The U of Michigan study cites 33" +/- 3" (30 to 36")
I guess the question which code does he want to violate?
& by how much?
I would put a little more faith in a study cited by OSHA than a single passage in a code section.
Oh well, the joys of design by code.
cheers
Bob
On 8/29/07, John Sieszycki <jsieszycki@yahoo.com > wrote:
FBC required 34" min. and 38" max.
Using 34" +- 1" seems to be risky. I will use 35" with
not less than 34" during installation.
John W. Sieszycki
--- Robert Kazanjy < rkazanjy@gmail.com> wrote:
> David-
>
> Check this out
>
>
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24960
>
>
> Of course the interpretation is from 2004 AND it is
> a construction
> requirement question about
>
> §1926.1052(c)(6) and 1926.1052(c)(7)
>
> 1926.1052
> (6) The height of handrails shall be not more than
> 37 inches (94 cm) nor
> less than 30 inches (76 cm) from the upper surface
> of the handrail to the
> surface of the tread, in line with the face of the
> riser at the forward edge
> of the tread.
>
> The FBC requirement of 34 to 38 seems biased
> slightly towards the upper
> range of comfortable hand rail heights.
>
> In the OSHA interpretation letter they cite a U of
> Michigan study that
> suggests 33" is optimum with allowable range of +/-
> 3"
>
> but they also mention that section in the
> interpretation addresses only the
> standards applicable to the construction industry
>
> and that General Industry (29 CFR Part 1910) needs
> an additional
> interpretation
>
> So there even appears to be a conflict within OSHA
>
>
> My suggestion: go with a rail height of 34" with
> a installation
> tolerance of +/- 1" & call it good.
>
>
> cheers
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> On 8/27/07, M. David Finley, P.E., P.A. <
> davidfinley@bizsea.rr.com> wrote:
>
> OSHA 1910.23 (e) (2) requires railings on stairs
> to be "not more than 34"
> > nor less than 30" inches from the upper surface of
> top rail to surface of
> > tread in line with face of riser at forward edge
> of tread"
> >
> > The Florida Building Code (2005 Supplement)
> 1009.11.1 requires "Handrail
> > height, measured above stair tread nosings, or
> finish surface of ramp slope
> > shall be uniform, not less than 34" and not more
> than 38 inches" It also
> > allows an exception: "Handrails for stairs not
> required to be accessible
> > that form part of a guardrail may be 42" high"
> >
> >
> > Therefore, for an industrial building in Florida,
> it appears to me that I
> > have to have the stair railing at exactly 34" or I
> will be in violation
> > of either the OSHA or FBC requirements. Has
> anyone had to deal with this
> > before? Am I mis-interpreting these sections? Is
> there an exception to the
> > FBC for industrial facilities?
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > David Finley
> > M. David Finley, P.E., P.A.
> > 2086 SW Main Boulevard - Suite 111
> > Lake City, FL 32025
> > 386-752-6400
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********