• 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

Unusual guardrail assembly. Is this a violation?

Daddy-0-

Daddy-0-

Moderator
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
855
Location
Powhatan, Va.
This one has caused some arguments in the office. Is this compliant? Why or why not. We all know that this is not a safe guardrail but is it compliant under the code? It may take a minute to see the issue in the picture. Keep looking and it will come to you.

View attachment 1512

View attachment 1512

/monthly_2011_03/guardrail.jpg.a75ee75e5b2f50f1f081d1724657f6de.jpg
 
Depends if the guard is required or not.

If it is a required guard, then I would venture a guess that the height is to low not only because of the steps, but just looks less than the required height of 36".

If it is not required and under the 2009 IRC, then it complies because 2009 only requires, required guards to be meet the minimum 36" height

My question would be more directed at the risers being different on the stairs
 
The lower deck is +/- 4' off the ground. The upper screen porch is 5'+ off the ground. The guard is 36" off the lower deck floor. Obviously the risers are a little off but that is not what I am interested in. I think that you have touched on the issue a little. Look again and wait for the a ha moment. Then ask yourself....is this OK?
 
Since you noted guard required lower deck more than 30" and the guard is 36" above deck it would fail the guard if the guard is not 34" above the nosing line of the stair treads, from what I can see again looks low.

Also I will guess that the guards on the screen porch also are 36" high, if not they would be questionable

I am venturing the spa is not the point of question, just the height of the guard above the stair treads.
 
Door is not allowed to swing over the steps and there is no handrail - the guard issue is less of a hazard.
 
Less than 30" from walking surface (screen porch) to walking surface (deck.) Is guardrail required for steps? only two risers....
 
Should the guardrail be on both sides of the walkway? The hot tub is not

an approved walking surface.

.
 
brudgers said:
Door is not allowed to swing over the steps and there is no handrail - the guard issue is less of a hazard.
Click to expand...
An exterior screen or storm door (not the primary interior door) is allowed so swing out over steps
 
Yankee is correct with the door swing. Here is the question. Can we require that they:

1. raise the existing guardrail beside the steps.

2. add a guardrail/handrail for the steps.

If you are on the screen porch coming out to the hot tub area the guardrail as installed is at your knee. Does code require that this be changed?
 
The question would be answered that due to the number of risers on steps would not require a handrail

BUT due to the location od greater than 30 " above the floor or grade below a Guard is required. at least on the outward side just like the one on the far side of the photo
 
The risers seem to be different heights.

While I don't like the guardrail, I suspect the door handle will provide enough support for the occupants.
 
Yankee said:
An exterior screen or storm door (not the primary interior door) is allowed so swing out over steps
Click to expand...
Not "two or fewer risers" - there are three.

Or rather two and half.
 
The guard issue Daddy-o (is required) the outer side has to meet code for the nosing line of the stair treads from upper landing, thus non-compliant because you noted the lower deck is more than 30" on the open side.

However, pending on your adoption of the IRC, the height may only need to be 34" not 36"

Here in NJ the state amended this to be 30" on stairs, dumb but compliant here.

The riser issue is also a problem.

Brudgers,

The IRC is 4 risers handrail required not 3, so no handrail required as for the screen door.

Not sure this applies since it is an exterior porch path descending down to another exterior porch, not sure if you can call it an exterior door since it does not lead from the interior to the exterior.

How do others see this as related to R311.4.3 I have to check if VA modified this section.
 
Just me, but too many variables here, would need to see it live to voice an opinion. Looks iffy at best.
 
I would have them rework the steps, and either reverse the door swing to swing out but the other way (left hand?) OR increase the guard alongside of the steps. That's it.
 
tbz said:
The guard issue Daddy-o (is required) the outer side has to meet code for the nosing line of the stair treads from upper landing, thus non-compliant because you noted the lower deck is more than 30" on the open side.However, pending on your adoption of the IRC, the height may only need to be 34" not 36"
Click to expand...
I agree, guard needs to be taller adjacent to the stair which does not meet code either.
 
