intermediate handrail req. on non-egress wide stair?

[Arch_teach]

So I have a question regarding wide stairs.

First, I did find this thread: define monumental stair
However, all the discussion (as well as code that I can see in IBC) concerns required egress width as a controlling factor.

So what are the requirements, if any, for intermediate handrails on a celebratory, non-egress stair? For example, a stair going from floor #3 to #4 across an atrium. The stair serves no egress function, just an expediency one. Assuming it complies with the minimums, and that there are handrails on both sides; does it have a maximum width before needing an intermediate handrail? Could it be 10, 12, 15 feet wide? Somewhere in my head is a 10'-0" rule, but I can find no validation for that beyond it seems like a good idea.

 

[e hilton]

Curious why you used the word “celebratory”. I looked it up, thinking maybe it has a definition i didn’t know about … but all i find is about happy events.

 

[mtlogcabin]

All stairs that serve occupied areas are required to meet code even if the are not part of a means of egress

2018 IBC
1011.1 General.
Stairways serving occupied portions of a building shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1011.2 through 1011.13.

1011.11 Handrails.
Flights of stairways shall have handrails on each side and shall comply with Section 1014.


1014.9 Intermediate handrails.
Stairways shall have intermediate handrails located in such a manner that all portions of the stairway minimum width or required capacity are within 30 inches (762 mm) of a handrail. On monumental stairs, handrails shall be located along the most direct path of egress travel.

 

[jj1289]

The key word is "required capacity" under section 1014.9. If the occupant load is greater than 200 (2 handrails, 30" each = 60"; 60/0.3 = 200 occupants) then an intermediate handrail is required.

 

[bill1952]

I agree with JJ. The difficulty will be determining occupant number served by the stair. In brief, if this stair is 8' wide, and there are 2 other stairs 4' wide serving same floor or area, the monumental stair is half the occupants.

 

[Arch_teach]

Curious why you used the word “celebratory”. I looked it up, thinking maybe it has a definition i didn’t know about … but all i find is about happy events.

Probably should have said "celebrated" instead. This would be a larger stair serving as a focal point or design element in an atrium usually. Often it only goes partway up, or even just first to second floor, so it is not really part of the egress route of a multi-story building.

 

[bill1952]

If you are using the stair and have to egress, it is a part of that occupant's means of egress. If you use that stair regularly to go to work or whatever, rather than the separate "uncelebrated" stairs, you are likely to use it in an emergency. In an emergency, people will use what they are most familiar with, not some exit stair they never use.

 

[Arch_teach]

The key word is "required capacity" under section 1014.9. If the occupant load is greater than 200 (2 handrails, 30" each = 60"; 60/0.3 = 200 occupants) then an intermediate handrail is required.

So Two scenarios that highlight questions:
1) from my original post, a stair that crosses the upper part of an atrium, like 3rd to 4th floor. It cannot have a "required capacity" because it does not exist to facilitate egress from the building. So it never needs an intermediate?
2) A celebrated/ monumental stair 10 feet wide going just to second floor. let's say the 2nd floor has an occupancy of 400 people, and the building has three large fire stairs with a width of 5 feet each. According to Bill, the monumental stair serves 40% of egress, or 160 people. 160*.3 = 48" which is less than 60", so the stair could go without an intermediate because there is enough room along sides. But if the occupancy hits 500 people, then 40% is 200 people, and then we hit the magic number of 60" (twice 30") so an intermediate is needed. correct?

 

[RLGA]

Intermediate handrails are only required if more than 60 inches of the stairway's width is required for means of egress. If there are other stairs serving as means of egress stairs that provides capacity for the largest occupant load of the stories served above, then any additional stair is not required for means of egress, but must still comply with the requirements for stairs. If they are not enclosed and/or not continuous to an exit discharge, then they are treated as exit access stairs.

If the stairs are monumental stairs and the capacity is served by other exit stairs, then only the handrails at the monumental stairway sides are required and no intermediate handrails are required.

 

[bill1952]

If the stairs are monumental stairs and the capacity is served by other exit stairs, then only the handrails at the monumental stairway sides are required and no intermediate handrails are required.

Based on my training and work with NFPA and using the IBC and legacy codes before that nearly 40 years as a designer, I believe that the occupant load is divided among the separate means of egress proportionally to the capacity of each. I believe that is justified because if the a majority or entire floor that the monumental stairs serve normally use those stairs, they'll use them in an emergency, and not having a handrail within reach will be a problem.

For assembly occupancies, the IBC says "In establishing catchment areas, the assumption shall be made that there is a balanced use of all means of egress, with the number of persons in proportion to egress capacity." It surprises me that the IBC doesn't address this generally. Is the 2027 the next edition for which changes will be solicited?

Consider a large building with monumental stairs in center and an exist stair at either end. One exit stair is blocked, those folks are not going to pass the monumental stair in the middle to get to the exit stair at the other end.

