• 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.

Exception to Handrails

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,931
Location
Not where I really want to be

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?
 
jar546 said:
4 risers
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Example: Like exiting out of a back patio door, stepping down a maximum of 7.75 " onto a patio or deck, no handrail required.
 
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.
 
jar546 said:
Flights of stairways shall have handrails on each side and shall comply with Section 1014.
Click to expand...
ICE said:
FLIGHT. A continuous run of rectangular treads,winders or combination thereof from one landing to another.
Click to expand...
Your four risers meet the definition of “flight” because it consists of multiple treads, therefore handrails on both sides are required.

jar546 said:
In my opinion we are talking about a single riser is the only way that exception 2 applies.
Click to expand...
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?

mtlogcabin said:
If each landing is at least 36 inches then no handrail required
Click to expand...
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.

NCRooster said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.)

Paul Sweet said:
I found the spacing to be very awkward as it made me alternate between 2 and 3 steps per riser.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Yikes said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
jar546 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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".
 
To pick this up again, WWYD? Given an interior change in elevation, a single 6" riser, does exc. #2 apply? Commentary sure points to the intent that this exception applies to exterior elements, but the code uses these undefined terms without any qualifiers for use only in an exterior application.

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.

Worst case is this (red is my sketching).

1735925809263.png
 
Sifu said:
To pick this up again, WWYD? Given an interior change in elevation, a single 6" riser, does exc. #2 apply? Commentary sure points to the intent that this exception applies to exterior elements, but the code uses these undefined terms without any qualifiers for use only in an exterior application.

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.

Worst case is this (red is my sketching).

View attachment 14975
Click to expand...
What use?....I guess either way the answer is no...#2 does not apply, but you could get out of the HR interior in R stuff...
 
See post #2. You have to dig into the IBC 202 definitions of stairway (one or more "flights" of stairs); then "flight" (a continuous run of of rectangular treads [plural], winders or combination thereof).
What post #17 shows is only landings, no treads. No treads = no stairway.

IBC 1014 for Handrails - where required applies it to "flights of stairways". So I don't see where handrails get triggered in Chapter 10. They may be triggered in accessibility regulations.

Now, let's talk best practice. Years ago, an older and wiser condominium architect shared with me some accident data that indicated people were MORE likely to fall on a single step than on 2 or more steps, mainly because they don't tend to pay attention to single steps. He tried to either do 2+ risers (with handrail) or no steps at all.

It would seem to me that if you had to do a single step, handrails would help draw attention to the change in level, increasing safety.
 
Last edited:
The "platform" is for the placement of pedicure chairs. 3 chairs, that they want elevated (originally 18", now 6") I guess for functionality but I don't like to think much about that. Not an integral part of the MOE or circulation, unless you are in a chair. But, since your feet are already naked, and likely dressed up in some way, not sure the 6" step is going to play too big a role. FWIW, I don't want to require the handrail in this specific application, but I will if the code requires it.
 
Yikes said:
See post #2. You have to dig into the IBC 202 definitions of stairway (one or more "flights" of stairs); then "flight" (a continuous run of of rectangular treads [plural], winders or combination thereof).
What post #17 shows is only landings, no treads. No treads = no stairway.

IBC 1014 for Handrails - where required applies it to "flights of stairways". So I don't see where handrails get triggered in Chapter 10. They may be triggered in accessibility regulations.

Now, let's talk best practice. Years ago, an older and wiser condominium architect shared with me some accident data that indicated people were MORE likely to fall on a single step than on 2 or more steps, mainly because they don't tend to pay attention to single steps. He tried to either do 2+ risers (with handrail) or no steps at all.

It would seem to me that if you had to do a single step, handrails would help draw attention to the change in level.
Click to expand...
I agree whole heartedly with the wiser condominium architect. I believe it's more that it's hard to see. Looking ahead you just don't perceive a 6" floor elevation change in wide open space. It needs to be very well marked. I see this in assembly seating and management has assigned an usher to stand by the single to rise during periods of use and caution everyone, pointing it out, offering an arm or hand, and being ready to reach and grab ahold of someone who still misses it.

I disagree
 
Sifu said:
The "platform" is for the placement of pedicure chairs. 3 chairs, that they want elevated (originally 18", now 6") I guess for functionality but I don't like to think much about that. Not an integral part of the MOE or circulation, unless you are in a chair. But, since your feet are already naked, and likely dressed up in some way, not sure the 6" step is going to play too big a role. FWIW, I don't want to require the handrail in this specific application, but I will if the code requires it.
Click to expand...
Based on the logic that a pedicure platform requires a handrail, do you think the code also requires a handrail to step into an elevated dining booth like this?

1735928382668.png


How about this one, where the booth is set back from the step?
1735928530047.png
 
Yikes said:
Based on the logic that a pedicure platform requires a handrail, do you think the code also requires a handrail to step into an elevated dining booth like this?

View attachment 14976


How about this one, where the booth is set back from the step?
View attachment 14977
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so but I also don't think the pedicure platform requires the handrail either, or the walkway with multiple single risers with a compliant landing at each riser. I see the latter all the time, and the booth thing all the time as well. Unfortunately to me the code isn't clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top