# IRC R308.4 Hazardous Locations



## darcar (Dec 15, 2010)

Section R308.4 #10 and 11

10.

Glazing adjacent to stairways, landings and ramps within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally of a walking surface when the exposed surface of the glass is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the plane of the adjacent walking surface.

11.

Glazing adjacent to stairways within 60 inches (1524 mm) horizontally of the bottom tread of a stairway in any direction when the exposed surface of the glass is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) above the nose of the tread.

What range do you consider to be hazardous at the top of stairs? A 36" x 36" landing is required at the top of stairs, so does that mean an additional 36" from the landing is in the hazardous range? 72" perpendicular from the top tread?!

#11 clearly depicts the horizontal distance from the bottom tread, but doesn't address the top.

Your interpretation please


----------



## KZQuixote (Dec 15, 2010)

Hi darcar,

You posted "A 36" x 36" landing is required at the top of stairs,..."

 I'm assuming your working with the 2006 IRC.

Section R311.5.4 Landing at Stairways. There shall be a floor OR a landing at the top and bottom of each stairway." I would say if a stairway ends at a floor at it's top you would measure 36" from the edge of the floor above the stairs. This section of floor is not necessarily a landing.

IMO

Bill


----------



## fatboy (Dec 15, 2010)

Yes, the top of the stairs only requires the min. 36" for floor/landing.


----------



## darcar (Dec 15, 2010)

yes, 2006 IRC.

The issue isnt the landing requirement, its the "hazardous location" if it extends an additional 36" BEYOND  the required 36" landing as stated in the text


----------



## steveray (Dec 15, 2010)

I say 36" arc of top tread...due to the 60" specific off of the bottom tread,which is more dangerous falling down the stairs than up...JMHO


----------



## georgia plans exam (Dec 15, 2010)

The 2000 IRC specifically required safety glazing within 60" of the top _*and *_ bottom of the stairway when less than 60" above the walking surface. The requirement including the top of the stairs was removed in the 2003 code. To call the floor at the top of the staiway a landing and require safety glazing does not, in my opinion, meet with the intent of the code change.

GPE


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Dec 15, 2010)

I remember discussing this before; http://www.inspectpa.com/phpbb/showthread.php?2042-2406.3(10)


----------



## KZQuixote (Dec 15, 2010)

darcar said:
			
		

> yes, 2006 IRC.The issue isnt the landing requirement, its the "hazardous location" if it extends an additional 36" BEYOND  the required 36" landing as stated in the text


There is no required landing at the top of the stairs.

Bill


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Dec 15, 2010)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> There is no required landing at the top of the stairs.Bill


I think that's true even if the door did not swing in the direction of the stairs.

There has to be a difference between whether it’s a landing or a floor.

Another example can be if there were only landings at the exterior door per R311.4.3 then I would not see a need for R308.4.6 to limit the hazardous distance to 24 inches instead of 36 inches.

Though floor and landing may seem to be used interchangeably it is my opinion that a landing is a distinctive egress component and a floor is a pathway that may lead you to an egress.


----------



## darcar (Dec 16, 2010)

There is an exception for a landing not being req'd at the top of an INTERIOR flight of steps but lets address the exterior. Deck. The way the code reads, an additional 36" from the 3x3 req'd landing would req glazing in this range to be safety type... yes?...


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Dec 16, 2010)

darcar said:
			
		

> There is an exception for a landing not being req'd at the top of an INTERIOR flight of steps but lets address the exterior. Deck. The way the code reads, an additional 36" from the 3x3 req'd landing would req glazing in this range to be safety type... yes?...


 Check with the AHJ!
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 292


View attachment 292


/monthly_2010_12/572953bb7a4d1_deckglazing.jpg.e7f3866d7c9a9d586b8ccaa5faaf593c.jpg


----------



## DRP (Dec 16, 2010)

Francis,

In the sketch, the window that is 24"+ from the door and not in the stairway hazard zone can be as low as 18"+ from the floor inside or outside from my read. R308.4(7) it says must meet ALL conditions. Am I misreading?


----------



## KZQuixote (Dec 16, 2010)

darcar said:
			
		

> There is an exception for a landing not being req'd at the top of an INTERIOR flight of steps but lets address the exterior. Deck. The way the code reads, an additional 36" from the 3x3 req'd landing would req glazing in this range to be safety type... yes?...


Hi darcar,

I think you're reading too much into it. Section 311.5.4 Landing for stairways. "There shall be a FLOOR or a landing at the top and the bottom of each stairway." Nothing is said about interior or exterior. Then I believe you are going to R308.4 Hazardous Locations #10 Glazing adjacent to stairways, LANDINGS and ramps within 36" horizontally of a walking surface..." for your additional 36". That may be true but let's say that the stairway ends at a floor not a landing. In this case you would not arbitrarily label the first 36" of the floor as a landing and then go 36" beyond that.

Francis,

Where are you getting this 34" vertical measurement? I believe that your sketch is inaccurate in as much as the vertical measurement over the stairs would be from the imaginary line made by the noses of the treads. From there any glass less that's 60" above this line would need to be safety glazing.

Bill


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Dec 17, 2010)

Bill,

2006 IRC "Exception: 9.3 When a solid wall or panel extends from the plane of the adjacent walking surface to 34 inches to 36 inches above the floor and the construction at the top of that wall or panel is capable of withstanding the same horizontal load as the protective bar."

I understand how one could read 34 to 36 inches being a bar but the wall from the floor to 34 inches meeting the minimum of that exception.

