Stair landings and office politics

[codemonkey]

Hi all, long time lurker, first time poster. I'd love to get anyone's take/advice on how you'd handle a situation with code compliance. I'm new to an office and was asked to help do some field reports for a project far along in CA. I was specifically asked to check the stairs and found one to have landings that were not compliant per Georgia's NFPA 101 7.2.2.3.2.2, stairs and intermediate landings shall continue with no decrease in width along the direction of egress travel. I flagged it along with a number of other deficiencies/observations and moved on with my life (though I admit this issue would be a big cost to fix compared to other items). The construction arm of the business (same firm) first spent a couple weeks under the tact that I must be measuring wrong. Shops had the landing dimensions from inside of stringer to edge of nosing to equal stair width (inside of stringer to inside of stringer.) I've always measured it from wall to inside of guardrail, but I could see inside of stringer to inside of stringer as long as you were consistent with both the stair width and landing measurement.
Q1) how do you guys measure the stairs/landing widths?
Well, eventually everyone seemed to get on the same page and I thought this would go away. Then I got an email from the Arch-side project manager as an FYI forwarding a city office of buildings code official response that I quote:

The below is an elaboration to the stair landing requirements & clarification we discussed this morning & follow up photo documentation.
Although LSC 7.2.2.3.2.4 (cited below) includes the provision that the 48” max dimension in the direction of egress travel is applicable “provided the s the stair has a straight run”, the IBC has no such restriction.
The IBC states, “Every landing shall have a minimum depth (sic) equal to the width of the stairway or 48” whichever is less”.
In this case, the IBC shall prevail due to the rationale spelled out in our discussion.

NFPA-101 (LSC), 7.2.2.3.2.2
Stairs and intermediate landings shall continue with no decrease in width along the direction of egress travel.

7.2.2.3.2.3
In new buildings, every landing shall have a dimension, measured in the direction of travel, that is not less than the width of the stair.

7.2.2.3.2.4
Landings shall not be required to exceed 48 in. (1220 mm) in the direction of travel, provided that the stair has a straight run.

IBC, 1011.6 Stairway Landings
There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway. The width of landings, measured perpendicularly to the direction of travel, shall be not less than the width of stairways served. Every landing shall have a minimum depth, measured parallel to the direction of travel, equal to the width of the stairway or 48 inches (1219 mm), whichever is less. Doors opening onto a landing shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half the required width. When fully open, the door shall not project more than 7 inches (178 mm) into a landing. Where wheelchair spaces are required on the stairway landing in accordance with Section 1009.6.3, the wheelchair space shall not be located in the required width of the landing and doors shall not swing over the wheelchair spaces.
.
.
I am not sure who was in on the conversations above but I have the following issues:
1) IBC is trumped by NFPA in Georgia for egress concerns to my understanding
2) both IBC and NFPA match anyway, landing widths should be the width of the stair, minimum
3) the code official seems to have been confused/misled into understanding the problem as a depth of stair issue and is referencing that part of the code instead of the width of stair
4) Everyone on arch and construction seem to be satisfied with the above email to put the issue to bed without addressing the landings, which if measured either from inside of string to inside of stringer or from wall to inside of guardrail, are less wide than the stairs they serve
Q2) How would have any of you proceeded in situations like these? I feel like if I don't want to drop this, my next step would either be 1) escalate to corporate HQ in-house since the PM is regional level leadership, 2) go to the OoB AHJ official (dep. chief) and point out his errors verbally and see if he wants to address it again, or 3) file something with the fire marshal so that when they do their Cert of Occ inspections they know to catch/flag it

 

[Jay Smith]

In my experiences in Atlanta, the code officials were clear that for egress the state code of Georgia follows NFPA 101 (LSC), not IBC. It’s documented in a table on page 3 of the amendment.

Are you referring to the intermediate landing of a switchback stair?

 

[bill1952]

From the perspective of a retired designer, just take it as far as you can in your company. And if they ignore you and you're right, don't even think about saying I told you so in any manner.

I'll leave the details to others but did you allow for the projections into required width allowed under the handrail?

 

[RLGA]

The measurement of stairway width in NFPA 101 is not unlike that in the IBC. It is measured above the handrail with anything below not projecting more than 4-1/2 inches.

Thus, you take your tape measure and start at 4-1/2 inches from the stair-side face of the handrail, or wall, or guard, whichever is less, and go across to the other side 4-1/2 inches beyond the stair-side face of the handrail, or to the wall or guard, whichever is less. That is the egress width of your stair.

