# Handrail required for single step between exit egress and public way or not



## ADAguy

Does CBC/IBC distinguish between a stair as flight of multiple steps vs a single step when it comes to requiring handrails.

This is a commercial installation. (if required for ramps, why not steps too?)

Does the requirement for handrails on stairs/steps extend to the exterior grounds between the building egress and the public way?


----------



## RLGA

IBC Chapter 2:

STAIRWAY. One or more *flights* of *stairs*, either _*exterior*_ or interior, with the necessary landings and platforms connecting them, to form a continuous and uninterrupted passage from one level to another.

FLIGHT. A continuous run of rectangular treads, _winders_, or combination thereof from one _landing _to another.

STAIR. A change in elevation, consisting of _*one or more risers*_.


----------



## ADAguy

Thank you for the prompt response, it and the definitions clarify what I believed. Stair or step(single riser) handrails required.


----------



## Yikes

Wait a second: The if that were the case, then every street curb should be equipped with a series of handrails.

*CBC 1009.15 Exception #3. "Decks, patios and WALKWAYS that have a single change in elevation where the landing depth on each side of the change of elevation is greater than what is required for a landing do NOT require handrails.*

*"*


----------



## Examiner

I talked to Code Congress on this same issue a few weeks ago.  The Exception #3, I was told is intended for outside Deck type areas.  My question was a single step up to an interior permanent platform such as in churches and judges's and jury's elevated areas.  I was told that the handrail would be required and on both sides.  Also you have ADA requirements for handrails.  Oh, as for the Judge's bench ADA access is addressed to have an area for installation of a lift at a later date or ramp where either do not require much modification to achieve ADA access.  Did not find a definition in the Code for walkways.


----------



## ADAguy

Good responses, now if it were also understood that the word "stairs" is a generic (inclusive) term for an element with connecting changes in elevation with one or more risers, right?


----------



## Examiner

Just got a response from contact with Access Board and was told that they would not require a handrail for one step. The person did not provide a referenced Section for me to document. At one time an older Building Code did not require handrails unless you exceeded 3-risers. But that was an older Code before IBC. So what is the definition of a stair or stairway now? Is two risers a stair and one riser is not a stair?


----------



## RLGA

> Just got a response from contact with Access Board and was told that they would not require a handrail for one step. The person did not provide a referenced Section for me to document. At one time an older Building Code did not require handrails unless you exceeded 3-risers. But that was an older Code before IBC. So what is the definition of a stair or stairway now? Is two risers a stair and one riser is not a stair?


See my post above.  These are from the IBC.


----------



## Yikes

> I talked to Code Congress on this same issue a few weeks ago. The Exception #3' date=' I was told is intended for outside Deck type areas. My question was a single step up to an interior permanent platform such as in churches and judges's and jury's elevated areas. I was told that the handrail would be required and on both sides. Also you have ADA requirements for handrails. Oh, as for the Judge's bench ADA access is addressed to have an area for installation of a lift at a later date or ramp where either do not require much modification to achieve ADA access. Did not find a definition in the Code for walkways. [/quote']The context of the question does make a difference.  The original poster was asking about means of egress, and inferred that it might be occurring outside next to the public ROW.  Not all MOE need to be accessible.  There are many other components such as areas of refuge, etc.
> 
> However, if it is an elevated platform such as a jury box, and we are now talking concepts of equal facilitation/access to the space for persons with disabilities, then yes here needs to be an accessible path of travel to the platform for ADA, etc.


----------



## Examiner

Code Congress contacted me back and said that this single step vs handrail was discussed at the hearings.  I was told the reasons for the handrail inside the building at single steps and the reasoning about the omission of the handrail outside along walkway, decks and patios.  To aid people from falling inside the building; handrails will still be required at single steps on both sides of the step.  However, if the occupant load is small, such as at judge's bench, then one on the wall would be acceptable.  Tiered jury gallery would follow the same requirements as seating / aisles for assembly.  Church pulpit could have a handrail on the wall where the entire step is continuous and fronts the pulpit, thus two handrails are provided at the pulpit just a good ways apart.  However, where ever the pulpit step ends there should be a handrail at each end of the step.


----------



## alejvazquez

I'm a little confused about the handrail extension in regards to a situation with a single step.  

