PDA

View Full Version : Stair Gate



LGreene
March 15th, 2012, 14:07
I received the attached photo from a university medical center. The question was whether there was any reason that a swinging gate couldn't be installed in place of the railing, to allow access from this floor down to the lower level. Apparently the staff is jumping over the railing because the elevators are slow. I haven't seen a set-up like this before, where the egress from the lower level is separated from the egress from the other levels, so I couldn't think of a reason why they couldn't remove the railing and add the swinging gate, but I thought y'all might know. I have attached a floor plan which shows 2 of these divided-stair situations. It is a 6-story building built in 1979. If there is other information you need, I know you will tell me.

Architect1281
March 15th, 2012, 14:12
Potential Conflict with reduction of egress width as a guess

Big Mac
March 15th, 2012, 14:14
A swinging gate when open will block one exit or the other by more than 1/2 the exit width. Also certainly could not swing toward the landing at the top of the stairway going to the floor below.

Architect1281
March 15th, 2012, 14:14
or could be a convergance of occupant load requiring more than 32 or 34" unit egress width

tmurray
March 15th, 2012, 14:55
I'm on the Canadian codes, so this may not be of any help but, is there any reason they could not just remove the railing completely?

Lynn
March 15th, 2012, 15:40
In past code there was a requirement that stated, "Enclosed exit stairs that continue beyond the level of exit discharge shall be inturrupted at the floor of discharge by partitions, doors or other effective means." The barrier prevented someone in a panic situation from passing the exit door in their hurry to get down the stair.
I looked but couldn't find this requirement in the 06 IBC.
Does anyone know if it is still there and if so where?

Coug Dad
March 15th, 2012, 15:43
The anti cascade gate would not be used during emergency egress so blocking the egress width should not be an issue.

cda
March 15th, 2012, 15:49
In past code there was a requirement that stated, "Enclosed exit stairs that continue beyond the level of exit discharge shall be inturrupted at the floor of discharge by partitions, doors or other effective means." The barrier prevented someone in a panic situation from passing the exit door in their hurry to get down the stair.
I looked but couldn't find this requirement in the 06 IBC.
Does anyone know if it is still there and if so where?

look under "discahrge Identification"

it is 1022.7 in the 09, and does not look like a change from the 06

that is what it looks like to me, to keep someone from going down, and the left side is up from the lower floor


agree if they can put something in that does not mess with exit width required

cda
March 15th, 2012, 16:15
I wonder if they open it say 3 -4 feet and put a half gate across that opening, that would only swing into the 1st level landing???

if they could make it so that it does not decress the allowable width going out the door, put gives the required width coming up the stairs from below??


http://amezz.com/selfclosingsafetygate.html

mtlogcabin
March 15th, 2012, 17:03
Put a small gate 30 or 32 inches, (it is not a means of egress), hold it open with a mag holder that will release during an alarm. Occupants will have free access at al times. The gate will close and provide the barrier when needed.

cda
March 15th, 2012, 17:08
Put a small gate 30 or 32 inches, (it is not a means of egress), hold it open with a mag holder that will release during an alarm. Occupants will have free access at al times. The gate will close and provide the barrier when needed.

two problems??

1. it a ppears you need a barrier to keep people from going down the stairs.

2. and if there is a non fire emergency the gate is going to stay open

mtlogcabin
March 15th, 2012, 18:03
two problems??

1. it a ppears you need a barrier to keep people from going down the stairs. Only during an emergency
2. and if there is a non fire emergency the gate is going to stay open Good point but how do you notify occupants to vacate a building with out a notification system being activated?

cda
March 15th, 2012, 18:09
two problems??

1. it a ppears you need a barrier to keep people from going down the stairs. Only during an emergency
2. and if there is a non fire emergency the gate is going to stay open Good point but how do you notify occupants to vacate a building with out a notification system being activated?


