Communicating Stair handrails

[architecting philly]

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.

Yeah I thought about all of the different abilities out there, when I included a LULA elevator and also two sets of ADA accessible stairs for a 3,500sf second floor. Good virtue signaling there, bud.

 

[redeyedfly]

You included those because they are required.

Virtue signaling?? No, I think the code is very logical and I don't spend my time trying to get out of requirements which are there for a good reason.

 

[architecting philly]

You included those because they are required.

Virtue signaling?? No, I think the code is very logical and I don't spend my time trying to get out of requirements which are there for a good reason.

Code interpretation is just that. Clearly this thread has run it's course. Thanks for the suggestions to everyone else. I'm out.

 

[redeyedfly]

Code interpretation is just that. Clearly this thread has run it's course. Thanks for the suggestions to everyone else. I'm out.

Don't let the door hit you...

 

[Joe.B]

Don't let the door hit you...

I guess you answered my question from another thread. You're just mean.

I think I'm finally understanding what a "troll" is.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

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.

Just ... no.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

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.

If the code official accepts this sign in lieu of a compliant design, he/she is a moron. An "exit" is an enclosed, protected path of travel. Open ("communicating") stairs are exit access stairs. If there's a fire on the upper connected level and someone is standing near that stair -- they're going down that stair. You might as well post a sign saying, "In case of emergency, this stair is not a stair."

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

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.

Not the same thing at all.

 

[TheCommish]

Logic and other situations are not valid arguments for nor complying with the stated requirement for the extension not complying as stated in the codes.

 

[tbz]

Code interpretation is just that. Clearly this thread has run it's course. Thanks for the suggestions to everyone else. I'm out.

So I will add this to your thought, though PA is still on the model 2018 IBC, the 2021, 2024 & the 2027 which is currently in committee expand to completely clarify your question.

E83-24 is the 2027 proposal further clarifying on the current 2024 model IBC Sec. 1014.7 Handrail extensions.

Here is video testimony from this past April in Orlando - https://www.cdpaccess.com/videos/6641/

Here is the link to E83-24 proposal in CDP Access. LINK may need to create free acct if you don't have CDP access

Here is the link to the 2024 published model IBC Sec. 1014.7 which shows the clarification. LINK

To simplify, extensions are required per model 2018 IBC code language, as adopted by PA, the newer model codes, after 2018, further clarified the already existing requirement, they do not add an additional requirement.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Code interpretation is just that. Clearly this thread has run it's course. Thanks for the suggestions to everyone else. I'm out.

Interpretation is what occurs when a provision of the code isn't clear in what it requires. That does not apply here.

PA Building Code:

1014.6 Handrail Extensions. 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. At ramps where handrails are not continuous between runs, the handrails shall extend horizontally above the landing 12 inches (305 mm) minimum beyond the top and bottom of ramp runs. The extensions of handrails shall be in the same direction of the flights of stairs at stairways and the ramp runs at ramps.

The requirement is clear and unambiguous. There is no room to "interpret" this requirement to mean anything other than what it says.

It's disappointing to me that someone who is apparently an architect would be willing to bow out of a discussion because multiple people don't agree with your wish to be told that the code means something other than what it says. That's an unprofessional attitude that won't serve you well in your career.

 

[architecting philly]

Interpretation is what occurs when a provision of the code isn't clear in what it requires. That does not apply here.

PA Building Code:



The requirement is clear and unambiguous. There is no room to "interpret" this requirement to mean anything other than what it says.

It's disappointing to me that someone who is apparently an architect would be willing to bow out of a discussion because multiple people don't agree with your wish to be told that the code means something other than what it says. That's an unprofessional attitude that won't serve you well in your career.