 

[tbz]

codemonkey,

welcome to deep end with finally posting on the forum,

As to your question, I would like to see a plan view of the area in question before commenting, only because though I think I am following, I keep getting lost by word 300 or so.... as to were the reduction in width is taking place?

As RLGA has noted in the post above, I will note much simpler way of explaining it than I normally do, forget about what's under the handrails, as long as, they don't encroach inward past the inside vertical line of the handrails.

Compare that width with the landings and make the call.

So with that said back to location, are we talking about the mid-landing between flights that has no "Door" entering it?

And, are you talking about the width once turning 90 degrees changing the direction?

 

[Yikes]

I'm new to an office and was asked to help do some field reports for a project far along in CA.

Just to be absolutely certain: you meant Georgia (GA), not California (CA), right?

 

[codemonkey]

yes, Georgia/Atlanta, yes an intermediate landing (so no door encroachment), handrails are standard 1 1/4" diameter with 2 1/4 clear, so 4" total encroachment, guardrail is welded directly on top of stringer, such that starting your tape at inside of stringer or inside of guardrail is the same thing. See attachment for stair diagram. The blue dimension to nosing is what was approved in the stair shops.
The office of buildings deputy chief is saying it's not a problem because::: The IBC states, “Every landing shall have a minimum depth (sic) equal to the width of the stairway or 48” whichever is less”. I'm quoting his email verbatim, not sure what he meant by (sic) or what was discussed on site.
@jaysmith yes, it's been my understanding that NFPA trumps too, and yes I did share the amendment table already

 

[codemonkey]

@tbz if I'm following you, I would need to measure between handrails on the stairs and from handrail to wall at landings, which would gain me 3 1/2" on the landing, still not enough, but interesting none the less.

 

[RLGA]

@tbz if I'm following you, I would need to measure between handrails on the stairs and from handrail to wall at landings, which would gain me 3 1/2" on the landing, still not enough, but interesting none the less.

You can add 4-1/2 inches measured from the stair-side of the handrail to the outside or to the guard if that dimension is less than 4-1/2 inches.

 

[Jay Smith]

The architect and the construction team seem to think that the 3rd sentence of 1011.6 supersedes the 2nd sentence. That’s not so. The 3rd sentence requires a measurement in the direction of travel. The 2nd sentence requires a measurement of the egress width. The built condition violates the egress width requirement by reducing it from 59 inches to 54.

 

[tmurray]

Assuming you are right, the question I have is; what is your job?

Is it to simply identify deficiencies, or is it to ensure they are corrected?

All you need to do is your job.

As a code official, not every code deficiency I detect always needs mitigated. I need to take into account the likelihood of harm, the gravity of harm, and the cost of repair. However, only the code official can make this call. I only point it out so you understand that the code official might agree with you that it is a violation, but they may feel it is not necessary to remediate based on the risk and cost to repair.

 

[codemonkey]

@tmurray I guess I was sort of hoping for a response from the AHJ saying something like "yes, the widths are off and that doesn't meet code, but we've looked at the occupancies going down the stair and it doesn't constitute a life-safety risk, everyone will still make it out even with the small choke points at the intermediate landings." That would definitely be a nice piece of paper for our legal/insurance department. What I didn't expect was misquoted code (depth in path of travel as Jay Smith mentions) from IBC instead of NFPA. Questions about my role are interesting, though in my mind irrelevant at some level. I'd like to think if a structural PE was working on renovating a bridge, he would not overlook a structural deficiency. I would hope my doctors did not ignore some sign of underlying conditions for my health at a checkup. Specifically, I'm registered and have a lot of contract administration experience. I was hired at a firm that needs some help in CA and have been having QC/QA issues. I was specifically asked to walk the stairs and find deficiencies. It's not my project, I'm not the PM. I have been considering refusing to walk other PMs projects under a "I should really stay in my lane - you don't want me looking for things I may find" pitch to the leadership, even though that sort of defeats an aspect of why I was recently hired.

 

[tbz]

Specifically, I'm registered and have a lot of contract administration experience. I was hired at a firm that needs some help in CA and have been having QC/QA issues. I was specifically asked to walk the stairs and find deficiencies. It's not my project, I'm not the PM. I have been considering refusing to walk other PMs projects under a "I should really stay in my lane - you don't want me looking for things I may find" pitch to the leadership, even though that sort of defeats an aspect of why I was recently hired.

