![2015 irc stair rail code 2015 irc stair rail code](http://seblog.strongtie.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/IRC.png)
- #2015 irc stair rail code how to#
- #2015 irc stair rail code update#
- #2015 irc stair rail code code#
- #2015 irc stair rail code plus#
The committee agreed that people fall away from an open platform rather than straight down, and that the horizontal distance contained in the current code is appropriate for the safety hazard. I think the current language more accurately reflects the intent of this provision and should be retained. It also replaces the phrase "walking surface" with a specific list of terms, the intent being to exclude landscaping surfaces from regulation.Īnalysis: Measuring fall hazards directly at the edge of a deck rather than where a falling person would actually hit the ground creates a greater safety hazard. Under this proposal, measurement would take place at the edge of the walking surface. Under current code, deck height - which determines whether or not guards are required - is measured from a point 36 inches horizontally from the edge of the deck.
![2015 irc stair rail code 2015 irc stair rail code](https://secureservercdn.net/160.153.138.219/72v.ab5.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Cream-Straight-Bench-Table-1-650x650.jpg)
The committee agreed that building codes cannot stop kids from climbing on furniture. With so much moveable seating on decks, it's hard to see the point in regulating fixed seating. While the goal - preventing small children standing on the seat from climbing over the rail - was laudable, the requirement is clearly ineffective. This proposal would eliminate the current requirement that guard height be measured from fixed-bench seating, rather than from deck level.Īnalysis: When the IRC originally adopted the code provision that requires guards adjacent to fixed seating to be at least 36 inches high, it essentially ended built-in deck seating.
#2015 irc stair rail code how to#
The committee felt the deflection limits were too flexible, and the wording for how to measure the deflection unclear. An inspector can always demand a test or analysis of a guard system if there is concern that load requirements are not being met. This proposal would greatly impact the design and construction of site-built guards without any evidence of an epidemic of guard failures under the current code.
#2015 irc stair rail code plus#
In this case, a guard's top rail would not be allowed to deflect outward by more than about 11/2 inches in the post plus 1 inch over 8 feet in the horizontal rail.Īnalysis: How would an inspector apply a 200-pound horizontal force, and - simultaneously - determine the deflection of the post and rails? More likely, deck builders would be expected to use engineered, tested, or standardized guards, as these deflection requirements cannot be verified any other way. The proposal is complicated by the inclusion of an allowable deflection for a combined post and horizontal-top-rail assembly. RB61-13 would remedy that, limiting guard-post deflection to about 3 inches and limiting downward deflection of top rails to about 1 inch over 8 feet while under a maximum required design load of 200 pounds.
![2015 irc stair rail code 2015 irc stair rail code](https://inspectapedia.com/Stairs/2033s.jpg)
Guards are one of the few (or the only) features for which the IRC currently provides a minimum live-load resistance without also providing a deflection limit. Status: Both proposals were disapproved, although the committee encouraged stakeholders to continue to work together and bring modified proposals to the final hearings. In particular, the expanded provisions, prescriptive guard and stair assemblies, and hardware connections in RB268 are at odds with many design and construction practices commonly accepted in the decking industry. RB268 also includes mandatory provisions for deck guards, stairs, and other features.Īnalysis: These proposals are based on the American Wood Council's DCA 6, but contain many compromises (some good, some bad). RB264 and RB268 include joist and beam span tables for wet-use environments and post sizing, framing connections, and footing provisions that are intended to fill in holes in the IRC's deck design guidelines. More details on these proposals are available on the NADRA code page at /contractor-code-guide and at.
#2015 irc stair rail code update#
I've listed them here, along with my analysis of the more important ones and an update on how the code committee voted. Some provisions will limit design options, while others will make decks more costly to build. Nearly two dozen proposed changes that would affect the industry were presented during those hearings.Įven though most jurisdictions have yet to adopt even the 2012 edition of the IRC, these proposals - some minor, others more significant - will eventually have an impact on how PDB readers build decks. As an advisor to the North American Deck and Railing Association (NADRA), I represented the decking industry at the code committee hearings in Dallas at the end of April. This year, the 2015 edition of the International Residential Code is being developed.