Wasn’t attempting to change the subject about the door but reminding to be consistent if there is only to be a floor defined as a landing at the door then there would be a conflict with 36 inches from the landing and the 24” distance from the door.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Dec 17, 2010)

DRP,

If I understand you question R308.4(7) is glazing “other than those locations described in Items 5 and 6 above”, so the glass within the 24” arc of the door would not be exempt even if the window sill was above 34” from the deck floor.

Must admit while drawing the sketch I was concentrating more about the landing at the same time questioning if it is a floor or landing in front of the door if the door was to be 36” from the top of the stairs.


----------



## DRP (Dec 17, 2010)

Yes I agree that the situation, 24" or closer to the door, is not exempt. At greater than 24" from the door the glazing can be as low as 18" from the surface before being a hazardous location.


----------



## KZQuixote (Dec 17, 2010)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> Bill,2006 IRC "Exception: 9.3 When a solid wall or panel extends from the plane of the adjacent walking surface to 34 inches to 36 inches above the floor and the construction at the top of that wall or panel is capable of withstanding the same horizontal load as the protective bar."
> 
> I understand how one could read 34 to 36 inches being a bar but the wall from the floor to 34 inches meeting the minimum of that exception.
> 
> Wasn’t attempting to change the subject about the door but reminding to be consistent if there is only to be a floor defined as a landing at the door then there would be a conflict with 36 inches from the landing and the 24” distance from the door.


Hi Francis and thanks,

But if that's a valid interpretation, somethings not hanging right.

If 9.3 is interpreted to mean that any window that is higher than 34" from the walking surface is not required to be safety glazed why not just change the 60"'s in R308.4 - 10 & 11 to 34"'s?

Rather I believe that 9.3 is intended to cover the special case where for architectural reasons the building design needs to have a series of windows with consistent sill heights and this wall or panel provides some protection on the stair side and architectural consistency on the other side.

Bill


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Dec 17, 2010)

Bill, I ask myself why not just state if the glazing is above 34 inches, but as you demonstrated there are endless possibilities for the language as written just like the issue we are discussing with the landing or floor. This 34" exception interpretation is what was taught in several AHJ in Virginia; however it may not be enforced the same in every AHJ. No surprises there!

View attachment 300


View attachment 301


View attachment 300


View attachment 301


/monthly_2010_12/572953bc41fc0_safetyglazing1016.jpg.acf27d137f1a00a001e25b0e3c9d90db.jpg

/monthly_2010_12/572953bc46220_safetyglazing2017.jpg.fb966773ce3ff7250b41025aca20f94f.jpg


----------



## Daddy-0- (Dec 18, 2010)

Francis,

Those are my co-worker's slides. I hope that they are right. LOL. Did you attend our update training or pull them off the web?


----------



## Yankee (Dec 19, 2010)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> Rather I believe that 9.3 is intended to cover the special case where for architectural reasons the building design needs to have a series of windows with consistent sill heights and this wall or panel provides some protection on the stair side and architectural consistency on the other side.
> 
> Bill


That would surprise me, my feeling is that there really aren't any "architectural design hardship exceptions" in the code. To open that door would be a very slippery slope.


----------



## TimNY (Dec 20, 2010)

[2006 IRC]

Glazing adjacent to stairways that is below 60 AFF does not need to be safety glazing if you install a protective bar 36 AFF (exception 5).

Keeping that in mind, what would be the difference if a wall extended to 36" high?

I agree, it confuses the 60" matter, but I think exception 9 was in direct response to exception 5.

I mean you would have to dive off the stairs to hit glazing at 59" AFF..

Tim


----------



## Yankee (Dec 20, 2010)

TimNY said:
			
		

> [2006 IRC]Glazing adjacent to stairways that is below 60 AFF does not need to be safety glazing if you install a protective bar 36 AFF (exception 5).
> 
> Keeping that in mind, what would be the difference if a wall extended to 36" high?
> 
> ...


The plane of the glazing in your scenario would need to be 18" away from the stair guard/rail


----------



## TimNY (Dec 20, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> The plane of the glazing in your scenario would need to be 18" away from the stair guard/rail


I believe you are referring to ex.9 (ex.5 has no mention of 18")

ex9.2 states "18 inches from the railing; or"

I take that to mean you must have ex9.1 and ex9.2 OR ex9.3, to wit you could have a handrail per 9.1 and the solid wall (or, you could have the handrail and the 18" separation)

You would not be required to have the 18" separation and the 36" solid wall (if so, ex9.2 would read "18 inches from the railing; and")

I must disclaim I am looking at the 2010 NYS code, which is based on 2006 IRC, so perhaps the wording is different in NY.

In any event, the wording is unnecessarily complicated.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 20, 2010)

I think the 18" is for stairs with a compliant guard/infill, and teh other exceptions all speak to ramps and walkways. Not stairways. but, I aggree the workng is confusing and I'd like a whole CEU on this subject, as well as one on the braced wall panel subject.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Dec 20, 2010)

Daddy-0- said:
			
		

> Francis,Those are my co-worker's slides. I hope that they are right. LOL. Did you attend our update training or pull them off the web?


Daddy-O-

I pulled this from your neighbor Mr. Robertson's jurisdiction, figured it's a save bet with his blessing.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Dec 31, 2010)

Francis,

I live in Powhatan....I work for Mr. Robertson. My profile is intentionally confusing. Since my B.O. (Bill D.) is also big in the ICC I like to keep a low profile.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Dec 31, 2010)

LMAO! Sweet, nice place to be Daddy-0-, I think you're safe.

R.R. will know I'm to blame if you're in trouble.


----------



## peach (Jan 2, 2011)

2009 IRC cleans up the hazardous locations section without changing content.. lots easier to figure out.


----------