Based on your noted position, from where I sit, your pointed it out and did your job, file it and move on, it's someone else's mess.

I do the same thing in my current position, asked to review for compliance, from the firm side (my Client). Many of times they don't like what I see, but they got my notes, if asked, see my notes.

I still to this day have an issue with an AHJ who adopt and amend code and standards to be followed and don't provide the plan reviewers and inspectors basic knowledge of this widely known difference between the 2 adopted codes. This is not something new.

This is a common LSC issue, along with the 2 1/4" handrail clearance that are still missed when reviewers only look at IBC.

As to the plans, that's a whole other topic, but let's look at the realistic side of the topic at question, what is the required minimum width?

If the required minimum width is 52" or less, the smallest dimension, putting in monumental or oversized stair widths, is it really an issue of safety?

Let's look at a gathering room with exits, the masses are always required to narrow down at some point, and that point is most likely the minimum needed, not oversized.

As thus here in lies the question, is this point any different or is it creating a safety hazard?

 

[tbz]

One other quick note, having seen this issue before, more times than I can count, or understand why it keeps happening long after adoption.

The fix of 3-inches has been done by cutting the guard to shift the top portion of the guard and handrail only on the mid-landing at a point 3-inches under the handrail, and move that portion with the handrail only, not the entire guard.

Since it is a stair tower, and the same issue on each mid-landing, the fabricator can make up these small sections in the shop and come out and field splice them in, as they are normally pretty much all the same.

Seen this done more times than I would like to remember, can it be costly, yes, but the last time I checked after getting a high school education, normally everything after that comes with a price tag.

If required to be changed, IMO, all that missed it should contribute to the education fund, not just one entity, thus lesson hopefully learned.

But then again, if degrees were issued by what you paid for learning the hard way, what's above a PHD?

 

[Jay Smith]

If I were in @codemonkey ’s shoes, no way I’d just write it down and move on. This was an internal assignment to check stairs, assigned to someone hired based at least partially on a desire for better QC. It’s an opportunity and maybe even an implied responsibility to teach the company about the code.

 

[Beniah Naylor]

Do your job well, and document your efforts well, especially including the people that you notified, so that you are not blamed later. Email is the easiest way to do this. If they keep ignoring you as issues come up, you may consider whether you want to keep working for them. The main thing is not to become a rubber stamp for things that are wrong.

If you don't work for the fire marshal, I would hesitate to tip them off unless you think doing so would save someone from death or injury. I would, however, encourage the people you work for to contact the FM and make sure that he signs off on it as well - and I would do so in writing. That will, at least, minimize the delay to the project if the FM doesn't like it. If they don't, again, you have proof that you tried.

 

[tmurray]

@tmurray I guess I was sort of hoping for a response from the AHJ saying something like "yes, the widths are off and that doesn't meet code, but we've looked at the occupancies going down the stair and it doesn't constitute a life-safety risk, everyone will still make it out even with the small choke points at the intermediate landings." That would definitely be a nice piece of paper for our legal/insurance department. What I didn't expect was misquoted code (depth in path of travel as Jay Smith mentions) from IBC instead of NFPA. Questions about my role are interesting, though in my mind irrelevant at some level. I'd like to think if a structural PE was working on renovating a bridge, he would not overlook a structural deficiency. I would hope my doctors did not ignore some sign of underlying conditions for my health at a checkup. Specifically, I'm registered and have a lot of contract administration experience. I was hired at a firm that needs some help in CA and have been having QC/QA issues. I was specifically asked to walk the stairs and find deficiencies. It's not my project, I'm not the PM. I have been considering refusing to walk other PMs projects under a "I should really stay in my lane - you don't want me looking for things I may find" pitch to the leadership, even though that sort of defeats an aspect of why I was recently hired.

Yes, and if you were building in my jurisdiction, you would get it. I need to justify why I am letting it go because where I am there is no statutory immunity and my department can get sued.

I'm not sure I agree with the parallels that you use about the PE and the doctor. If you did not advise you detected deficiencies, I would agree, but that does not appear to be the case. This is more like a doctor telling a patient they should stop smoking and the patient not following their advice.

 

[codemonkey]

I appreciate everyone's input. There's been some email back and forth, but I'll definitely put everything together and figure out who should be cc'd over this weekend. Happy Memorial Day everyone, enjoy the long weekend.