I already got what I needed from this thread (plus plenty of trolling on top of it). I don't need to entertain a fictitious online discussion about code interpretation when I have a perfectly good real life code official to discuss this with. I still think there is ambiguity in the language pertaining to different types of stairs. Beyond that, the fact that we have a LULA elevator adjacent to this particular stair is a practical consideration that should have merit even if it's not specifically addressed in the code. AHJ may disagree with me - I'll find that out soon enough.

The "In case of emergency, this stair is not a stair" comment... guess a WTC window shouldn't have been used as an exit by those poor souls.

"Open ("communicating") stairs are exit access stairs" Well, I disagree with you.

Unrelated to the railing extension requirement, I will leave you with this: the area of refuge requirement doesn't apply to every single stair in every single new building. Why is that? Why are not all stairs deemed requiring all possible accommodations to the nth degree?

 

[redeyedfly]

I already got what I needed from this thread (plus plenty of trolling on top of it). I don't need to entertain a fictitious online discussion about code interpretation when I have a perfectly good real life code official to discuss this with. I still think there is ambiguity in the language pertaining to different types of stairs. Beyond that, the fact that we have a LULA elevator adjacent to this particular stair is a practical consideration that should have merit even if it's not specifically addressed in the code. AHJ may disagree with me - I'll find that out soon enough.

The "In case of emergency, this stair is not a stair" comment... guess a WTC window shouldn't have been used as an exit by those poor souls.

"Open ("communicating") stairs are exit access stairs" Well, I disagree with you.

Unrelated to the railing extension requirement, I will leave you with this: the area of refuge requirement doesn't apply to every single stair in every single new building. Why is that? Why are not all stairs deemed requiring all possible accommodations to the nth degree?

People disagreeing with your poor attitude are "trolling" LOL.

Sorry snowflake

 

[tmurray]

I don't need to entertain a fictitious online discussion about code interpretation when I have a perfectly good real life code official to discuss this with.

Is this not the very reason you posted on this forum?

 

[steveray]

Unrelated to the railing extension requirement, I will leave you with this: the area of refuge requirement doesn't apply to every single stair in every single new building. Why is that? Why are not all stairs deemed requiring all possible accommodations to the nth degree?

Because only your fist 2 MOE from a space need to be AMOE per 1009.1 and then there are multiple ways to accomplish AMOE in 1009.2...Oh...And AOR goes away in sprinklered stairs per 1009.4.2...

 

[Yikes]

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!

Gonna try and shed more light than heat here. First of all, welcome to the forum.

In the paragraph posted above, you did not mention ADA, which is not enforced by the local building official but is typically your responsibility for design compliance. (I don't know the particulars of your contract.)
2010 ADA Standards require that addition (202.3) and alterations (202.3) have their elements be scoped according to ADAS division 2 as if new construction. IMO this applies to the added/altered element itself, whether or not it has also been designated as part of the accessible route.



ADAS 505.10 exc. #3 does make exception where full handrail extensions would be hazardous due to plan configuration. But in your case, you already got it permitted for full extension, so at one point during the permit process you did not deem this as a hazard. IMO, kind of hard to go back and argue that something that already was permitted should now be considered too hazardous to be allowed, especially if the full extensions would not not encroach into the minimum code-required exit path of travel.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

So your design drawing show the handrail extensions...then the GC owns them by contract and needs to fix the problem. Issue a formal letter of non-conformance to the GC asking him to provide a remediation plan with in 10 business days, and hold back money on all subsequent applications for payment until the matter is resolved.

 

[LR419]

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

As they say, it ain't over until the inspector sings.

The OP says the corridor is 7' wide. Does this exceed the minimum width? If the minimum is 6' or less, I'd be inclined to add a 12"x12" pilaster next to the stair rail extension on each side to frame the stair opening and keep the extensions from protruding.

 

[architecting philly]

Gonna try and shed more light than heat here. First of all, welcome to the forum.

