Exterior stair - landing and handrail concerns

[Nat]

Working on a project to replace an existing exterior loading dock with stairs (Business occupancy). The red lines in the photo below indicate where the contractor intends to provide handrails.

• I'm concerned about the lower landing width, especially how the 6" curb and the handrail decrease the (already narrow) width. The handrail is scheduled to be installed 4" from the landing edge.
• Is a handrail required from the asphalt surface up to the first landing? I don't have that height, but it's about 5".
• Also, is a 2nd handrail required at the landing?
  
  

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Are these stairs existing and what section of the IEBC are you using? This is under Alterations 2:

805.2 General. The means of egress shall comply with the
requirements of this section.
Exceptions:
1. Where the work area and the means of egress serving
it complies with NFPA 101.
2. Means of egress complying with the requirements of
the building code under which the building was constructed
shall be considered to be compliant means
of egress if, in the opinion of the code official, they
do not constitute a distinct hazard to life.

 

[Nat]

Are these stairs existing and what section of the IEBC are you using? This is under Alterations 2:

805.2 General. The means of egress shall comply with the
requirements of this section.
Exceptions:
1. Where the work area and the means of egress serving
it complies with NFPA 101.
2. Means of egress complying with the requirements of
the building code under which the building was constructed
shall be considered to be compliant means
of egress if, in the opinion of the code official, they
do not constitute a distinct hazard to life.

The entire dock and related stairs were removed and are being replaced. I think the level of work exceeds Alteration 2. The design-build AE did not list an alteration level or compliance method. My thought is that it should meet IBC.

 

[tbz]

So are the stairs, landings and curb pre-existing or new?

Based on what I am seeing, not that I have my glasses on, you descend down 4 risers to a lower landing that I will assume since you are not noting it is not shorter than 48 inches, and is at least 48 inches.

Then you turn 90 degrees to the left and descend down a single riser to another landing level which has 48 inches of run out.

The parking lot level I will assume will have black top meet the concrete elevation or at least be very slight and edge ramped down.

So I would move the lower handrail on the full inside wrap to terminated off the inside edge of the concrete and yes install a handrail on the outer side, in the dirt to allow for the full width of the 37+ concrete.

But that is just me basing it on intent of code, not sure if the local AHJ has what in mind.

 

[Inspector Gift]

If it doesn't look right.... it probably isn't.

I am assuming this is a commercial building. If so, I don't believe the lowest landing qualifies for Exception 2 of IBC 1011.1.

If the landing does not qualify, then a handrail would be required on BOTH SIDES of the lower stair step. I would suggest that the contractor tear out the non-conforming bottom landing, provide a 48 wide landing, and reconfigure the handrailing.

 

[bill1952]

I'm with inspector gift on this, especially hand rails on both sides of the single steps. I dont think single steps were allowed by codes before late 1990s. Single steps are always a significant hazard. Hard to see, not always expected, and not well marked. Handrails help. IBC and NFPA have very similar requirements but the NFPA appendix note is very on point.

 

[sergoodo]

Do not need a handrail for the 1 step

 

[bill1952]

Do not need a handrail for the 1 step

I disagree in this occupancy. See exception 2 in 2018 IBC.

1003.5Elevation change.​

Where changes in elevation of less than 12 inches (305 mm) exist in the means of egress, sloped surfaces shall be used. Where the slope is greater than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope), ramps complying with Section 1012 shall be used. Where the difference in elevation is 6 inches (152 mm) or less, the ramp shall be equipped with either handrails or floor finish materials that contrast with adjacent floor finish materials.

Exceptions:

1. 1.A single step with a maximum riser height of 7 inches (178 mm) is permitted for buildings with occupancies in Groups F, H, R-2, R-3, S and U at exterior doors not required to be accessible by Chapter 11.
2. 2.A stair with a single riser or with two risers and a tread is permitted at locations not required to be accessible by Chapter 11 where the risers and treads comply with Section 1011.5, the minimum depth of the tread is 13 inches (330 mm) and not less than one handrail complying with Section 1014 is provided within 30 inches (762 mm) of the centerline of the normal path of egress travel on the stair.
3. 3.A step is permitted in aisles serving seating that has a difference in elevation less than 12 inches (305 mm) at locations not required to be accessible by Chapter 11, provided that the risers and treads comply with Section 1029.14 and the aisle is provided with a handrail complying with Section 1029.16.

 

[Nat]

If it doesn't look right.... it probably isn't.

I am assuming this is a commercial building. If so, I don't believe the lowest landing qualifies for Exception 2 of IBC 1011.1.

If the landing does not qualify, then a handrail would be required on BOTH SIDES of the lower stair step. I would suggest that the contractor tear out the non-conforming bottom landing, provide a 48 wide landing, and reconfigure the handrailing.

It is a commercial building. I was wondering if that first landing could be considered a walkway and then meet exception 2 of 1011.11, but it seems a stretch.
Regarding the 48" landing width... per 1011.6 it requires the landing to be equal to the width of the stair or 48" whichever is less. The stair is wider than required. Wondering if the landing could be 44" if that is the min required stair width? Also, I am concerned about how the curb takes up 6" of the landing width, but I can't seem to find any code sections that speak to this. Any thoughts? I appreciate all the feedback.

 

[Nat]

It is a commercial building. I was wondering if that first landing could be considered a walkway and then meet exception 2 of 1011.11, but it seems a stretch.
Regarding the 48" landing width... per 1011.6 it requires the landing to be equal to the width of the stair or 48" whichever is less. The stair is wider than required. Wondering if the landing could be 44" if that is the min required stair width? Also, I am concerned about how the curb takes up 6" of the landing width, but I can't seem to find any code sections that speak to this. Any thoughts? I appreciate all the feedback.

And my dimension for the width of the bottom landing is incorrect... it's actually 43.5", not 37.5".

 

[Nat]

I appreciate all the feedback. The contractor is now claiming that the landing doesn't need to be 44" wide based on 1011.2 Exception 1: Stairways serving an occupant load of les than 50 shall have a width of not less than 36 inches. I've never seen this exception used this way. The floor has an occupant load of 120 with 3 exit doors. Only one exit has a stair (the one in question). The contractor is claiming 140 occupant / 3 exit doors = 40 occupants for each exit, so less than 50 for this stair. To me this seems like a reach. Exit doors swinging in the direction of egress for areas over 49 occupants would not be calculated this way, so why would the floor occupant load not be used for the stairs?

 

[bill1952]

I agree on memory, and thinking this used to be an exception for stairs serving floors with less than 50 occupants. BOCA language maybe? I'd like to look at the BCMC report on MOE, basis for first edition of IBC.

 

[Paul Sweet]

The 36" width has gone back and forth between code editions. Some editions based it on the number of occupants using the stair, other editions based it on the number of occupants on the floor. Whatever it is now will probably change back in a couple more editions.