Exception to Handrails

[jar546]

1011.11 Handrails.​

Flights of stairways shall have handrails on each side and shall comply with Section 1014. Where glass is used to provide the handrail, the handrail shall comply with Section 2407.

Exceptions:
2.) Decks, patios and walkways that have a single change in elevation where the landing depth on each side of the change of elevation is greater than what is required for a landing do not require handrails.

Please explain a scenario where this exception applies.

Here is my example. A sidewalk that goes around the back of the building and then goes down 4 risers to an 8' landing. Does this require handrails on both sides or does that fit Exception 2?

 

[ICE]

4 risers

That's four changes of elevation.

STAIR. A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers.

STAIRWAY. One or more flights of stairs, either exterior or interior, with the necessary landings and platforms connecting them, to form a continuous and uninterrupted passage from one level to another.

FLIGHT. A continuous run of rectangular treads,winders or combination thereof from one landing to another.

 

[NCRooster]

The IBC defines a stair as "a change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers." From that, it sounds like 4 risers would be a single change in elevation.

 

[jar546]

That's four changes of elevation.

I would agree.

In my opinion we are talking about a single riser is the only way that exception 2 applies.

 

[jar546]

The IBC defines a stair as "a change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers." From that, it sounds like 4 risers would be a single change in elevation.

So as long as we provide long landings on a set of stairs of any amount of risers, we don't need handrails?

 

[NCRooster]

Per the commentary: "Decks, patios, and walkways often move down with the grade. Where there are single steps, either off a patio or deck to grade, or along the surface, a handrail is not required [Exception 2]."

Not sure where I would want to utilize this outside of a residential application... Seems like a fall hazard.

 

[bill1952]

Single risers are more dangerous than multiple. They use to not be allowed. Late 90s LSC permitted them - good annex info there - and I think the legacy codes also prohibited them till 1990s.

 

[SCBO1]

Example: Like exiting out of a back patio door, stepping down a maximum of 7.75 " onto a patio or deck, no handrail required.

 

[mtlogcabin]

If each landing is at least 36 inches then no handrail required

 

[Paul Sweet]

There is a brick walk on the Virginia state capital grounds with steps similar to this. I found the spacing to be very awkward as it made me alternate between 2 and 3 steps per riser.

 

[mtlogcabin]

as it made me alternate between 2 and 3 steps per riser.

I believe that may be the purpose so you do not get into a rhythm as you navigate them

 

[walker.t]

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

FLIGHT. A continuous run of rectangular treads,winders or combination thereof from one landing to another.

Your four risers meet the definition of “flight” because it consists of multiple treads, therefore handrails on both sides are required.

In my opinion we are talking about a single riser is the only way that exception 2 applies.

I am of the same opinion, I think the intention is to refer to a single riser, as if the exception said: “…and walkways that have a single riser…”. We have miles of single-riser changes of elevation in pretty much every city in the country - curbs - yet we don’t have handrails lining the sides of streets. It’s even acceptable to ramp down a curb without a handrail when you have a curb ramp.

To add to the fun, the definition of “flight” is “a continuous run of rectangular treads [plural]” so someone could argue that to have a flight you need a riser+tread+riser+tread+riser so that you have more than one tread. So maybe Exception 2 could apply to two risers separated by a single tread?

If each landing is at least 36 inches then no handrail required

The spacing might have to be longer depending on the stairs, 1011.6 (Stairway Landings) requires the landing be the lesser of the width of the stairway or 48” in the direction of travel.

The IBC defines a stair as "a change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers." From that, it sounds like 4 risers would be a single change in elevation.

This is correct, but a single riser is also a change in elevation. A single riser is a change in elevation at the smallest level, requirements for this change in elevation are specified in 1011.5 (Stair Treads and Risers.) When you put multiple risers together (connected with appropriately sized treads) you get a change in elevation referred to as a “flight” with limits on that change in elevation in 1011.8 (Vertical Rise.)

I found the spacing to be very awkward as it made me alternate between 2 and 3 steps per riser.

I love the look of such cascading steps/platforms/whatever, but you’re right, the variation in stride is weird. What’s worse is when the spacing between the risers requires an adjustment in stride, such as 1.5 or 2.5 normal strides.

 

[ICE]

If each landing is at least 36 inches then no handrail required

View attachment 13335

View attachment 13336

where the landing depth on each side of the change of elevation is greater than what is required for a landing do not require handrails.

Greater than 36" required.

 

[Yikes]

As mentioned on a previous thread a while back. In theory a 1/4" elevation change - which is perhaps a type of miniature riser - is allowed in any accessible walking path, and no corresponding "landing" is required.
In theory, one could create a series of 1/4" risers and 1/4" treads to form a 45% steep "ziggurat", and it would technically comply with with the letter of the code for a wheelchair accessible path of travel, no handrails required.

Obviously, not advised.

 

[walker.t]

In theory, one could create a series of 1/4" risers and 1/4" treads to form a 45% steep "ziggurat", and it would technically comply with with the letter of the code for a wheelchair accessible path of travel, no handrails required.

ADA/A117.1 303.4 requires a ramp when the change in elevation is greater than 1/2”. The 1/4” change in elevation (or 1/2” if you use the 1:2 bevel in ADA/A117.1 303.3) would have to be spaced apart, but I don’t know by how much. But sure, if you had a long enough run you could throw in a 1/4” to 1/2” change of elevation every now and then and make up an inch or two instead of grouping them together and building a ramp with a 12” to 24” run.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Exceptions:
2.) Decks, patios and walkways that have a single change in elevation where the landing depth on each side of the change of elevation is greater than what is required for a landing do not require handrails.

IBC 2018

1010.1.6 Landings at doors.
......... Landings shall have a length measured in the direction of travel of not less than 44 inches (1118 mm).

Exception: Landing length in the direction of travel in Groups R-3 and U and within individual units of Group R-2 need not exceed 36 inches (914 mm).


1011.6 Stairway landings.
There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway. The width of landings, measured perpendicularly to the direction of travel, shall be not less than the width of stairways served. Every landing shall have a minimum depth, measured parallel to the direction of travel, equal to the width of the stairway or 48 inches (1219 mm), whichever is less.

If there is a door then the required minimum length is 48".
If no door and a 36" wide stairway then the required minimum length of the landing is 36".
If it is a 72" wide stairway then the required minimum length of the landing is 48".