In the paragraph posted above, you did not mention ADA, which is not enforced by the local building official but is typically your responsibility for design compliance. (I don't know the particulars of your contract.)
2010 ADA Standards require that addition (202.3) and alterations (202.3) have their elements be scoped according to ADAS division 2 as if new construction. IMO this applies to the added/altered element itself, whether or not it has also been designated as part of the accessible route.

View attachment 14123

ADAS 505.10 exc. #3 does make exception where full handrail extensions would be hazardous due to plan configuration. But in your case, you already got it permitted for full extension, so at one point during the permit process you did not deem this as a hazard. IMO, kind of hard to go back and argue that something that already was permitted should now be considered too hazardous to be allowed, especially if the full extensions would not not encroach into the minimum code-required exit path of travel.

View attachment 14124

Thanks for your insight. In PA we have to comply with ADAAG which references the ADA code. It's state law.

To anyone who is interested in this particular conundrum, I did get this issue resolved and passed inspection without doing any repairs to the handrail. And I didn't need to resort to new signage. The IBC code commentary contains language that essentially addresses this very condition.

 

[Yikes]

Thanks for your insight. In PA we have to comply with ADAAG which references the ADA code. It's state law.

To anyone who is interested in this particular conundrum, I did get this issue resolved and passed inspection without doing any repairs to the handrail. And I didn't need to resort to new signage. The IBC code commentary contains language that essentially addresses this very condition.

If you have the time and capability, please post the commentary language on this thread so that other people can learn from it when they have a similar situation in the future.

 

[architecting philly]

If you have the time and capability, please post the commentary language on this thread so that other people can learn from it when they have a similar situation in the future.

I don't know... seemed like everyone on here had air-tight understanding about the code requirement for handrail extensions. I believe one such person said the language was "clear and unambiguous" and my credentials were called into question as a result LOL.

I'm kidding of course. Look in the code commentary book I think its 1011.11. I don't have the ability to post the language on here.

 

[steveray]

Definitely don't see it in 1011 or 1014....But I'm glad it worked out for you for now....

 

[Mr. Inspector]

If not a part of an accessible means of egress I still don't see how the handrail extensions are required on the top and the bottom of a flight if there is no adjacent flight of stairs to continue too.

2018 IBC 1014.6 Handrail extensions. 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. At ramps where handrails are
not continuous between runs, the handrails shall extend horizontally
above the landing 12 inches (305 mm) minimum
beyond the top and bottom of ramp runs. The extensions of
handrails shall be in the same direction of the flights of stairs
at stairways and the ramp runs at ramps.
Exceptions:
1. Handrails within a dwelling unit that is not required
to be accessible need extend only from the top riser
to the bottom riser.
2. Handrails serving aisles in rooms or spaces used for
assembly purposes are permitted to comply with the
1029.16.
3. Handrails for alternating tread devices and ship’s
ladders are permitted to terminate at a location vertically
above the top and bottom risers. Handrails for
alternating tread devices are not required to be continuous
between flights or to extend beyond the top
or bottom risers.

 

[steveray]

If not a part of an accessible means of egress I still don't see how the handrail extensions are required on the top and the bottom of a flight if there is no adjacent flight of stairs to continue too.

2018 IBC 1014.6 Handrail extensions. 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. At ramps where handrails are
not continuous between runs, the handrails shall extend horizontally
above the landing 12 inches (305 mm) minimum
beyond the top and bottom of ramp runs. The extensions of
handrails shall be in the same direction of the flights of stairs
at stairways and the ramp runs at ramps.
Exceptions:
1. Handrails within a dwelling unit that is not required
to be accessible need extend only from the top riser
to the bottom riser.
2. Handrails serving aisles in rooms or spaces used for
assembly purposes are permitted to comply with the
1029.16.
3. Handrails for alternating tread devices and ship’s
ladders are permitted to terminate at a location vertically
above the top and bottom risers. Handrails for
alternating tread devices are not required to be continuous
between flights or to extend beyond the top
or bottom risers.

Dwelling unit I would agree...Not anything else...