Handrail clearances IBC vs NFPA

[Examiner]

Around here we never use NFPA 101 but it has come to my attention that NFPA 101 requires a 2 1/4" min clearance from the wall to the handrail. Is this a type-o with NFPA? We have project in another state where the State Fire Marshall uses NFPA 101 and the local town uses IBC. I know about the 2012 IBC section regarding such conflicts. IBC only references NFPA 101 in Section 1028. Who has authority?

 

[rogerpa]

102.4 Referenced codes and standards. The codes and
standards referenced in this code shall be considered part of
the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each
such reference and as further regulated in Sections 102.4.1
and 102.4.2.
[A] 102.4.1 Conflicts. Where conflicts occur between provisions
of this code and referenced codes and standards,
the provisions of this code shall apply.
[A] 102.4.2 Provisions in referenced codes and standards.
Where the extent of the reference to a referenced
code or standard includes subject matter that is within the
scope of this code or the International Codes listed in Section
101.4, the provisions of this code or the International
Codes listed in Section 101.4, as applicable, shall take precedence
over the provisions in the referenced code or standard.


IOW's NFPA 101 only applies to the seating requirements of 1028.6.2.

 

[Examiner]

Thanks that is what I was referring to that I already know. The question is; does the State Fire Marshall overrule the Town's adopted Building Code when the State does not have an adopted Fire or Building Code? I am assuming that the State has not adopted the NFPA 101 as a fire code and it just the State Fire Marshall who uses it.

 

[JBI]

The (fully adopted) IBC provides a minimum clearance which is less than that required by the (not formally adopted) NFPA 101 that is (simply) used by the Fire Marshal.
First a determination must be made as to the validity of the Fire Marshal's insistence, and the use of NFPA 101.
If it has not been formally adopted, then there is no basis to require compliance with it. Next, answer the following -
What would be the implications of allowing the higher standard (the NFPA clearance) to rule the day?
What would be the implications of standing your ground for the IBC clearance?
Which answer above creates fewer problems and less stress?

I had a Professor in college who was fond of saying 'Good luck...' at times like these, and that is what I offer you...
Good luck...

 

[steveray]

State "law" should trump local regulation, but if there is no State law, just some FM's opinion or preference, game on. You would have to look into the limits of his authority...

 

[Examiner]

I seem to remember a study about the greater the distances of handrails from walls and / or guardrails was an issue. If someone using a handrail had a fall and their arm went between the handrail and the item it was attached to, then the chance of the person breaking their arm was greater the farther away the handrail was from the adjacent item. The NFPA allowing a minimum of 2.25" plus say 2.25" max non-circular handrail cross section puts the max distance from the handrail's attachment surface at 4.5" to the outside face of the handrail. 4.5" is the max projection of a handrail into the clear width of a stair or ramp. I really hate it when there are two codes and they have sections which conflict.

 

[JBI]

I really hate it when there are two codes and they have sections which conflict.

Only a problem if both have been formally adopted...

 

[tbz]

NFPA 101 handrail clearance of 2.25" is a Jake Pauls number that firemen love because of their gloves.

Depending on the adoption the ruling factor can be one of great pain.

Both NFPA & IBC have the text that says they are the code to be enforced if adopted.

When this occurs it normally falls in to the stricter of the 2 codes being enforced.

In Florida, the building departments use 1.5" & The Fire Marshalls use 2.25" as both have their adopted codes.

There are some states and local AHJ that adopt NFPA101 and modify the 2.25" to 1.5" it all falls under who has the more pull,

So not only look at if NFPA 101 is adopted, but also look at weather it was adopted with the text modified.

Don't know if this helps but I believe you get the gist.

Tom

 

[Mr. Inspector]

How could you tell which is stricter?

 

[Paul Sweet]

"How could you tell which is stricter?"

The one that makes more people scream!

 

[tbz]

How could you tell which is stricter?

You have 2 ways to look at this maybe 3.

1.) The more common view for years was that since the handrail industry was confined by many states or AHJ adopting local ADA regs (so they had local enforcement) with the wording that the 1.5" space was exact, not greater than or less than, it was considered ADA trumped local. And since it was hard to follow 1.5" hold tolerance it was considered a stricter or harder hold position.

2.) When ADAAG published the 2004 revised ABA/ADA standards they revised the wording to the current greater than 1.5" and less than 4.5". their view was that restriction was lifted and the 2.25", complied as long as the 4.5" was not violated, thus the 2.25 - 4.5 became the stricter tolerance to hold.

3.) The big issue for years and still today is that most mass produced handrail brackets don't comply with the 2.25" spacing requirement and fabricators have to build them when pushed to comply by local fire marshals like in Florida. If you ask why this is have a talk with your fire marshal and find out why they are in love with the 2.25".

Thus to answer your question, the stricter code/reg would be the one with the smallest range in it's tolerance. Having to hold exactly to 1.5" is stricter than 1.5 - 4.5 and then holding between 2.25 - 4.5 is also stricter than 1.5 - 4.5.

Regards - Tom