# Tapered Steps



## BayPointArchitect (Aug 26, 2013)

Code Reference:2009 IBCIBC 1009.4.2; Riser height = 7 inches max and 4 inches minimum.IBC 1009.4.4; Dimensional Uniformity = The tolerance between risers shall not exceed 3/8".Required width of stairs for egress would not need to be more than 44 inches.A portion of these stairs that complies with the sections above is approximately 9 feet. (Okay)The architect for this project believes that if the required width of stairway complies with uniform steps, then those portions of the steps that are tapered according to the natural slope do not need to comply.  Thus we have step risers than vary from zero to 7 inches.  In addition, the architect is proposing to apply yellow slip resistant surface to help identify the steps that do not comply with those steps used specifically to meet the egress requirements.Option one: Put a guard rail or planter to block the steps that do not comply with the sections above.Option two: Considering that the minimum width for egress has been provided through a portion of these stairs, then allow other stairs to vary in riser height from zero to seven inches.Thank you!ICC Certified Plan ReviewerGo Huskers!

View attachment 1924


View attachment 1924


/monthly_2013_08/steps.jpg.1c2d5d94a45c60cdff4e70ad390e94fc.jpg


----------



## cda (Aug 26, 2013)

looks like a multiple accident waiting to happen!


----------



## JPohling (Aug 26, 2013)

all of the exterior steps need to have striping for the visual impaired.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 26, 2013)

You missed a code section

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

MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way .

Option one is the only one that will work.


----------



## cda (Aug 26, 2013)

is the little piece of brown sticking out a trip hazard walking left to right or right to left as you look at the picture?


----------



## steveray (Aug 26, 2013)

I am sure the designer will say they are not the means of egress and it will be difficult to fight.....If it were a stair....it would need handrails also.....correct?


----------



## TheCommish (Aug 27, 2013)

Why on new work would anyone consider the tapered stair, the lower level should be flat with a uniform rise across the width of the stariway.

Then the total rise would be 14 inches and the sloped entry clause would go away MtLogcabin.

the next question that is not determinable for the limited information is what is the accessible route to the entry door and is it direct as possibe.


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Aug 27, 2013)

The sloped steps were the solution for dealing with natural grade changes.

The plans did include a standard stair section but there was nothing to indicate that the bottom steps would vary between zero to 7 inches.

After reviewing your comments and talking with my fellow plan reviewer, it has been determined that we will require the striping for those steps that are equal 7 inch risers with no variation.

All other steps will be obstructed with either a guard rail or planter.

Thanks fellow building code enthusiasts!


----------



## texasbo (Aug 28, 2013)

I don't mean to state the obvious, but you are aware that Sec 1009.7.4 (2012), allows variances in riser height due to sloped surfaces, not to exceed 1:12, right? The gray area is where the change in elevation is reduced to only one riser.


----------



## KZQuixote (Aug 28, 2013)

BayPointArchitect said:
			
		

> After reviewing your comments and talking with my fellow plan reviewer, it has been determined that we will require the striping for those steps that are equal 7 inch risers with no variation.
> 
> All other steps will be obstructed with either a guard rail or planter.


I see that section in the 2009 IBC as well TBO (1009.4.4). The striping requirement is clearly for the non-uniform risers (bottom step only).

I'm thinking that requiring striping on the uniform risers and requiring other areas to be obstructed is simply writing your own code.

Bill


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Aug 30, 2013)

Duly noted.

Thanks Bill and TexasBO.

You just saved them from having to spend money on unnecessary obstruction to steps.

They will likely opt for the 1 inch striping on the bottom step.


----------



## JPohling (Aug 30, 2013)

Every exterior tread nosing gets a VI stripe in these parts.


----------



## lpiburn (Sep 1, 2013)

Reminds me of an image I used on a presentation on ADA regulations. It was in the "nice try, but no" section.

