# Unusual guardrail assembly. Is this a violation?



## Daddy-0- (Mar 11, 2011)

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


----------



## tbz (Mar 11, 2011)

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


----------



## Daddy-0- (Mar 11, 2011)

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?


----------



## tbz (Mar 11, 2011)

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.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 11, 2011)

Door is not allowed to swing over the steps and there is no handrail - the guard issue is less of a hazard.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Mar 11, 2011)

Less than 30" from walking surface (screen porch) to walking surface (deck.) Is guardrail required for steps? only two risers....


----------



## globe trekker (Mar 11, 2011)

Should the guardrail be on both sides of the walkway?   The hot tub is not

an approved walking surface.

.


----------



## Yankee (Mar 12, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Door is not allowed to swing over the steps and there is no handrail - the guard issue is less of a hazard.


An exterior screen or storm door (not the primary interior door) is allowed so swing out over steps


----------



## Daddy-0- (Mar 12, 2011)

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?


----------



## Architect1281 (Mar 12, 2011)

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


----------



## GHRoberts (Mar 12, 2011)

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.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 12, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> An exterior screen or storm door (not the primary interior door) is allowed so swing out over steps


Not "two or fewer risers" - there are three.

Or rather two and half.


----------



## tbz (Mar 12, 2011)

*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.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 12, 2011)

Just me, but too many variables here, would need to see it live to voice an opinion. Looks iffy at best.


----------



## Yankee (Mar 12, 2011)

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.


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 12, 2011)

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"


I agree, guard needs to be taller adjacent to the stair which does not meet code either.


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 12, 2011)

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.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Mar 12, 2011)

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.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 12, 2011)

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


----------



## Rio (Mar 13, 2011)

Guard's too low.


----------



## TimNY (Mar 13, 2011)

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.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 13, 2011)

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.


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 14, 2011)

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...


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 14, 2011)

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.


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.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 14, 2011)

I don't think the NAHB is responsible for the IRC.


----------



## NH09 (Mar 14, 2011)

I would have them raise the guard on the exterior side of the stairs to 36" above the nosing (side of deck is closer than 36"), and re-do the stairs. I would say hot tub side is ok because no guard is required with pool decks, and there are less than four risers.


----------



## FredK (Mar 14, 2011)

The only issue I see is the stairs need to be fixed.


----------



## Yankee (Mar 14, 2011)

As far as the landing etc, we don't know that this is an egress door.


----------



## Architect1281 (Mar 15, 2011)

TJ and Brugers to only to be an instigator i would look at the exception

2.	The exterior landing at an exterior doorway shall not be more than 7¾ inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold, provided the door, other than an exterior storm or screen door does not swing over the landing.

and take the view that a storm / screen door exception is predicated on there being a primary door in the wall with the storm / screen being a secondary door

in viewing the screen enclosure in photo I would require thos doors to swing in (or have a landing) based on no primary door present that would make a bad situation

(door over stairs) necessary


----------



## tbz (Mar 15, 2011)

Request a new Supervisor

Daddy-O,



> Daddy-0-    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 required. The risers are another issue. Agree? I don't.


Are you telling me your supervisor is basing weather a guard is required on the amount of height the stairs rise from landing to landing for were it sits?  How close does the edge of the stairs need to be to trigger the requirement?

Please correct me that your supervisor is not saying this......

Let me ask it a different way, the upper porch he/she agrees needs guards because of it's height above ground, the lower deck needs a guard because of it's height above ground, but the stairs connecting the 2 doesn't because the steps are within the decks area of coverage, and not exactly directly along the side/edge of the lower deck and thus inside the guards edge, by this the open side is restricted and less than 30"?

Buy your supervisor a set of crayons and take away the thermos.

1. The stairs require the guard to be the correct height of the nosing line because the lower decks guard is at the same approximate point were the stairs guard would also be installed.

2. The stairs don't need a handrail, not 4 risers

3. The stair risers need to be corrected

4. The screen door IMO I, though not often, agree with brudgers on this one, no good, but I just build guards not my area.....


----------



## brudgers (Mar 15, 2011)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> and take the view that a storm / screen door exception is predicated on there being a primary door in the wall with the storm / screen being a secondary door


How does that suddenly become safer than one door?


----------



## Daddy-0- (Mar 16, 2011)

This is not the main egress door. It is a rear screen porch. Thanks for all of the debate.

Tom Z,

It is what it is. I did not get the re-inspection so I am not sure what the final fix was if anything. I see weird stuff everyday as do all of you I am sure. Thanks...


----------



## mdirksen (Mar 23, 2011)

It seems to me: if the "intent" of the code is to prevent people from accidentally falling over the guard, then it I would say it fails due to it not being the correct height upon leaving the door, thus raising the possibility of an accident. Otoh, if the door swung the opposite direction, I don't know if I would worry about it as much.


----------



## High Desert (Mar 23, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I don't think the NAHB is responsible for the IRC.


They just have 4 members on the IRC committee. They were also the driving force behind the CABO code.


----------



## mmmarvel (Mar 31, 2011)

Daddy-0- said:
			
		

> This is not the main egress door. It is a rear screen porch. Thanks for all of the debate. Tom Z,
> 
> It is what it is. I did not get the re-inspection so I am not sure what the final fix was if anything. I see weird stuff everyday as do all of you I am sure. Thanks...


Always hated it when I didn't get the re-inspect - in a good jurisdiction, if you get a re-inspect from someone else AND you couldn't really figure what it was you were suppose to be re-inspecting, you could call the original inspector and have a conversation; but I've known of jurisdictions where this was frowned on.  IMHO, best policy is to have the same inspector do the re-inspect, he/she knows what they saw in the first place, they are in the best position to do the re-inspect AND it will take them less time to find the 'violation' and check to see it's been corrected.  Things like this make me very happy with my airport job.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Apr 1, 2011)

If you always get your reinspections there is no chance to q.c. sometimes I like it when other people go behind me. They might see something I missed. Helps everyone learn.


----------



## Rio (Apr 2, 2011)

Daddy-0- said:
			
		

> If you always get your reinspections there is no chance to q.c. sometimes I like it when other people go behind me. They might see something I missed. Helps everyone learn.


When building there's nothing more dreaded than the substitute inspector just for that reason; there's no consistency and what one inspector sees as not a problem another one pops a cork over. If the normal inspector is not going to be available we'll reschedule for when they will be available.  Fortunately we can do that usually.


----------

