I have a project where we have a 46" wide exterior stair that has to be part of the accessible means of egress. Per CA Building Code 1009.4, stairs must be min. 44" so that is fine. Per CA Building Code 1007.3, for an accessible means of egress, you must have 48" min. between handrails but there is an exception for fully sprinklered buildings. The plans were approved with the 46" dimension since we have a sprinklered building, but now after it is built, the inspector is saying since the stair itself is exterior and not sprinkled, we cannot use this exception and the 48" between handrails is required. Any input on precedents here for this interpretation? It seems that the exception states that the building must be fully sprinklered not necessarily the stair... Any input?
Inspector is being an obstructionist idiot. 1027.6 lays out the requirements for protecting Exterior Exit Stairways. S/He's trying to tie two letter-of-the-code requirements together without using his/her brain to gauge whether the level of protection is sufficient. The code is a minimum written by fallible humans.
Hire a fire protection engineer for the hour or so (plus liability) to write you an AMMC (104.11) if it comes to that.
If the inspector is going to read the code so narrowly, then "in order to be considered part of an accessible means of egress, a stairway between stories shall have a clear width of 48 inches"; does this stair communicate between stories?
Also, it would seem that when you take exceptions 3 and 5 into account, and construct a narrative, their argument falls apart.
We don't have a roof or cover over the stair itself, so I'm not sure how we could add sprinklers at this point. Unless they were in the wall of the building and sprayed out somehow.
Mar 23, 17 2:53 pm ·
·
tduds
In Oregon our exterior stairs are naturally sprinklered.
Inspector is there to inspect that things are built per approved plans. How does the inspector know what the agreement was between the building department and you as a professional. Code is not always black and white. I'd reach out to the plans examiner and discuss it with him and not the inspector.
I'd reach out to ICC and get their interpretation if the plans examiner agrees with the inspector.
Personally if the fire suppression is installed per NFPA, the building is sprinklered and it does not say the stairs have to be sprinklered, then you are good.
How can you have 48" between handrails on a 44" or 46" stair? Makes no sense. The handrails would hang out 2" beyond the edge of the stair. That's wide enough to get your foot caught.
Sprinkling an exterior stair is also bizarre. Do they want people slipping on the steps as they frantically exit the building?
Mar 23, 17 4:59 pm ·
·
bowling_ball
This is exactly the kind of nonsense I fight with the authorities about, every single day. Not a brain cell between the lot of 'em.
Geezer, my recommendation for ext sprinklers was not literal... Although I find the Option hilarious.
Mar 23, 17 5:25 pm ·
·
geezertect
NS, the post seems to sound like the inspector is saying that sprinklered stairs would allow the OP to use the smaller dimension. Maybe it shows how ridiculous the code is getting that I didn't pick up on the joke--when you're talking about California anything seems possible.
Mar 23, 17 7:21 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Come on now, geezer, that extra foot at the bottom of the stairs paid for many a contractor's summer home.
Inspector is being an obstructionist idiot. 1027.6 lays out the requirements for protecting Exterior Exit Stairways. S/He's trying to tie two letter-of-the-code requirements together without using his/her brain to gauge whether the level of protection is sufficient. The code is a minimum written by fallible humans.
Hire a fire protection engineer for the hour or so (plus liability) to write you an AMMC (104.11) if it comes to that.
If the inspector is going to read the code so narrowly, then "in order to be considered part of an accessible means of egress, a stairway between stories shall have a clear width of 48 inches"; does this stair communicate between stories?
Also, it would seem that when you take exceptions 3 and 5 into account, and construct a narrative, their argument falls apart.
Hello, I am new to the platform/stair design world. I am trying to design a family of IBC compliant stairs. Range is every 7 inches. By code, 4in min to 7in max for risers, 3/8 between min and max. Is possible to design 1 stringer with a hole pattern that can be used between a range. Example, If I have 5 tread stair with a range of 35 - 42, the 42 TOD would have each tread at 7in. but if you use that same stringer with a TOD of 35, then the treads will go out of the 3/8 tolerance between min and max. Does anyone know how to design a Stringer that would work. Also need to have 11in min tread length, nose to nose of tread. If anyone could help it would be greatly appreciated. Been working on this for the last month and the 4 tread to 10 tread range is driving me crazy. Thanks
I use Autodesk Inventor. I have been able to create Stringers for Treads 10 to 20. 4 to 9 are giving problems. I can send a model if that would help. Trying to avoid creating a custom stinger for every TOD within a range. Trying to create 1 stringer that will work over the entire range.
Sep 28, 17 5:41 pm ·
·
gilzuckie
This is what our stair looks like. Its not for residential. We also use Autocad Mechanical. not helpful for this.
