• 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.

NFPA 101 just what is it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
gbhammer said:
Ok I would be good with that. Maybe just add a sign "DECORATIVE DEATH TRAP IN CASE OF FIRE" :devil
Click to expand...
Have you ever seen a fire escape? Did you apply common sense when looking at it?
 
brudgers said:
Question: with a second means of escape from the second floor is the building more or less dangerous?
Click to expand...
I guess that depends on whether or not the second means of escape presents it's own safety hazards.

Open risers that pass a 4" sphere.

5" plus between balusters.

You're sawing off the limb you're standing on Ben.

Bill
 
KZQuixote said:
I guess that depends on whether or not the second means of escape presents it's own safety hazards. Open risers that pass a 4" sphere. 5" plus between balusters. You're sawing off the limb you're standing on Ben. Bill
Click to expand...
It doesn't present any more safety hazards than an open window.
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
I am not a lilputian, but if I were, that votive holder would make one heck of a good not-a-stair.
Click to expand...
place human candles here.

gbhammer said:
Ok I would be good with that. Maybe just add a sign "DECORATIVE DEATH TRAP IN CASE OF FIRE" :devil
Click to expand...
 
Why don't we just put 18" wide doors at the top and bottom landings of the not-a-stair so no one will be confused as to it not being a means of egress.
 
I was lost like 37 posts ago.

Is this the "required" MOE?

Is this an existing R3 and it has a spiral staircase that is evaluated as non-compliant?

If its governed by 101 and the stair meets 7.2.2.2.3 then its compliant and the owner can appeal the ruling through the fire code.

If it is governed by IBC since work is being done or some other change driving IBC is happening then IBC will rule and an appeal to that is necessary.
 
FM William Burns said:
I was lost like 37 posts ago. Is this the "required" MOE?

Is this an existing R3 and it has a spiral staircase that is evaluated as non-compliant?
Click to expand...
My understanding of the OP is that there are two stairs both serving the same second floor space, one is compliant with the IRC and the other, a spiral stair, is not. This is a conversion of an existing detached garage into an R3 residence.
 
I get that it is not the means of egress.

What I don't see is where it says in the code that you can create code violations and ignore them because you have decided to re-label.

The commentary in both the IRC and the IBC says:

Stair. A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers.

**** All steps, even a single step, are defined as a stair. This makes the stair requirements applicable to all steps unless specifically exempt in the code.****
 
Question: with a second means of escape from the second floor is the building more or less dangerous?
Click to expand...
In this case, less. As you so frequently point out when trying to argue against sprinklers, stairways cause thousands of injuries and deaths even when they're built in accordance with codes. This one isn't.

Keep in mind that the code expects people to jump from the second or third floor in an emergency.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't.

But you can take an educated guess at what I would call this approach to the code.
Click to expand...
. . . and you can take an educated guess about how much I care what you would call this approach.

Funny how nobody is willing to argue the case for allowing the laundry list of issues I posted before. I guess this "ignoring requirements" phenomena is exclusive to stairways?

FM Burns: I believe this is a new stairway in an IRC structure. The IRC requirements for spiral stairways are identical to those found in NFPA 101, and there is no allowance to ignore those requirements for certain stairways in an IRC structure.
 
gbhammer said:
I get that it is not the means of egress.What I don't see is where it says in the code that you can create code violations and ignore them because you have decided to re-label.

The commentary in both the IRC and the IBC says:

Stair. A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers.

**** All steps, even a single step, are defined as a stair. This makes the stair requirements applicable to all steps unless specifically exempt in the code.****
Click to expand...
Exactly, that is the obvious, to the letter of the code, per Chapter 3 interpretation. Chapter 1 (with it's "BO clauses" for those with code vendettas), however gives some wiggle room to Chapter 3, but ultimately if you don't make that interpretation, and want to follow the letter of the code, you are stuck and have to reject the OP's spiral stair.

In this AHJ, for an R3 occupancy, we would accept an alternative design that meets the life safety requirements of the code.

