ICC - International Code Council
 
Cart                                                                   
Skip to main content
 
About ICC

Your ICC Account

Email:
Password:
Bookmark and Share
Cengage

Codes & Standards Discussion Forum 

Welcome to the ICC Codes & Standards Discussion Forum

The Code Council has revisited how best to provide an online, professional Discussion Forum and area within the website that has a sense of community – where Members and nonmembers can provide input and exchange ideas with their peers in the industry. The new Codes & Standards Discussion Forum does just that, as it allows Registered Website Users and ICC Members to discuss the I-Codes in an online community.

Members Area Codes & Standards Discussion Forum

Note to Nonmembers: If you join the ICC you can have access to important building safety information!

Members Area Codes & Standards Discussion Forum

As an ICC Member, you have access to the Members Area of the Codes & Standards Discussion Forum. Follow the link to discuss the Membership Councils and other benefits of being an ICC Member.

Forums» International Building and Residential Codes -- Non-Structural Issues» required vs not required handrails & graspability requirements in R311.7.8.3

6 post(s) First 1 Last
Search 
required vs not required handrails & graspability requirements in R311.7.8.3
This forum is under moderation. Your reply will appear when it is approved.
required vs not required handrails & graspability requirements in R311.7.8.3 By  Godmar Back

Posts: 3

2/8/2013 12:03:05 PM

 

In IRC 2012, R311.7.8.3 Grip-size, it states: "All required handrails shall be of one of the following types or provide equivalent graspability"

R311.7.8 says that "Handrails shall be provided on at least one side of each continuous run of treads or flights with four or more risers"

Question: if a staircase has handrails on both sides - the wall side and the open side - does section R311.7.8.3 apply to both handrails?  Or only to the handrail that is "required", meaning that the handrail sitting on top of a guard on the open side does not need to meet the graspability requirements in R311.7.8.3, because it is, technically, "not required"? 

Thanks.

 -- G. B.

Report Abuse     

   

required vs not required handrails & graspability requirements in R311.7.8.3 By  Timothy Walocha

Posts: 19

2/8/2013 2:09:48 PM

I would agree that the required hand  rail has to meet the graspability and all other requirements.  The "extra" hand rail would not. 

Report Abuse     

   

required vs not required handrails & graspability requirements in R311.7.8.3 By  Godmar Back

Posts: 3

2/8/2013 3:36:51 PM

Does this pass the common sense test though?

Suppose a visitor in the house uses the staircase and happens to use the 'extra' handrail on the open side of the staircase, slips and falls. In court, builder argues that that handrail didn't need to meet code graspability requirements because it was an 'extra' handrail and the victim should have used the (near identically looking) handrail on the other side of the staircase, which is the required one.

If you were a juror in this hypothetical scenario, whom would you side with?

I doubt the code intended for this interpretation, and should probably be rewritten to read "All installed handrails " instead of "All required handrails ".

Is there any case law you know of?

Report Abuse     

   

required vs not required handrails & graspability requirements in R311.7.8.3 By  Gary Brackins

Posts: 66

2/10/2013 3:28:16 PM

the Code has always required that should you install an item that is not required by Code, then it shall be installed according to the Code requirements.

For example, if you have a deck that is 20" above the adjacent grade you are not required to install guards and balusters. But should you install guards and baluster then you have to do so per the code requirements so that a 4" sphere does not pass between the balusters.

Just my humble opinion ....

Gary

"If you don't have time to do it right the first time, when will you find the time to fix it?"

Report Abuse     

   

required vs not required handrails & graspability requirements in R311.7.8.3 By  Donald Masoero

Posts: 1

2/13/2013 1:28:55 PM

I think that Gary is spot on. When an indiviual begins a stumble of fall, they are going to reach for what ever they unconsciously sense to help them gain stability.  I would require that both handrails comply.

I provide a lot of opinions for attornies in the injury litigation field with emphasis on stairway injuries.  With this experience I would rcommend that every building inspector read, The Staircase: Studies of Hazards, Falls, and Safer Design, by John Templer. Particularly the portions of his writings where he discusses the physiological and behavioral relationship between humans and stairs and walkways, the question of gait and slippery surfaces, and the various types of falls and the injuries that result.

Handrails requirements and the 3/8" inch variance between treads and risers really make sense after reading his studies.

Hope this helps.

DonM

Report Abuse     

   

required vs not required handrails & graspability requirements in R311.7.8.3 By  Godmar Back

Posts: 3

2/13/2013 2:46:12 PM

Thanks. Though I had phrased the question theoretically, there is of course a concrete case behind it. (Fortunately, not an actual injury case!) FWIW, I'd like to share the responses I received after voicing my concern that the handrail may not meet R311.7.8.3 requirements.

The builder said "this is not a handrail, it's a guardrail and as such handrail requirements do not apply." Repairing the handrail could incur considerable expense at this stage of construction.

The local town official who is charged with enforcing the code said: "we only look at the code compliance of the handrail that's required by code. If there's another handrail, we consider it 'ornamental' and do not inspect it for code compliance."

 

 

Report Abuse     

   

6 post(s) First 1 Last
2014 WDS
2015 I-Codes