This stair works great 42 TOD, but not at 35.
Also needs to able to sit on floor and pivot from that point.
Sep 28, 17 6:05 pm ·
·
gilzuckie
Sent reply to connect@archinect.com attached pictures. Can you attach pictures here.
This is what our stair looks like. Its not for residential. We also use Autocad Mechanical. not helpful for this. This stair works great 42 TOD, but not at 35. Also needs to able to sit on floor and pivot from that point.
Well, I think my question is a simple one for somebody that designs IBC stairs. Do you use 1 stringer design (same hole punch pattern) for the 7in height range (35 to 42 5 Tread stair) or would you have 1 stringer design for each TOD. So you would have 8 different stringer designs for each range. In total you would have 123 different designs so that all stairs meet code. Would really like to talk to somebody that actually designs IBC stairs and knows the ins and outs.
Sep 29, 17 1:02 pm ·
·
JLC-1
each stringer has its own slope if that's what you are asking, because of the different floor to floor dimensions, so the pre-drill for the treads is different, but all the treads are the same - what is TOD?
Sep 29, 17 1:04 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
IBC does not meet code in my area.
Sep 29, 17 1:27 pm ·
·
JLC-1
can you say what is it? riser height, openings, guards, handrail?
Sep 29, 17 1:35 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
I believe our min and max for stairs are different as well as picket spacing and orientation. Open risers are difficult as well. Don't have
my code on hand to verify thou... but I can assure you that section in your previous post, even though it looks good, would not pass even the most junior of city employees in my area.
Sep 29, 17 1:42 pm ·
·
JLC-1
thanks, not planning on building anything in canada soon. and if I do, I always follow the codes.
Sep 29, 17 1:44 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
No worries... but a decent chuck of our business is fixing permit docs done by Americans who could not bother read our codes.
Sep 29, 17 1:47 pm ·
·
JLC-1
anecdotally, our local codes don't override IBC, but are quite stringent on zoning regulations, everybody wants to build a lot more than they are allowed.
JLC-1, Yes, that helps a lot. I have looked at fsindustries. To clarify, I am able to create a stringer for each TOD. My boss wants to use 1 stringer for the 7in range. Would love to talk to a designer from either Steel Solutions, Ladder Industires of Wildeck. That would help immensely. Thanks JLC-1 for the response, TOD changes from job to job. On the larger stairs, 12 to 20 tread, you are able to use 1 pre-drilled hole pattern to cover range. pushes the 3/8 tolerance to the limit, but works, but still have a issue at the MAX of each range using 1 hole pattern. Need to convince my boss to use a custom stringer for each TOD is needed. Would solve a lot of problems. Almosthip7, those railings do meet code, IBC and CBC.
Sep 29, 17 1:47 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Gilz... there is no such thing as CBC and Almosthip is correct, that stair example you showed does not meet current Canadian building codes.
Sep 29, 17 1:55 pm ·
·
gilzuckie
CBC - California Building Code.
Sep 29, 17 1:58 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
fair enough, although Almosthihp7 did not reference california.
Sep 29, 17 1:59 pm ·
·
gilzuckie
David Curtis, FUCK OFF
Sep 29, 17 3:50 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Dude... perhaps you should take a clue. We are not here to do your work, specially not for free.
Sep 29, 17 3:58 pm ·
·
gilzuckie
Dude, was asking or wanting anyone to do my work. Was trying to ask a simple question. Can 1 stringer be designed for the range or does is it need 1 for each TOD. Seems like this forum is all about money and not helping.
Sep 29, 17 4:03 pm ·
·
gilzuckie
Sorry, was not asking
\
Sep 29, 17 4:03 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Certainly a stringer can be designed as such, but I'm not going to sit down and help you do your job. I have plenty more important things on my plate. Seems like a waste of time honestly to design one element that suits only the bare minimum code reqs. It enforces bare minimum design plus, it's probably much easier to just use traditional stringers and bolt whatever you need to suit the conditions.
Sep 29, 17 4:07 pm ·
·
gilzuckie
True, I can design a stringer
for whatever situation. Designing 1 per TOD is not a challenge. My goal was trying to design 1 stringer for a range. It would make production in our shop simpler, avoid the wrong stringer being made and shipped across the country or across the world and if the TOD changed for whatever reason and it has in the past then the stringer shipped would still work and be within code and not rejected by an inspector.
You need to standardize a floor to floor height, and design your stringer around that. what's your standard floor to floor?
j;c-1 - i realize it is late on a friday, but the second example you posted above doesn't seem to have the right handrail extensions. it might be that I need to switch from IPAs to pilsners though...
arch76 - we don't have a standard floor to floor. The platforms that we build for customers can vary from 29" TOD to 144". Whatever the customer wants. Even our switchback stairs can change TOD between floors.First level can use a 8 tread, second and third level could use a 9 tread and then the fourth level can use a 8 tread.