1012.6 Handrail extensions. 
"....Where handrails are not continuous between flights, the handrails shall extend horizontally at least 12 inches (305 mm) beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser..."

With a single step there is no tread.
How are we to determine how far the handrail should extend beyond the bottom riser?'
Should I just assume 12 inches?


----------



## JBI

RLGA said:


> FLIGHT. A continuous run of rectangular treads, _winders_, or combination thereof from one _landing _to another.


May be on thin ice here but '... treadS, winderS, or combination thereof from one landing to another...' implies (IMHO) that a single change in elevation that goes directly from a landing to a landing would not constitute a 'flight' of stairs. Since a 'stairway' is one or more 'flights' of stairs, and there are no 'flights' of stairs in this case, there is no handrail requirement.


----------



## Yikes

The OP asked how the CBC distinguishes this issue.
CBC 202 has separate definitions (which the IBC might not have?) for "stair" vs. "stairs": 

"Stair.  A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers."
"*Stairs. A series of two or more steps*." 
_Based on this distinction, handrail requirement in the CBC that is specifically for "stairs" (plural) does not trigger a handrail requirement for "stair" (one riser only)._

Looking at the CBC 11:
11B-505.1 and 505.2 talks about handrails being required at "stairs" (plural).  Therefore *CBC 11B-505 does not trigger handrails at a "stair" (single riser)*.

Looking at CBC 10:
CBC 1009.15 says "stairways shall have handrails".
CBC 202 definition of "stairway" is "one or more FLIGHTS of stairs".
In CBC 202, a "flight" is as per RGLA: "A continuous run of rectangular treads, _winders_, or combination thereof from one _landing _to another."
Notice the plural form of all those words.  If you only have one change in level, you will not have treadS, you will have one tread, or perhaps no tread at all as per alejvaquez's comment.  
Therefore, a single elevation change does not meet the definition of "flight", which in turn does not trigger the definition of stairway, and *therefore CBC 1009.15 does not trigger handrails at a single riser*.


----------



## ADAguy

CBC 2019 - this is an item for final clarification for the next code cycle which is just beginning.


----------



## steveray

2 landings have one riser....Per Ex#3 I would say no in this instance, I think we have something similar here for exteriors as well...

(Amd) *1009.11 Handrails.*  Stairways shall have handrails on each side.  Handrails shall be adequate in strength and attachment in accordance with Section 1607.7.  Handrails for ramps, where required by Section 1010.8, shall comply with this section.

  Exceptions:


Aisle stairs complying with Section 1024 provided with a center handrail need not have additional handrails.
Stairways within dwelling units, spiral stairways and aisle stairs serving seating only on one side are permitted to have a handrail on one side only.
Decks, patios and walkways that have a single change in elevation where the landing depth on each side of the change in elevation is greater than what is required for a landing do not require handrails.
Series of landings, no rails....The exterior seems to be implied, but it doesn't say it does it....


----------



## ADAguy

There you go again with "implied" implies don't stand up in court, any vertical >1/2" is a barrier whether interior or exterior. If provided it must comply.


----------



## steveray

ADAguy said:


> There you go again with "implied" implies don't stand up in court, any vertical >1/2" is a barrier whether interior or exterior. If provided it must comply.



I didn't know we were arguing accessible route? Just handrails....? Is your situation exterior or interior? Exterior, my exception #3 holds for handrail exemption definitely...AMOE would be another matter...


----------



## ADAguy

If it looks like a duck and it trips you without a handrail, you are facing a T & F suit.


----------



## Yikes

ADAguy said:


> If it looks like a duck and it trips you without a handrail, you are facing a T & F suit.


I agree about a potential risk, and furthermore I've heard (anecdotally only) that a single step might be more hazardous than multiple risers, because the mind sometimes doesn't immediately recognize/process the change in level when it's only one small step.  In that instance, it's more accurate to say not that it "looks like a duck", but rather that it doesn't look _enough_ like a duck for the mind to process it as such.

I once knew of a condo architect who refused to design split-level units that have only a single step.  He felt that he would rather have two steps, or none at all.  (Here's long since gone, so I can't ask him to elaborate now.)

Nevertheless, your OP wasn't asking about the potential for T&F lawsuit.  You were specifically asking what the CBC required for handrails at a single step vs a flight of multiple steps.  Per my analysis in post #13 above, handrails are not REQUIRED at a single step in the CBC, which constitutes the minimum life-safety requirements prescribed by code in California at this time.


