• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Accessible means of egress stairways

Mr. Inspector

Mr. Inspector

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
4,666
Location
Poconos/eastern PA
1007.3 Stairways, exception #2. The clear width of 48 inches between handrails is not required at exit access stairways as permitted by section 1016.1

I don't get it, 1016.1 is about travel distance, it doesn't say anything about handrails.
 
1016.1

"......Where applicable, travel distance on unenclosed exit access stairways or ramps and on connecting stories shall also be included in the travel distance measurement. The measurement along stairways shall be made on a plane parallel and tangent to the stair tread nosings in the center of the stairway.
 
In IBC 2006, you needed Areas of Refuge in sprinklered buildings. If the building was sprinklered, you didn't need to provide 48" between handrails in the stair towers at the Areas of Refuge.

In a sprinklered building, the unenclosed exit stair may be permissible in ceratin cases. If an unenclosed exit stair was used, then no Area of Refuge was required at unenclosed exit stairs. My guess is so as long as travel distance was met to an exit enclosure from say the 2nd floor and you used the travel distance down the unenclosed stair, and the building was sprinklered, you didn't need 48" between handrails on this unenclosed stair.

From talking with the ICC on this in the past, they said that there was no real provision or solution on how to provide accessible means of egress from unenclosed exit stairs
 
I don't understand what the travel distance have to do with the width of accessible stairs. I understand that occupant load effects stairs that do or don't need to be accessible, but what difference does the travel distance make to accessible stairs.
 
how many people go down the stairs with their feet flaired under the handrail? People are wider at their shoulders than their feet. Perhaps I missed the point of your original post.
 
I want to know when accessible exit access stairs are not required to have 48" min. between the handrails. 2009IBC exception #2 says they are not required if permitted by 1016.1 if no sprinklers. I can't find anything about handrails in 1016.1.
 
Yes, I want to know when accessible exit access stairs are not required to have 48" min. between the handrails. 2009IBC exception #2 says 48inches between handrails is not required if permitted by 1016.1 (not 1008). I can't find anything about handrails in 1016.1. which is about travel distance. How does 1016.1 permit accessible handrails to not be required to be 48" apart.

I don't know how to make this planer.
 
Here is the code section:

IBC 2009, 1007.3, Exception #2:

2. The clear width of 48 inches (1219 mm) between handrails is not required at exit access stairway as permitted by Section 1016.1 or exit stairways in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.

Here is my 2 cents:

The exception allows less than 48” between handrails IF you are permitted to use unenclosed exit stairs as per 1016.1… you also should refer to 1022 that permits the unenclosed exit stair. The exception #2 never states that 1016.1 has anything to do about handrails, it only say if you meet 1016.1, then you don’t need 48” between them

In IBC 2006, the requirements of unenclosed exit stair were found entirely in 1020 (Now IBC 2009 1022). In 2009 IBC, the unenclosed exit stair exceptions are split between 1016.1 and 1022.

As per the commentary, if unenclosed exit stairs are permitted, there is generally a greater degree of building safety. The travel distances meet table 1016.1 and the building is most likely sprinklered to meet the exceptions in 1022
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The whole idea is to make everybody buy new code books, then buy commentaries and pay to attend seminars to find where everything was hidden this code cycle.

I wonder how what percentage of code changes actually address safety concerns, versus verbal tweaks that confuse more than they clear up, or moving old requirements around so nobody can find them. We're fast approaching the point of diminishing returns where code changes raise costs twice as much to prevent half as many injuries or losses as previous changes did.
 
OK. My turn.

1016 addresses travel distance (for those of you on the west coast, bear with me). Section 1016 is used when there is an open stair that can be treated as a part of the exit system. If you look at exceptions #3 and #4 in 1016.1, those are the same exceptions that used to be in 1020 of the 2006 code. These two exceptions were brought in as UBC conditions and called "exits" but as we know, by definition and exit is separated from the rest of the building. So if the open stairs can be used for egress and you measure travel distance down the stairs to the door below, it isn't really an "exit" is it? It's exit access. The fact that the UBC used the term "exit" for everything until the 1997 UBC messed with minds and kept us from getting on the same page.

So, if you have a stair that can be used in one of the exceptions in 1016.1, it means it is an exit access element and not an exit stair. Therefore the 48 inch clear width isn't really applicable since the reason for the 48 inch clear width is to allow a double carry for wheelchairs. If it's not an exit, it doesn't need the additional width since the occupants who would use them would likely be in another part of the floor; near the enclosed exits stairs. All this is predicated on the concept of areas of refuge.

The IBC was trying to be somewhat consistent in the way it was dealing with the issue. If you read the 2006 code, it referred to Section 1020.1, the prior location of those two exceptions. All that happened was that staff, obediently translated the reference. The code change that moved the exceptions didn't consider this aspect.