JC-1 - Handrails in the example are not that stair height, but they correct to pass code. The final handrail extension for that height would be bent to be horizontal. But they do extend at the bottom and top to the proper length per IBC and CBC code. And they are in the proper range of height.
Sep 30, 17 2:06 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Exterior Stair as Accessible Means of Egress Code Question
I have a project where we have a 46" wide exterior stair that has to be part of the accessible means of egress. Per CA Building Code 1009.4, stairs must be min. 44" so that is fine. Per CA Building Code 1007.3, for an accessible means of egress, you must have 48" min. between handrails but there is an exception for fully sprinklered buildings. The plans were approved with the 46" dimension since we have a sprinklered building, but now after it is built, the inspector is saying since the stair itself is exterior and not sprinkled, we cannot use this exception and the 48" between handrails is required. Any input on precedents here for this interpretation? It seems that the exception states that the building must be fully sprinklered not necessarily the stair... Any input?
2 Featured Comments
Inspector is being an obstructionist idiot. 1027.6 lays out the requirements for protecting Exterior Exit Stairways. S/He's trying to tie two letter-of-the-code requirements together without using his/her brain to gauge whether the level of protection is sufficient. The code is a minimum written by fallible humans.
Hire a fire protection engineer for the hour or so (plus liability) to write you an AMMC (104.11) if it comes to that.
If the inspector is going to read the code so narrowly, then "in order to be considered part of an accessible means of egress, a stairway between stories shall have a clear width of 48 inches"; does this stair communicate between stories?
Also, it would seem that when you take exceptions 3 and 5 into account, and construct a narrative, their argument falls apart.
All 17 Comments
Have you considered sprinklering the exterior?
We don't have a roof or cover over the stair itself, so I'm not sure how we could add sprinklers at this point. Unless they were in the wall of the building and sprayed out somehow.
In Oregon our exterior stairs are naturally sprinklered.
Inspector is there to inspect that things are built per approved plans. How does the inspector know what the agreement was between the building department and you as a professional. Code is not always black and white. I'd reach out to the plans examiner and discuss it with him and not the inspector.
I'd reach out to ICC and get their interpretation if the plans examiner agrees with the inspector.
Personally if the fire suppression is installed per NFPA, the building is sprinklered and it does not say the stairs have to be sprinklered, then you are good.
How can you have 48" between handrails on a 44" or 46" stair? Makes no sense. The handrails would hang out 2" beyond the edge of the stair. That's wide enough to get your foot caught.
Sprinkling an exterior stair is also bizarre. Do they want people slipping on the steps as they frantically exit the building?
This is exactly the kind of nonsense I fight with the authorities about, every single day. Not a brain cell between the lot of 'em.
NS, the post seems to sound like the inspector is saying that sprinklered stairs would allow the OP to use the smaller dimension. Maybe it shows how ridiculous the code is getting that I didn't pick up on the joke--when you're talking about California anything seems possible.
Come on now, geezer, that extra foot at the bottom of the stairs paid for many a contractor's summer home.
Inspector is being an obstructionist idiot. 1027.6 lays out the requirements for protecting Exterior Exit Stairways. S/He's trying to tie two letter-of-the-code requirements together without using his/her brain to gauge whether the level of protection is sufficient. The code is a minimum written by fallible humans.
Hire a fire protection engineer for the hour or so (plus liability) to write you an AMMC (104.11) if it comes to that.
a drawing would be helpful for some context.
If the inspector is going to read the code so narrowly, then "in order to be considered part of an accessible means of egress, a stairway between stories shall have a clear width of 48 inches"; does this stair communicate between stories?
Also, it would seem that when you take exceptions 3 and 5 into account, and construct a narrative, their argument falls apart.
I'd offer that the best precedents to choose among in this case are bullet, knife, and garrote.
Hello, I am new to the platform/stair design world. I am trying to design a family of IBC compliant stairs. Range is every 7 inches. By code, 4in min to 7in max for risers, 3/8 between min and max. Is possible to design 1 stringer with a hole pattern that can be used between a range. Example, If I have 5 tread stair with a range of 35 - 42, the 42 TOD would have each tread at 7in. but if you use that same stringer with a TOD of 35, then the treads will go out of the 3/8 tolerance between min and max. Does anyone know how to design a Stringer that would work. Also need to have 11in min tread length, nose to nose of tread. If anyone could help it would be greatly appreciated. Been working on this for the last month and the 4 tread to 10 tread range is driving me crazy. Thanks
I use Autodesk Inventor. I have been able to create Stringers for Treads 10 to 20. 4 to 9 are giving problems. I can send a model if that would help. Trying to avoid creating a custom stinger for every TOD within a range. Trying to create 1 stringer that will work over the entire range.