God help you if you want to install an 18" wide door (a minor inconvenience but permitted by the code) to a dining room without a MOE window, and decide to gorge yourself on "chocolate covered cherry sugar bombs" (bonus points for reference) for a week until you reach the point you can no longer get out.
 
I really am an equal opportunity arguer and feel it only fair to say that I would have no problem arguing the case for the not stair if it wasn’t so much like a stair. The reasons for stair regulations are well stated and have been seen in more than one post before and this thing is unsafe because people will treat it like a stair and be less careful than they would if they were trying to navigate a non-stair.
 
permitguy said:
Funny how nobody is willing to argue the case for allowing the laundry list of issues I posted before. I guess this "ignoring requirements" phenomena is exclusive to stairways?
Click to expand...
I have been playing the opposite game with you all day, funny how you don't think a room with an 18" wide door way and fixed windows in not a life safety issue either, but perfectly acceptable by the code.

What we have here is is a failure to communicate (and convince the other of our position)...and it stems from you looking at the code from a literal strict adherence to the letter of the code, and others looking at if from a perspective that views the code as a document open to reasonable interpretation. Both perspectives are legitimate, just not preferred. And just as you may view my doorway example as an unreasonable application of the code, I also view your laundry list as unreasonable.
 
I did not argue on the door senario because we amended the code: 2'6" for passageway doors and 2'4" for bathrooms
 
funny how you don't think a room with an 18" wide door way and fixed windows in not a life safety issue either, but perfectly acceptable by the code.
Click to expand...
The argument is self-limiting. If I can't get in, then I don't have to worry about getting out. The "gaining weight during occupancy" argument is cute, but could be made for a 32" clear width door as well.

it stems from you looking at the code from a literal strict adherence to the letter of the code, and others looking at if from a perspective that views the code as a document open to reasonable interpretation.
Click to expand...
There is quite a difference between ignoring requirements and considering intent when applying the code. I'm all for applying intent in this (or any) case. The intent here is that all stairways are built to minimum standards so the occupants who use them on a daily basis can do so safely. It isn't just about egress. If it were, we wouldn't have requirements for handrail returns at the bottom of a stairway.

When the only argument is that "we have a compliant one right over there," then there is little difference between ignoring stair requirements and ignoring any of the requirements I posted above.

Both sides are presented here. I'm fine leaving it at that. More than anything, I don't want someone to find this thread in the future and think there was consensus that "extra" stairs don't have to meet code.
 
gbhammer said:
I did not argue on the door senario because we amended the code: 2'6" for passageway doors and 2'4" for bathrooms
Click to expand...
well let's try something we can all argue, assuming there are no local amendments: The OP states, eventually, that there is one compliant MOE stair provided from the second level. Which of the following are acceptable, additional code compliant installations:

1) 8:9 rise run spiral stair with open risers and 5" spacing between balusters.

2) Fire pole with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.

3) Mounted ladder with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.

4) Slide with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.

5) Diving board with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.

6) Climbing rope with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
well let's try something we can all argue, assuming there are no local amendments: The OP states, eventually, that there is one compliant MOE stair provided from the second level. Which of the following are acceptable, additional code compliant installations:1) 8:9 rise run spiral stair with open risers and 5" spacing between balusters.

2) Fire pole with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.

3) Mounted ladder with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.

4) Slide with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.

5) Diving board with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.

6) Climbing rope with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.
Click to expand...
Don't leave out the EERO opening adjacent to the top of the spiral stair with the concrete landing pad at ground level, embedded spikes optional.

Bill
 
I knew I was forgetting something.

7) EERO opening adjacent to the top of the spiral stair with the concrete landing pad at ground level, embedded spikes optional.
 
2 through 7 sound doable. The only improvement I can think of is to add an alligator and if nothing happens, toss in a tiger.
 
Stairs have treads which is what you step on with the front of the foot while climbing or descending

Ladders have rungs which is usually a rod or bar that require the middle of the foot to climb or descend
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top