Communicating Stair handrails

[architecting philly]

Hi all. We completed a new commercial retail building in PA that features two egress stairs as well as a LULA elevator in 2022. The building is two story (sales floor on the ground floor and admin offices in the second floor). After the building has been occupied for a year, we built a new communicating stair for the sales people to access the second floor offices. The communicating stair is not an egress component. The code inspectors agree with this.

The bottom of the stair feeds into a 7ft wide corridor. Because we don't want stair extensions to catch people's pants as they walk past (or worse, hip-check people thereby causing an injury), and because the building already satisfies the accessible egress demands of this building, we are trying to argue that the railings don't need to extend beyond the bottom riser.

In my review of the PA code, the IBC, and the IEBC, I don't see this particular situation clearly addressed. By my understanding, if it's not explicitly prohibited, it's therefore allowed. So... has anyone run into this situation? Do the communicating railing extensions need to comply with the tread-depth extension at the bottom of the stair?

Thanks!

 

[steveray]

It's an egress component...It's just not a required egress component...And even if it wasn't....

1011.1 General​

Diagram
Stairways serving occupied portions of a building shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1011.2 through 1011.13. Alternating tread devices shall comply with Section 1011.14. Ship's ladders shall comply with Section 1011.15. Ladders shall comply with Section 1011.16.

1011.11 Handrails​

Diagram
Flights of stairways shall have handrails on each side and shall comply with Section 1014.

1014.6 Handrail Extensions​

Diagram
Handrails shall return to a wall, guard or the walking surface or shall be continuous to the handrail of an adjacent flight of stairs or ramp run. Where handrails are not continuous between flights, the handrails shall extend horizontally not less than 12 inches (305 mm) beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser.

 

[steveray]

How did this pass plan review?

 

[TheCommish]

Egress component or not, it is a stair.

Handrails shall return to a wall, guard or the walking surface or shall be continuous to the handrail of an adjacent flight of stairs or ramp run. Where handrails are not continuous between flights, the handrails shall extend horizontally not less than 12 inches (305 mm) beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser.

 

[BN4537]

Also, federal ADA regulations would require the handrail extension, regardless of required egress or accessible route. It's also required in buildings that have to comply with the Fair Housing Act. Bottom line is you will need the extension on any commercial or multifamily project in the country.

504.1 General. Stairs shall comply with 504.
504.6 Handrails. Stairs shall have handrails complying with 505.

 

[BN4537]

Not that I don't get your point about being an obstruction, we run into that scenario enforcing these requirements all the time. It's just not a good enough reason for the feds.

 

[steveray]

Return both ends down to the floor like this and it shouldn't be any kind of problem unless it is encroaching into the egress width:

 

[JPohling]

as others have noted you will need to provide the proper handrail extensions without a 90 degree return

 

[architecting philly]

How did this pass plan review?

Simple... the gc messed up the install. my plans call for the handrail extensions and thats what was approved by the township.

i saw the mistake for the first time when the inspector visited the site for his final. but, as you can imagine, soon as the owner saw the handrails not extending into the corridor, they don't want the handrails extended. and thats how we got here...

 

[TheCommish]

As Lauril and Hardy said what a fine mess the GC has to fix.

Or the BO said when the stair rail is compliant you he will sing off on the job

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Simple... the gc messed up the install. my plans call for the handrail extensions and thats what was approved by the township.

i saw the mistake for the first time when the inspector visited the site for his final. but, as you can imagine, soon as the owner saw the handrails not extending into the corridor, they don't want the handrails extended. and thats how we got here...

Did your design show the handrails extending into the corridor? The right way would have been to pull the stair back one foot to allow for the handrail extensions.

 

[tmurray]

The issue is that once occupied, occupants can't be expected to know what is or is not a component of egress.

Additionally, the safety issue with the handrail is not solely related to egress, so it is largely irrelevant if the stairs are an egress component or not.

If people are using them, there is a safety issue.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

1014.6 Handrail Extensions​

Diagram
Handrails shall return to a wall, guard or the walking surface or shall be continuous to the handrail of an adjacent flight of stairs or ramp run. Where handrails are not continuous between flights, the handrails shall extend horizontally not less than 12 inches (305 mm) beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser

Since the bottom of the stairway does not continue to another flight the extensions are not required if there is a directional sign at the top and the bottom of the stairway indicating the accessible route to the next floor (elevator). Also, there should not be an exit sign on top of the stairway. Handrail extensions are only required on the top and bottom of a stairway when it is an accessible egress stirway.

