms as follows: "Hole means a gap or void 2 inches (5.1 cm) or more in its least dimension, in a floor, roof, or other walking/working surface." Certainly a stair is a walking surface.

While labeled a draft this document from OSHA clarifies intent:

"Definitions used in 1910.23 (arranged alphabetically by the respective paragraph)

Floor hole: an opening measuring less than 12 inches but more than 1 inch in its least dimension, in any floor, platform, pavement, or yard, through which materials but not persons may fall; such as a belt hole, pipe opening or slot opening.

Floor opening: an opening measuring 12 inches or more in its least dimension, in any floor,
platform, pavement, or yard through which persons may fall; such as a hatchway, stair or ladder opening, pit or large manhole. Floor openings occupied by elevators, dumb waiters, conveyors, machinery, or containers are excluded from this subpart."

Of course they conflict - 1" or 2" - but that's federal rule making.
 
redeyedfly said:
You have this backwards. The reviewer must show the architect where it is not allowed in code. Innocent until proven guilty and all...
Click to expand...
But the architect should use reasonable efforts to design to code. Considering the amount of discussion in this thread, it may or may not be correct. I would still ask the archy what his design basis was.
 
Stairs are no. 1 for injuries, according to CPSC's NEISS reporting system. Probably in the $100 billion a year range in cost to society (just residential). The architect is obviously focused on aesthetics and the particular condition - an unguarded fall hazard at side of a waking surface might be a hazard. Are these residential? Only stairs between these levels? How wide? Functional - truley graspable - handrail on the other side? Good visibility and uniform rise and run including first step from landing? It might not be a hazard requiring mitigation. (Were I the official based on what's here - 2" max - but never will be my call.)

Never will have a code that can fairly address all designs and never stop designers from wanting different and never seen before. ( And on many days my response to "never seen before" is "there is a damn good reason!")
 
bill1952 said:
1910.23(a)(9) refers to floor holes. One of their standard interpretations says: OSHA's construction fall protection rule, 29 CFR Subpart M §1926.500, defines these terms as follows: "Hole means a gap or void 2 inches (5.1 cm) or more in its least dimension, in a floor, roof, or other walking/working surface." Certainly a stair is a walking surface.

While labeled a draft this document from OSHA clarifies intent:

"Definitions used in 1910.23 (arranged alphabetically by the respective paragraph)

Floor hole: an opening measuring less than 12 inches but more than 1 inch in its least dimension, in any floor, platform, pavement, or yard, through which materials but not persons may fall; such as a belt hole, pipe opening or slot opening.

Floor opening: an opening measuring 12 inches or more in its least dimension, in any floor,
platform, pavement, or yard through which persons may fall; such as a hatchway, stair or ladder opening, pit or large manhole. Floor openings occupied by elevators, dumb waiters, conveyors, machinery, or containers are excluded from this subpart."

Of course they conflict - 1" or 2" - but that's federal rule making.
Click to expand...
Bill, not going into long hand but 2 of my good friends both are Fed OSHA inspectors, one is a senior accident inspector.

When I ran this question by them, the first thing they both said to me was, not addressed for stairs, walking surfaces per their does not link with stairs, they are 2 different sections.

So you can imply all you want to the issue of intent, but those that inspect for it, said they have nothing to hold to...stairs are not part of walking surfaces per them.

Also OSHA is not for residential, which this clearly is, thus again they said the gap would not exist in their field, as if the stair flight needed guards it would also need handrails on both sides, as thus if the inside of the handrails are over the stair treads and the gap is less than 21, their good.
 
OSHA is indeed not for residential (unless you're an employee working there) but the terminology seemed to be applicable. Comparing the open horizontal surface to a vertical surface like a guard or riser makes no sense.

Any suggested code language for next cycle?
 
bill1952 said:
OSHA is indeed not for residential (unless you're an employee working there) but the terminology seemed to be applicable. Comparing the open horizontal surface to a vertical surface like a guard or riser makes no sense.

Any suggested code language for next cycle?
Click to expand...
Kids don't know the difference, only that they are naturally curious and will attempt to insert themselves into any space.
Best practice says don't do it, an Atty sees $$$ signs.
 
So is the consensus here code requires a full guard meeting 4" sphere requirement on the side with 4" gap between tread end and stone wall/glass window?
 
bill1952 said:
So is the consensus here code requires a full guard meeting 4" sphere requirement on the side with 4" gap between tread end and stone wall/glass window?
Click to expand...
That is what I went with. Though I can see someone requiring a tighter gap as well.

Thanks everyone for the great discussion!
 
bill1952 said:
Sorry, I understood you to say you went with a full code compliant guard. Not clear now on what you did go with.
Click to expand...
I misread your post. There is no guard. I required the gap between the tread and wall to be less than 4". Actually, let me rephrase that. The architect specified a gap of less than 4", and I approved it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top