-
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.
railing at guard side of stairs
- Thread starter rktect 1
- Start date
fatboy
Administrator
What is the occupancy? Application?
Assuming IBC because of the 42" guards, and not having book in front of me, most likely extensions would be required. Can't think of why they wouldn't be.
Why are you looking at an existing installation for new code requirements? Just curious.........
Assuming IBC because of the 42" guards, and not having book in front of me, most likely extensions would be required. Can't think of why they wouldn't be.
Why are you looking at an existing installation for new code requirements? Just curious.........
Lets just say it is built already.
The use is actually a 2nd floor dance floor area for a young adults in a recreation facility (bowling, arcade, lazer tag, restaurant, bar, etc.) which empties onto the first floor level dance area including bar area. It's an A-2/A-3 building. I have talked with some people who beleive they can wrap handrails with no extensions but I don't think that is how the code reads. The commentary does show some wrapped interior railings but not the condition I am showing. And looking at most of the conditions that match our problem area I can tell you that most of these single flight stair cases tend to wrap the ends on one side while the other has the extensions. Why? I dunno.
The use is actually a 2nd floor dance floor area for a young adults in a recreation facility (bowling, arcade, lazer tag, restaurant, bar, etc.) which empties onto the first floor level dance area including bar area. It's an A-2/A-3 building. I have talked with some people who beleive they can wrap handrails with no extensions but I don't think that is how the code reads. The commentary does show some wrapped interior railings but not the condition I am showing. And looking at most of the conditions that match our problem area I can tell you that most of these single flight stair cases tend to wrap the ends on one side while the other has the extensions. Why? I dunno.
fatboy
Administrator
Extensions would be required. If the stairs were to continue on to a 3rd floor, then the interior rail could be continous, then not requiring the "extension'. But other than that, a 12" extension must be provided in some fashion.
So they could put up another section of 42" high wall at the top and bottom and install the railing, with 1 tread sloping and ADA extension of another 12 inch horizontal or just those extensions with no half walls returning in some manner back, right?
Ok, so would you then wrap in just around the corner or to a point 12 inches or one tread depth from the bottom and top riser? Kinda ignore the extra 12 inch horizontal accessibility requirement on that side at the bottom.brudgers said:
fatboy
Administrator
You need the 12" in some fashion, could be one of the two ways you mentioned above, or what brudgers has suggested. You still are horizontal, it could be at 90 degrees or in line with, as long as you have the 12" for one to clear the top or bottom tread.
Plans Approver
Silver Member
IMO the handrail only needs to return to the wall to prevent clothing, purses, etc. from being hung up on the ends. A literal reading of 2006 IBC 1012.5 doesn't require extensions at either the top or bottom because your condition does not have "between flights" of stairs.
1012.5 Handrails shall return to a wall, guard or the walking surface or shall be continuous to the handrail of an adjacent stair flight or ramp run. At stairways where handrails are not continuous between flights, the handrails shall extend horizontally at least 12 inches beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser.
On the other hand, ADAAG does not discriminate between flights and a single flight. 12" at the top and 12" + tread at bottom. But, seems to imply the same thing, "(1) Handrails shall be continuous along both sides of stairs..." and "(2) If handrails are not continuous..." (ADAAG 4.9.4(1) & (2). Unless you look at the figures, then you become confused.
1012.5 Handrails shall return to a wall, guard or the walking surface or shall be continuous to the handrail of an adjacent stair flight or ramp run. At stairways where handrails are not continuous between flights, the handrails shall extend horizontally at least 12 inches beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser.
On the other hand, ADAAG does not discriminate between flights and a single flight. 12" at the top and 12" + tread at bottom. But, seems to imply the same thing, "(1) Handrails shall be continuous along both sides of stairs..." and "(2) If handrails are not continuous..." (ADAAG 4.9.4(1) & (2). Unless you look at the figures, then you become confused.
JBI
REGISTERED
I'm with Plans Approver (I checked the 2009 IBC also, same language...).
fatboy
Administrator
PA, John, I have to disagree with your opinion (if I'm reading it right) that in a single run of stairs (stairway), the 12" extension in not required.
At stairways where handrails are not continuous between flights, the handrails shall extend horizontally at least 12 inches beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser.
To me this is saying that if the continuous condition does not exist, as in a typical multiple flight stair handrail configuration, that extensions are required. Not that multiple flights drive the requirement. FWIW, the commentary backs this up. JMHO
At stairways where handrails are not continuous between flights, the handrails shall extend horizontally at least 12 inches beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser.
To me this is saying that if the continuous condition does not exist, as in a typical multiple flight stair handrail configuration, that extensions are required. Not that multiple flights drive the requirement. FWIW, the commentary backs this up. JMHO
Paul Sweet
SAWHORSE
Extensions are required at top and bottom, unless such extensions would be hazardous due to plan configuration.
Current codes (IBC, ANSI A117.1 & 2004 ADAAG) only require the bottom extension to continue at a slope for the width of a tread. However, you could still be sued under ADA (which officially still uses the original 1991 ADAAG) for not having the horizontal extension.
The top extension should continue straight, in line with the direction of travel to the stairs, but some building officials will allow it to be turned back to the left where the guard turns.
Current codes (IBC, ANSI A117.1 & 2004 ADAAG) only require the bottom extension to continue at a slope for the width of a tread. However, you could still be sued under ADA (which officially still uses the original 1991 ADAAG) for not having the horizontal extension.
The top extension should continue straight, in line with the direction of travel to the stairs, but some building officials will allow it to be turned back to the left where the guard turns.
Early on, we got an interpretation from ICBO that extensions could turn, but they later reversed their opinion and said that they must be in the direction of the stair. IIRC that may have had to do with a lawsuit. Considering that stairs are the second leading cause of accidents leading to hospitalization in this country, I think that it is incumbent on us to make them as safe as possible. A turned extension offers no help in going up or down a stair unless the stair wraps around the corner. The designer, in this case could move the stair back to accomodate a straight extension, it just costs a little more room.