----------



## JBI

"...which constitutes the minimum life-safety requirements prescribed..."
BINGO! The Code was, is, and always will be a _minimum standard_. 
Any owner, design professional, or contractor can elect to go above that minimum standard for any one (or all) project(s).


----------



## ADAguy

Thank you JBI,
best practices usually payoff in the unforeseen future.
Better safe than "cheap".


----------



## Yikes

JBI said:


> "...which constitutes the minimum life-safety requirements prescribed..."
> BINGO! The Code was, is, and always will be a _minimum standard_.
> Any owner, design professional, or contractor can elect to go above that minimum standard for any one (or all) project(s).



Absolutely.  I just thought your original post was asking from a code standpoint, not from a personal preference standpoint.

Knowing the minimum is important to prioritize solutions.  It may not just be an issue of trying to save a couple of bucks.

For example, suppose you are doing an accessibility compliance evaluation of a building. There was an doorway or cased opening (swinging away from the landing) very close to the step - - so close that that a handrail extension would protrude into the door opening.  In that case, the handrail causes more problems than it solves, and it's good to know the handrail is optional, not mandatory in the code, if the door cannot/should not otherwise be relocated.


----------



## ADAguy

Yikes, you are right, for many issues "it depends" on many nuances.
Shades of grey abound.
City of LA just popped for $220B because they failed in their duty to verify provision of housing for the disabled. Who pays? You and I. Who loses their jobs?


----------



## Yikes

I'm somewhat familiar with that story - - was that the one with UFAS and the DOJ (and did you mean $220M)?  
If I recall, there was a "settlement" where LAHD/CRA did not accept financial responsibility, but did agree to have CASp inspectors review every affordable housing project that they financed.  
As I understand it, virtually every project in the LA area that uses affordable housing funds must now have an independent CASp inspector review the plans prior to start of construction, and also do a punch list on the finished project.


----------



## ADAguy

That would be it. Interesting to note that I taught 300 of their M & O personnel back in 03' for their public housing projects. They have seen this coming for years.


----------



## tim walocha

Does 1003.5 apply?  Changes in elevation in a means of egress that are less than 12 inches must be made with a sloped surface.


----------



## Yikes

tim walocha said:


> Does 1003.5 apply?  Changes in elevation in a means of egress that are less than 12 inches must be made with a sloped surface.


Good catch!  
I don't think the original post indicated whether the situation in question was a required means of egress vs. a convenience stair; whether it was indoors or outdoors; what was the occupancy type, etc.  
CBC 1003.5 might apply - - or its exceptions might apply, negating a need for sloped surface.

1003.5 Elevation change. Where changes in elevation of less than 12 inches (305 mm) exist in the means of egress, sloped surfaces shall be used. Where the slope is greater than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope), ramps complying with Section 1010 shall be used. Where the difference in elevation is 6 inches (152 mm) or less, the ramp shall be equipped with either handrails or floor finish materials that contrast with adjacent floor finish materials. 
Exceptions: 
1. A single step with a maximum riser height of 7 inches (178 mm) is permitted for buildings with occupancies in Groups F, H, R-2, R-3, S and U at exterior doors not required to be accessible by Chapter 11A or 11 B. 
2. A stair with a single riser or with two risers and a tread is permitted at locations not required to be accessible by Chapter 11A or 11B, provided that the risers and treads comply with Section 1009.7, the minimum depth of the tread is 13 inches (330 mm) and at least one handrail complying with Section 1012 is provided within 30 inches (762 mm) of the centerline of the normal path of egress travel on the stair. 
3. A step is permitted in aisles serving seating that has a difference in elevation less than 12 inches (305 mm) at locations not required to be accessible by Chapter 11 A or 11 B, provided that the risers and treads comply with Section 1028.11 and the aisle is provided with a handrail complying with Section 1028.13. 
Throughout a story in a Group 1-2 occupancy, any change in elevation in portions of the means of egress that serve nonambulatory persons shall be by means of a ramp or sloped walkway.​


----------



## ADAguy

Ah, we are on the same page on this but attorney's will argue that only the minimum is defenseable, if no handrail is required then it is user beware.


----------