 

[RLGA]

Based on my training and work with NFPA and using the IBC and legacy codes before that nearly 40 years as a designer, I believe that the occupant load is divided among the separate means of egress proportionally to the capacity of each. I believe that is justified because if the a majority or entire floor that the monumental stairs serve normally use those stairs, they'll use them in an emergency, and not having a handrail within reach will be a problem.

For assembly occupancies, the IBC says "In establishing catchment areas, the assumption shall be made that there is a balanced use of all means of egress, with the number of persons in proportion to egress capacity." It surprises me that the IBC doesn't address this generally. Is the 2027 the next edition for which changes will be solicited?

Consider a large building with monumental stairs in center and an exist stair at either end. One exit stair is blocked, those folks are not going to pass the monumental stair in the middle to get to the exit stair at the other end.

The stairs can and will be used for egress, but they are not required to be provided with intermediate handrails. Without intermediate handrails, only 60 inches of the stairway width can be used to comply with the required egress capacity. You only need one handrail when using the stairs, so each side of a monumental stairway can be used.

 

[mtlogcabin]

On monumental stairs, handrails shall be located along the most direct path of egress travel.

I take this to mean if the exit out of the building is centered on the monumental stairs then the handrail needs to be in the middle of the stairs and non are required along the edge as long as the OL does not exceed 60 inches.
Correct?

 

[RLGA]

I take this to mean if the exit out of the building is centered on the monumental stairs then the handrail needs to be in the middle of the stairs and non are required along the edge as long as the OL does not exceed 60 inches.
Correct?

View attachment 8474
View attachment 8475

Correct, if the monumental stairs are used for egress and that is how occupants will approach them.

 

[Yikes]

See this thread also, from last spring: https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.co...r-stairs-less-than-30-drop.30631/#post-237232

All stairs that serve occupied areas are required to meet code even if the are not part of a means of egress

2018 IBC
1011.1 General.
Stairways serving occupied portions of a building shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1011.2 through 1011.13.

1011.11 Handrails.
Flights of stairways shall have handrails on each side and shall comply with Section 1014.

The IBC commentary for 1014.9 also says:
"Monumental stairways are typically provided for architectural effect and may or may not be considered egress stairs."
I have seen this often, where there is a large monumental stair, and off to one side of it is another smaller stair or ramp with handrails to accommodate 100% of the egress occupants.


Questions:
1. So if a monumental stair is not an egress stair, it would have a required width of zero inches, and therefore it would comply with 1014.9 without an intermediate handrail at all, correct?

2. In the scenario I described above (a ramp to one side, providing all required exit width), is a non-egress monumental stair actually serving occupied portions of the building, or is it merely serving architectural effect? If the latter, are any handrails at all required by IBC chapter 10? I understand the owner may want them anyway for insurance reasons - -but my question is, does IBC 10 compel handrail installation if the monumental stairs are not "serving" the means of egress system?

(Image below: Monumental stairs with adjacent ramp for MOE at City Hall, Pasadena, CA; also set as the "Pawnee City Hall" in the TV show Parks and Recreation.)

 

[RLGA]

See this thread also, from last spring: https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.co...r-stairs-less-than-30-drop.30631/#post-237232


The IBC commentary for 1014.9 also says:
"Monumental stairways are typically provided for architectural effect and may or may not be considered egress stairs."
I have seen this often, where there is a large monumental stair, and off to one side of it is another smaller stair or ramp with handrails to accommodate 100% of the egress occupants.


Questions:
1. So if a monumental stair is not an egress stair, it would have a required width of zero inches, and therefore it would comply with 1014.9 without an intermediate handrail at all, correct?

2. In the scenario I described above (a ramp to one side, providing all required exit width), is a non-egress monumental stair actually serving occupied portions of the building, or is it merely serving architectural effect? If the latter, are any handrails at all required by IBC chapter 10? I understand the owner may want them anyway for insurance reasons - -but my question is, does IBC 10 compel handrail installation if the monumental stairs are not "serving" the means of egress system?

(Image below: Monumental stairs with adjacent ramp for MOE at City Hall, Pasadena, CA; also set as the "Pawnee City Hall" in the TV show Parks and Recreation.)


View attachment 8479

1. Yes. However, per the smaller image from the Commentary, the handrails would still need to be located along the most direct path. If there is no discernable direct path (a wide-open area, for example), then the handrails could be located pretty much anywhere the designer would like them.
2a. More of an architectural feature, but could be more for convenience rather than egress.
2b. Yes, handrails are required per Section 1011.11.
2c. Yes, per my response to 2b above and the fact that the stairs are serving occupied portions of the building--not as a required means of egress, but as a possible means of convenience.

 

[Arch_teach]

The IBC commentary for 1014.9 also says:
"Monumental stairways are typically provided for architectural effect and may or may not be considered egress stairs."

