Handrail, Guardrail, edge protection requirement

[patrick346]

Hi All,

Im in process of designing a private high school and Im trying to create this communal space with a level elevation change in the center of the room. Now, the client really would like to not have any walls, guardrails, handrails etc. separating these 2 spaces and would like it to be a 1 volume of space with a 18" drop. I think its a tripping hazard but i said i would review the code and i cannot find anything preventing me from doing this.... I could use this edge to add cushions on top of the upper slab for students to sit on, maybe that would prevent students from just falling but im sure there has to be something preventing a 18" sudden drop. Technically based on 1030.17.1, i dont need a guardrail as long as the drop is no greater 30" and all handrail sections are only for ramps and stairs... If anyone could help me find something in the code which could apply to this situation, id be very grateful.

https://imgur.com/a/xjznUkR

Thank you, pc

 

[tbz]

I guess I will start with my second question which is what purpose is the change in elevation serving other than cool looking?

If the only entrance to the lower elevation is through the main upper level, then I would ask why not raise, not lower the elevation from the other and create a stage, rather than a pit? I am guessing there is a lower entry because I see no ramp in the design, but we only see the room not the floor plan with all entries.

My third question would be why didn't you just make the multiple stair flight(s), just one continuous full width, and place the handrails based on a monumental stair? This would remove all questions of if a guard is required, or should there be something there in place to prevent a likely fall when the room is crowded.

Then this leads me back to my first thought and question which is why?

Just because the law per "CODE", be it a minimum code, might allow something to be done, does not mean it is a good design for basic safety.

And without a logical reason and justification for having the change in elevation in this Use-Group type facility, and the client purposely asking for it to be designed with the intentional fall, specifically at a height to not trigger requiring guards but more than a single riser height, is a quagmire type accident waiting to happen.

I would question why the design firm, did not provide at a minimum (2) strand guards of the same material and finish as the handrails at those 2 locations, label them as "non-required guards" on the drawings and make a note that you recommend they be installed, though they are not required by code and could be removed by the owner. You might want to look at even designing the non-required guards to be removeable floor socket type guards. This way they could be removed when they need to be moved for large elements to be moved up or down to the lower level. Then if the owner forgets to put them back in, its not on the design firm.

Seems like a lot of work for a look that will definitely add to the build budget and in 10-20 years having those that come behind asking what the heck where they thinking.... And that is from someone that prefers 2-story homes over ranches.

Good luck

 

[bill1952]

I believe an 18" - actually up to a 30" - continuous drop across the room is permitted. I also believe it's bad design, will result in injuries, and probably will have a guard 6 to 12 months after opening. Code is a necessary condition, but many times it is insufficient.

 

[walker.t]

I think its a tripping hazard

I would suggest you consider not showing a condition that you think is unsafe. If one of the students falls off the edge one day and gets hurt the parents will be looking for someone to sue and because your drawings didn’t show a guard you’ll be considered to be at least in part liable for the accident.

I could use this edge to add cushions on top of the upper slab for students to sit on

In my opinion cushions would be a trip hazard as well.

If this is basically going to function as a bench will you need to provide a section that has a backrest so you can offer accessible bench seating per A117.1-2021 903 and ADA 903? Problem with ADA 903.2, however, is that it requires the clear floor space to be beside the bench so that would preclude a continuous ledge. But I guess you could provide a bench against the side wall and that would be OK.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I agree with bill1952 and walker.t -- I know these "seating stairs" are sort of THE in thing this year, but this looks like an accident waiting to happen. Yes, the code allows unprotected drops if the difference in elevation is less than 30 inches. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

If you want to maintain the open look -- use a tempered glass guard.

 

[bill1952]

If you want to maintain the open look -- use a tempered glass guard.

And hire an extra cleaning person to keep it clean of smudges and such.

 

[patrick346]

Thanks all. Ill try to convince the client that im not the only one that thinks its not the best idea. Ill take a look and maybe consider using the backrest as a partial guard.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Thanks all. Ill try to convince the client that im not the only one that thinks its not the best idea. Ill take a look and maybe consider using the backrest as a partial guard.

Are you the architect -- or work for the architect?

Just remember, if someone falls and gets injured, you WILL be sued. The owner will be sued, and the owner will sue you, too -- even though you did what they requested. Yes, I have seen that happen. In fact, I was the expert witness in defending an A/E firm in a case where they did as the owner requested, the result caused problems that cost big bucks to fix (no injuries, thank goodness), so the owner sued the A/E firm for doing what they had been requested to do. The A/E lost. It was not a happy (or fair) result, but there it is.

 

[Yikes]

Slightly off-topic, but I like this amphitheater bench + circulation system on the Highline Park (former abandoned elevated railway) in NYC.
They zig-zagged the accessible path at 1:20 so no ramp handrails were needed. they did provide steps at the far end, with a single handrail per IBC1030.16



The front of the amphitheater is a glass guard wall which provides a view down onto the streets below:

 

[Joe.B]

What about accessibility?

 

[steveray]

What about accessibility?

It probably meets it in the strict wording, but not necessarily the intent IMO...I guess I don't know what happens out in the hall...

1104.5​

Accessible routes shall coincide with or be located in the same area as a general circulation path. Where the circulation path is interior, the accessible route shall be interior. Where only one accessible route is provided, the accessible route shall not pass through kitchens, storage rooms, restrooms, closets or similar spaces.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

I would argue that both levels of that communal space need to be handicap accessible and agree that as designed its an accident waiting to happen.

 

[ICE]

so the owner sued the A/E firm for doing what they had been requested to do. The A/E lost. It was not a happy (or fair) result, but there it is.

The A&E firm's first duty is to themselves. When things go wrong, the obvious culprit is the experts that created the scenario that failed.

 

[patrick346]

What about accessibility?

Theres a ramp behind the section box.

 

[BayPointArchitect]

The design is good. I would recommend high contrast stripes on the edge of the "steps" for those who are visually alert. I have been involved in a number of slip, trip, and fall cases. If the architect and building owner create something that meets minimum code, then it is the occupant's responsibility to watch what they are doing. With that being said, every legal battle is stressful, and the attorneys always win - on both sides.

 

[bill1952]

Yeah. Blame the victim. Great defense.

 

[steveray]

Yeah. Blame the victim. Great defense.

The older I get, the more I am pro-Darwin...

 

[Tim Mailloux]

The design is good. I would recommend high contrast stripes on the edge of the "steps" for those who are visually alert. I have been involved in a number of slip, trip, and fall cases. If the architect and building owner create something that meets minimum code, then it is the occupant's responsibility to watch what they are doing. With that being said, every legal battle is stressful, and the attorneys always win - on both sides.

if this were a commercial building I would agree with you, but this is a high school and frankly high school boys are dumb asses and someone will get hurt.

 

[bill1952]

Could consider it a stair and prohibit for riser height greater than 7" and maybe lack of handrails. What if it were 8 or 10"? Would that be OK or would it look toouch like a step?

 

[SCBO1]

Glass panels as guards would allow the visual but protect the goof that falls off and becomes a paraplegic and sues, but hay that happens every day somewhere.

 

[SCBO1]

I have another idea, put water under it and make it a steeple chase, kids love that stuff!

 

[bill1952]

if this were a commercial building I would agree with you, but this is a high school and frankly high school boys are dumb asses and someone will get hurt.

An were if a space used by "senior citizens" I think it would be worse. At least high schoolers heal quickly.