Not to hijack the thread, but we run into this issue with swimming pool access deck stairs where they enclose the stair as part of the barrier requirement but fail to take the stair tread elevation into account.
 
I turned them down and told them to install a higher guard. My supervisor disagreed. He said that the adjacent walking space is not the ground five feet below, but the lower deck portion. Since the deck is less than 30" below the porch, no guard or hand rail requied. The risers are another issue. Agree? I don't.
 
Don't know if this is in the 2009 irc; the surface below is measured out horizontally 36 inches beyond the walking surface. In other words for example if the grade below the walking surface is a descending slope and be 30 inches or less from the edge of the walking surface but 3 ft. beyond is more than 30 inches then a guard is required. This sort of follows the logic of requiring safety glazing 36 inches beyond the stair tread and 60 inches horizontally beyond the bottom tread.

View attachment 413

View attachment 413

/monthly_2011_03/Landarea1.jpg.7b02d5d8f342f5d3ec5b96b101563676.jpg
 
The total rise of the stair is not >30" so I don't think a guard is required by letter of the law on the open side of the stair. However, if for some reason they go over the rail are they are going to land on the deck? Or are they going to land on the ground? Common sense says the stair needs a guard.

By the same standard you could have a deck 10 feet off the ground with a stair on one edge. As long as it is less than a 30" rise "above the floor [deck] below", a guard would not be required? I don't think so.

I would say that is an exterior door; if not, how would you regulate the door on the screen porch leading the the required egress door from the house?

There are more than 2 risers. If they need 3 rises to keep the riser height compliant, they need a landing at the same height as the threshold. If they can get the riser height to work with 2 rises, the door cannot swing over them.

The far screen door looks like many risers, landing is required. Doesn't appear they are even close to complying with the 6" sphere rule on the far stair.
 
To hijack the thread - the door issue is what I love about the ICC process.

The ICC decides that swinging the door over steps should be prohibited but then they allow it for screen and storm doors - in other words they allow it when entering becomes more complex because there are two doors at the top of the stairs.

It's not as if a screen of storm door is somehow safer than an entry door - indeed because they typically have an automatic closer they require more of a person's attention to open than a standard swing door and due to their lighter construction are less likely to offer support to a person as they fall.

The ICC has an obsessive compulsive disorder when it comes to adding requirements to the code - even to the point of adding provisions to eliminate any life-safety gains made by other provisions as in this case.
 
1998 International One- and Two-Family Dwelling Code:

312.1 General.

A minimum of 3-foot by 3-foot (914 mm by 914 mm) landing shall be required on each side of an egress door. The floor or landing shall not be more than 1½ inches (38 mm) lower than the top of the threshold.

Exceptions:

1. A landing is not required at the top of a flight of stairs, provided the door does not swing over the stairs.

2. The landing at the exterior doorway shall not be more than 7 ¾ inches (197 mm) below the top of the threshold, provided that the door, other than an exterior storm or screen door, does not swing over the landing.

Notice there is no screen door exception. 1986 CABO also had no screen door exception. Hmmmmm...
 
brudgers said:
To hijack the thread - the door issue is what I love about the ICC process.The ICC decides that swinging the door over steps should be prohibited but then they allow it for screen and storm doors - in other words they allow it when entering becomes more complex because there are two doors at the top of the stairs.

It's not as if a screen of storm door is somehow safer than an entry door - indeed because they typically have an automatic closer they require more of a person's attention to open than a standard swing door and due to their lighter construction are less likely to offer support to a person as they fall.

The ICC has an obsessive compulsive disorder when it comes to adding requirements to the code - even to the point of adding provisions to eliminate any life-safety gains made by other provisions as in this case.
Click to expand...
The ICC does not write this stuff...code officials/AHJ's do...and/or the NAHB (who somehow is now on the IRC committee)...and we vote on it. ICC just runs the meetings, keeps the minutes and publishes the results. We have nobody to blame but ourselves...and/or the NAHB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top