The code itself does not say that. Do you have a link or resource for the IBC commentary you mention? Because that would contradict Bill that it MUST be considered (although he may still be right that it SHOULD be considered), and supports RLGA that is not required for egress.

I talked our codes instructor in the department, and at a first thought he thinks that the monumental stair, if it is open in an atrium, should not be considered egress since it is not rated/protected like a dedicated fire stair, and so the governing code on an intermediate handrail is in a sense reversed. Code requires a minimum of 44" width to facilitate travel, so a stair would need to be 88" wide (2x44) before putting in an intermediate handrail, so as not to restrict the traffic flow.

 

[RLGA]

The code itself does not say that. Do you have a link or resource for the IBC commentary you mention? Because that would contradict Bill that it MUST be considered (although he may still be right that it SHOULD be considered), and supports RLGA that is not required for egress.

I talked our codes instructor in the department, and at a first thought he thinks that the monumental stair, if it is open in an atrium, should not be considered egress since it is not rated/protected like a dedicated fire stair, and so the governing code on an intermediate handrail is in a sense reversed. Code requires a minimum of 44" width to facilitate travel, so a stair would need to be 88" wide (2x44) before putting in an intermediate handrail, so as not to restrict the traffic flow.

A stair wider than 60 inches will require an intermediate handrail if more than 60 inches of capacity is required. You can only use the 30 inches adjacent to a handrail for egress width purposes.

So, the occupant load using the stair was 290, the required egress capacity would need to be 87 inches. However, if the stair only had handrails on the sides, only 60 inches of the stairway width could be used (the 30 inches adjacent to each handrail). In order to utilize the entire 87 inches, an intermediate handrail must be added.

Atrium stairs are now permitted to be used as exit stairways since the 2015 IBC edition (See Section 1023.2, Exception 2). However, the atrium stair must comply with all other requirements for interior exit stairways, including identification and standpipes.

 

[bill1952]

Atrium stairs are now permitted to be used as exit stairways

For a maximum of 50% of the OL, correct?

 

[Arch_teach]

A stair wider than 60 inches will require an intermediate handrail if more than 60 inches of capacity is required. You can only use the 30 inches adjacent to a handrail for egress width purposes.

Yes, see the entire thread above. The questions are about that "required" capacity.

Atrium stairs are now permitted to be used as exit stairways since the 2015 IBC edition (See Section 1023.2, Exception 2). However, the atrium stair must comply with all otherrequirements for interior exit stairways, including identification and standpipes.

Permitted does mean required though. I would read permitted to mean if you need to use it for egress, then here are the rules.

But, if all required egress width can be accommodated by the designated fire stairs, the atrium monumental stair is bonus. The question discussed above is MUST it be included as part of the egress, and if so, in proportion to it's width relative to the fire stairs?

 

[RLGA]

Permitted does mean required though. I would read permitted to mean if you need to use it for egress, then here are the rules.

"Permitted" means you are allowed to do it but are not required to do it. If it is used as an exit stair, then you are required to comply with the requirements for interior exit stairways except for the construction requirements of Section 1023.2.

Yes, see the entire thread above. The questions are about that "required" capacity.

That is what I am referring to. Assume the 87-inch-wide stair is only required to have a capacity of 60 inches (i.e., an occupant load of 200), an intermediate handrail would not be required because you can use the two 30-inch maximum widths permitted for each handrail. However, if the occupant load exceeds 200, then an intermediate handrail will be required or another stair would need to be added.

 

[RLGA]

For a maximum of 50% of the OL, correct?

Almost. A requirement was added in the 2021 IBC that limits the number of exit stairs in the same atrium to 50%. If your building has two separate atriums, each with a stair, then both stairs could be used for exiting, provided that the provisions of Section 1028.2 are met.

Section 1028.2 states that no more than 50% of the number and minimum width or capacity can egress through atriums on the level of exit discharge.

So you could have two exits stairways in two separate atriums, but then you must have at least another two enclosed exit stairways to comply with the 50%-of-the-number requirement. Also, the two enclosed exit stairways must provide at least 50% of the required width or capacity.

 

[Yikes]

The code itself does not say that. Do you have a link or resource for the IBC commentary you mention? Because that would contradict Bill that it MUST be considered (although he may still be right that it SHOULD be considered), and supports RLGA that is not required for egress.

I don't think you can easily find a link to a 2018 IBC commentary online for free, but here's a 2012 commentary available for download. In 2012 the applicable section was 1012.9. In later editions the number/reference was moved to 1014.9. click here: https://diberville.ms.us/home/wp-co...-IBC-Code-And-Commentary-Volume-I-Reduced.pdf and go to pdf page 834:

 

[ADAguy]

"If you chose to provide it", then it must be "safe", then exclusive if it isn;t required, no?
Best practice too.
If you provide it, it will be used.