It might be worth noting that the Life Safety Code only allows the 48 inch reduction if there are personal assist decent devices at every floor. At least this is more consistent. It recognizes that if the wheelchair needs to get carried down, it needs to get carried down, regardless of what the stair is - exit or exit access. And now that we get only one chance at fixing these things, it will be at least 2015 before we have a code that makes sense.
 
Someone please clarify for me: when we say "unenclosed exit stair", are we talking about (a) an interior stair that is open to other occupied spaces within the building, or (b) an exterior stair?
 
I was wrong, this does not make sense. I called the PA L&I about this. This is for a use B, 2B building. The 2nd floor is only 200 sq. ft.so they don't need an accessable route to it. But IBC1007.1 says the need an accessible means of egress.

L&I asked me why I'm making them have an accessible stairway if the 2nd floor does not need to have an accessible route. I told them IBC1007.1. Then they told me I was wrong to make them have an accessible means of egress if they don't need an accessible route. I asked them what section that was in but they could not tell me. Is there a section that says this?
 
In your situation:

B occupancy, IIB construction, not a health care provider, only 200 ft2; an accessible route to the space may not be required to a 2nd floor less than 3000 ft2. (IBC 2009, 1104.4)

So if an accessible route is not required then accessible means of egress is not required

IBC 2009 1007.1 Accessible means of egress required. Accessible means of egress shall comply with this section. Accessible spaces shall be provided with not less than one accessible means of egress. Where more than one means of egress are required by Section 1015.1 or 1021.1 from any accessible space, each accessible portion of the space shall be served by not less than two accessible means of egress.

This is not a required accessible space; BUT if out of the kindness of the owners heart an elevator or ramp was provided to make this an accessible space then the accessible means of egress would be required
 
1104.4 does not requirer an accessible route, I agree. It does not say the 2nd floor is not required to be a accessable space, only the accessible route is not required. Things like switches, doornobs, sinks, and restrooms still need to be accessible on the 2nd floor. Therefore I would think that this accessible space would need accessible egress by 1007.1.
 
I thought that I knew accessibility pretty well, but you have me rethinking this.

I do agree that IBC 2009 1104.4 ONLY exempts the required accessible route to spaces, everything else in IBC Chapter 11 is applicable to these spaces (Unless exempt as per IBC 2009 1103.2).

IBC 2009 1107.1 would be better if to say “Accessible spaces, as required by 1104, shall be provided with not less than one accessible means of egress”.I spoke to the ICC about this and it kind of makes sense. The 2010 American with Disabilities Act does not directly address accessible means of egress. It refers this off to the IBC 2000 and IBC 2003.

In doing so, the ADA does not incorporate a reference to IBC Chapter 11 for accessible routes. So, as a result, the ICC in wording of 1107.1 cannot reference accessible route requirements of 1104. As it turns out the Feds didn’t want wording in 1007.1 that could restrict or influence the ADA since the IBC is a reference standard to the ADA.

The commentary (not code) states that if a disabled person can access a floor then they will be able to exit from that floor by the same means. A visually impaired person or a person on crutches can use stairs to get in and out. So if a wheelchair cannot access the floor, then it does have to get off of the floor.

Sorry but not much help
 
It is similar to the other provisions as Jim noted. that although access to the level is not required, the design of elements on that level must be accessible. This includes the means of egress. So, even if there is no elevator to the level, an accessible means of egress is needed. If the building does not have a sprinkler system, then the distance between handrails must be at least 48 inches.
 
There seems to be a disagreement if accessible spaces need an accessible egress if they don't need an accessible route to it. The code says it does. I called ICC but it did not help.
 
The first few sections of chapter 11 give you some of the exemptions......

1104.4 Multilevel buildings and facilities.

At least one accessible route shall connect each accessible level, including mezzanines, in multilevel buildings and facilities.

Exceptions:

1. An accessible route is not required to stories and mezzanines above and below accessible levels that have an aggregate area of not more than 3,000 square feet (278.7 m2). This exception shall not apply to:

1.1. Multiple tenant facilities of Group M occupancies containing five or more tenant spaces;

1.2. Levels containing offices of health care providers (Group B or I); or

1.3. Passenger transportation facilities and airports (Group A-3 or B).

2. In Group A, I, R and S occupancies, levels that do not contain accessible elements or other spaces required by Section 1107 or 1108 are not required to be served by an accessible route from an accessible level.

3. In air traffic control towers, an accessible route is not required to serve the cab and the floor immediately below the cab.

4. Where a two-story building or facility has one story with an occupant load of five or fewer persons that does not contain public use space, that story shall not be required to be connected by an accessible route to the story above or below.

IMHO you always need accessible egress.....and all new work should be accessible as much as required, who knows when you might install that elevator....you might not need full compliance, but we should get better with every renovation...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top