Have to check back in office
1022.7 in the 09, do not remember seeing only on emergency


"""Good point but how do you notify occupants to vacate a building with out a notification system being activated?""
When the guy is chasing me with a gun will notify people by yelling like a banchii

cda
March 15th, 2012, 18:37
1022.7 Discharge identification. A stairway in an exit enclosure shall not continue below its level of exit discharge unless an approved barrier is provided at the level of exit discharge to prevent persons from unintentionally continuing into levels below. Directional exit signs shall be provided as specified in Section 1011.

mark handler
March 15th, 2012, 19:56
Two problems??
I see no problems... Would you have a problem if it were a wall?

cda
March 15th, 2012, 21:27
Two problems??
I see no problems... Would you have a problem if it were a wall?

I say the setup as is meets code and a barrier is required

cda
March 15th, 2012, 21:33
Two problems??
I see no problems... Would you have a problem if it were a wall?

I Was responding to MTL two replies

LGreene
March 16th, 2012, 00:38
I checked with the hospital and they want to keep the gate closed to deter most people from going down the stairs. So if the gate was self-closing, swung toward the right side of the photo (away from the basement stairs), and did not obstruct more than half the required clear width when open to 90 degrees (I don't know if that's possible), would that be considered an "approved barrier"?

Francis Vineyard
March 16th, 2012, 07:09
We had an instance where vehicle type bollards where installed but one could walk sideways between the vertical pipes.


Francis

steveray
March 16th, 2012, 08:47
I would think you could left hand swing it up against the existing stair rail and be fine....right side seems to be more of a problem with encroachment of egress width....

imhotep
March 16th, 2012, 09:51
I checked with the hospital and they want to keep the gate closed to deter most people from going down the stairs. So if the gate was self-closing, swung toward the right side of the photo (away from the basement stairs), and did not obstruct more than half the required clear width when open to 90 degrees (I don't know if that's possible), would that be considered an "approved barrier"?

By George I think you've got it.

The code (2009 IBC 1022.7) demands that the approved barrier be installed to deter occupants from continuing to travel below the level of exit discharge. It is required to be self closing. If a single leaf gate presents an issue with encroaching into the clear width then a bi-parting swing gate might be considered. From the photos it appears that a 36" gate might extend a foot beyond the strike jamb of the right hand exit door.

cda
March 16th, 2012, 10:59
LG

Also tell them to take the sign in the right side door down

"fire exit only"

Guess it can only be used if there is a fire!!!!!!

mark handler
March 16th, 2012, 11:20
We had an instance where vehicle type bollards where installed but one could walk sideways between the vertical pipes. Francis

Does not meet access codes

steveray
March 16th, 2012, 11:51
Does not meet access codes

That would not be the accessible egress path or circulation route I imagine...egress would go out the right hand door and circulation path is most likely addressed by elevators....

mark handler
March 16th, 2012, 13:14
That would not be the accessible egress path ... most likely addressed by elevators....

Does not meet many access codes

Francis Vineyard
March 16th, 2012, 14:23
Vertical post would be no less accessible than it is now; I think the issue at hand is to provide an alternative barrier so that people do not have to jump over the railing.

Francis

mark handler
March 16th, 2012, 14:52
Vertical post would be no less accessible than it is now; I think the issue at hand is to provide an alternative barrier so that people do not have to jump over the railing.

Francis
Why and where is that required in the code?
They don't want you jumping the barricade

gbhammer
March 16th, 2012, 14:53
Vertical post would be no less accessible than it is now; I think the issue at hand is to provide an alternative barrier so that people do not have to jump over the railing.

Francis

People do not have to jump over the railing now, they choose to jump over the railing. Take the barrier up to the ceiling and the jumping will end.

Francis Vineyard
March 16th, 2012, 16:28
Why and where is that required in the code?
They don't want you jumping the barricade


Lighten up!

In existing buildings the vertical post concept can provide and alternate means to interrupt and direct flow to the level of exit discharge yet allow passage to the lower level should the gate swing interfere. And the post do not need to reach the ceiling; I would approve 36 inches AFF.

Francis