This is what our stair looks like. Its not for residential. We also use Autocad Mechanical. not helpful for this. This stair works great 42 TOD, but not at 35. Also needs to able to sit on floor and pivot from that point.
Sent reply to connect@archinect.com attached pictures. Can you attach pictures here.
This is what our stair looks like. Its not for residential. We also use Autocad Mechanical. not helpful for this. This stair works great 42 TOD, but not at 35. Also needs to able to sit on floor and pivot from that point.
Well, I think my question is a simple one for somebody that designs IBC stairs. Do you use 1 stringer design (same hole punch pattern) for the 7in height range (35 to 42 5 Tread stair) or would you have 1 stringer design for each TOD. So you would have 8 different stringer designs for each range. In total you would have 123 different designs so that all stairs meet code. Would really like to talk to somebody that actually designs IBC stairs and knows the ins and outs.
each stringer has its own slope if that's what you are asking, because of the different floor to floor dimensions, so the pre-drill for the treads is different, but all the treads are the same - what is TOD?
IBC does not meet code in my area.
can you say what is it? riser height, openings, guards, handrail?
I believe our min and max for stairs are different as well as picket spacing and orientation. Open risers are difficult as well. Don't have my code on hand to verify thou... but I can assure you that section in your previous post, even though it looks good, would not pass even the most junior of city employees in my area.
thanks, not planning on building anything in canada soon. and if I do, I always follow the codes.
No worries... but a decent chuck of our business is fixing permit docs done by Americans who could not bother read our codes.
anecdotally, our local codes don't override IBC, but are quite stringent on zoning regulations, everybody wants to build a lot more than they are allowed.
http://www.fsindustries.com/mo...
look at that and figure it, I'm out.
JLC-1, Yes, that helps a lot. I have looked at fsindustries. To clarify, I am able to create a stringer for each TOD. My boss wants to use 1 stringer for the 7in range. Would love to talk to a designer from either Steel Solutions, Ladder Industires of Wildeck. That would help immensely. Thanks JLC-1 for the response, TOD changes from job to job. On the larger stairs, 12 to 20 tread, you are able to use 1 pre-drilled hole pattern to cover range. pushes the 3/8 tolerance to the limit, but works, but still have a issue at the MAX of each range using 1 hole pattern. Need to convince my boss to use a custom stringer for each TOD is needed. Would solve a lot of problems. Almosthip7, those railings do meet code, IBC and CBC.
Gilz... there is no such thing as CBC and Almosthip is correct, that stair example you showed does not meet current Canadian building codes.
CBC - California Building Code.
fair enough, although Almosthihp7 did not reference california.
David Curtis, FUCK OFF
Dude... perhaps you should take a clue. We are not here to do your work, specially not for free.
Dude, was asking or wanting anyone to do my work. Was trying to ask a simple question. Can 1 stringer be designed for the range or does is it need 1 for each TOD. Seems like this forum is all about money and not helping.
Sorry, was not asking \
Certainly a stringer can be designed as such, but I'm not going to sit down and help you do your job. I have plenty more important things on my plate. Seems like a waste of time honestly to design one element that suits only the bare minimum code reqs. It enforces bare minimum design plus, it's probably much easier to just use traditional stringers and bolt whatever you need to suit the conditions.
True, I can design a stringer for whatever situation. Designing 1 per TOD is not a challenge. My goal was trying to design 1 stringer for a range. It would make production in our shop simpler, avoid the wrong stringer being made and shipped across the country or across the world and if the TOD changed for whatever reason and it has in the past then the stringer shipped would still work and be within code and not rejected by an inspector.
You need to standardize a floor to floor height, and design your stringer around that. what's your standard floor to floor?
j;c-1 - i realize it is late on a friday, but the second example you posted above doesn't seem to have the right handrail extensions. it might be that I need to switch from IPAs to pilsners though...
that's residential, no need for extensions.
arch76 - we don't have a standard floor to floor. The platforms that we build for customers can vary from 29" TOD to 144". Whatever the customer wants. Even our switchback stairs can change TOD between floors.First level can use a 8 tread, second and third level could use a 9 tread and then the fourth level can use a 8 tread.
JC-1 - Handrails in the example are not that stair height, but they correct to pass code. The final handrail extension for that height would be bent to be horizontal. But they do extend at the bottom and top to the proper length per IBC and CBC code. And they are in the proper range of height.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.