 

[steveray]

Since the bottom of the stairway does not continue to another flight the extensions are not required if there is a directional sign at the top and the bottom of the stairway indicating the accessible route to the next floor (elevator). Also, there should not be an exit sign on top of the stairway. Handrail extensions are only required on the top and bottom of a stairway when it is an accessible egress stirway.

You are wrong.....See there is a 10 (and not 1009) and not an 11 there? Its not an accessibility thing, its a stair thing....

 

[architecting philly]

Did your design show the handrails extending into the corridor? The right way would have been to pull the stair back one foot to allow for the handrail extensions.

Fitting this stair into the finished building was no small feat. Yes, ideally i would've had the stair terminating one foot into its 'pocket' in order to fit the extensions and avoid this problem altogether.

 

[architecting philly]

Since the bottom of the stairway does not continue to another flight the extensions are not required if there is a directional sign at the top and the bottom of the stairway indicating the accessible route to the next floor (elevator). Also, there should not be an exit sign on top of the stairway. Handrail extensions are only required on the top and bottom of a stairway when it is an accessible egress stirway.

This is where I am leading this conversation with the code official. I'm going to propose signage to eliminate the problem.
A sign such as this should resolve the problem:

Not An Exit Sign with Non-Wheelchair Accessible Symbol

Not An Exit ADA Signs with Not Accessible for Wheelchairs Symbol and ADA Compliant Braille and Tactile Text - ADA Exit Signs from ADA Sign Depot.

www.adasigndepot.com

I know I'm playing devils advocate but, there's plenty of monumental stairs out there which are not 100% handrail compliant.

 

[architecting philly]

The issue is that once occupied, occupants can't be expected to know what is or is not a component of egress.

Additionally, the safety issue with the handrail is not solely related to egress, so it is largely irrelevant if the stairs are an egress component or not.

If people are using them, there is a safety issue.

I agree with this entirely. But, logic dictates that if a building was code compliant before, then adding a stair shouldn't all of a sudden render it a life safety problem. A sign should be an acceptable solution.

Yes, I am bringing logic to a code discussion

 

[redeyedfly]

I agree with this entirely. But, logic dictates that if a building was code compliant before, then adding a stair shouldn't all of a sudden render it a life safety problem. A sign should be an acceptable solution.

Yes, I am bringing logic to a code discussion

If the new stair isn't safe, then all of a sudden you have a life safety problem. Can you also ignore the riser height or tread depth requirements?
Weird argument.

 

[tmurray]

I agree with this entirely. But, logic dictates that if a building was code compliant before, then adding a stair shouldn't all of a sudden render it a life safety problem. A sign should be an acceptable solution.

Yes, I am bringing logic to a code discussion

Does the safety issue only exist when someone uses the stairs for egress?

 

[BN4537]

I know I'm playing devils advocate but, there's plenty of monumental stairs out there which are not 100% handrail compliant.

From your point of view, it's worth a try.

I would not accept it, and I think any building official who knows what he's doing would not accept it, but I am not blind to the fact that there are BO's that would.

Some BOs would allow you to wrap the handrail around the corner to get the extension, which is likely a compromise that you and your client would accept. This does not meet code or federal regulations. But some BO's would allow it. It's better than what you have currently. It's allowed at intermediate landings.

 

[steveray]

. It's allowed at intermediate landings.

Only in the direction of travel when continuing to the next flight...

 

[architecting philly]

From your point of view, it's worth a try.

I would not accept it, and I think any building official who knows what he's doing would not accept it, but I am not blind to the fact that there are BO's that would.

Some BOs would allow you to wrap the handrail around the corner to get the extension, which is likely a compromise that you and your client would accept. This does not meet code or federal regulations. But some BO's would allow it. It's better than what you have currently. It's allowed at intermediate landings.

Its funny you say that, because that's EXACTLY what the GC did. They wrapped one handrail around a 90 deg wall corner, and the other handrail they turned back onto the glass guardrail.

Again, I understand the letter of the law doesn't allow it at the end of a stair run - but logic dictates that if you can do it for switchback stair railing, then it's no less safe to do it at the end of the stair run.

If the signage idea proves unsuccessful, then I'm going to be calling the ICC for a clarification.

 

[steveray]

then I'm going to be calling the ICC for a clarification.

It doesn't need to be clarified....

The extensions of handrails shall be in the same direction of the flights of stairs at stairways and the ramp runs at ramps.

 

[redeyedfly]

Again, I understand the letter of the law doesn't allow it at the end of a stair run - but logic dictates that if you can do it for switchback stair railing, then it's no less safe to do it at the end of the stair run.

It's less useful to people with mobility impairments. Sad that you don't understand that as a RDP.

Perhaps you should think about the wide variety of people and their abilities who use your project instead of what you want to see or not see.