View attachment 836


View attachment 836


/monthly_2013_09/failramp07.jpg.fca0c3b18238aac9bb66d35b7e896c33.jpg


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 2, 2013)

lpiburn said:
			
		

> Reminds me of an image I used on a presentation on ADA regulations. It was in the "nice try, but no" section.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See, I look at that and see the ultimate expression of non discrimination on the planet, where the able bodied and the handicapped can freely move amongst one another in harmony and peace, weaving in and out in a dance of peaceful coexistence. It's art as life, as it were.

Brent.


----------



## lpiburn (Sep 2, 2013)

Sure, it's all sunshine and daisies until somebody in a wheelchair goes careening down the steps, bowling over those harmonious able bodied persons like a scene out of a cartoon.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 2, 2013)

lpiburn said:
			
		

> Sure, it's all sunshine and daisies until somebody in a wheelchair goes careening down the steps, bowling over those harmonious able bodied persons like a scene out of a cartoon.


Fly! Be free!

Brent


----------



## KZQuixote (Sep 2, 2013)

I doubt that would work, even as a bottom of a swimming pool. Captured the pic anyway.

Thanks

Bill


----------



## error404 (Sep 16, 2013)

This remind me of a brand new government building that was finished about two years ago.







how did they got away with it?


----------



## Msradell (Sep 17, 2013)

error404 said:
			
		

> This remind me of a brand new government building that was finished about two years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is that a federal, state or local government building?  What state is it located in, it's certainly not California.  Depending on how concerned you are and how much of a stinky want to raise I would think you could cause them some trouble quite easily.


----------



## error404 (Sep 17, 2013)

Msradell said:
			
		

> Is that a federal, state or local government building?  What state is it located in, it's certainly not California.  Depending on how concerned you are and how much of a stinky want to raise I would think you could cause them some trouble quite easily.


It's the new Court House for my State's Capital... I believe under IBC 2006 /120,000 sq.ft. brand new construction. (not telling which State yet    def. not California)

BTW this is the main entrance ->


----------



## lpiburn (Sep 17, 2013)

Are you sure you don't want to tell us where it is?

Superior Court of Delaware Official Web Site

Google reverse image search is a powerful tool.


----------



## JPohling (Sep 17, 2013)

5 sec search = Delaware huh?  Where is the accessible path?


----------



## lpiburn (Sep 17, 2013)

Here, here, and here.

Seems like not a lot of parking for such a large building.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 17, 2013)

...Delaware...

Where is the accessible entrance?


----------



## JPohling (Sep 17, 2013)

I see no accessible parking and one sign that says wheel your way up that brick path that looks steeper than 5%.


----------



## error404 (Sep 17, 2013)

Man, you guys are so nosey!

Yes, it's Delaware. I'm not that familiar with the building layout, but I do remember walking that path and feeling that was kind of steep.

As far as I'm aware.... if you have a disability and you park close to the entrance, then you will need to go up that steep brick path, reach the top and the go back to the front of the building to get in.

The other possibility is to park by the Old courthouse and make your way somehow from "The Green cir."  to the back of the New Court House and then into the top of the brick pathway.


----------



## JPohling (Sep 18, 2013)

And people wonder why there are lawsuits.......................


----------



## JMORRISON (Nov 1, 2013)

Thanks for bringing exception to my attention. Attached is part of plan submitted. I will try to get picture when complete

View attachment 922


View attachment 922


/monthly_2013_11/572953ceeb3ec_Fasteners-6132013-stairsandhandrail-01.jpg.9026cce735369697a6c28d135ec9e9b8.jpg


----------



## IJHumberson (Nov 4, 2013)

Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't this comply with 1009.4.4 of the '09 IBC: Where the bottom or top riser adjoins a sloping public way, walkway or driveway having an established grade and serving as a landing, the bottom or top riser is permitted to be reduced along the slope to less than 4 inches (102 mm) in height, with the variation in height of the bottom or top riser not to exceed one unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (8-percent slope) of stairway width. The nosings or leading edges of treads at such nonuniform height risers shall have a distinctive marking stripe, different from any other nosing marking provided on the stair flight. The distinctive marking stripe shall be visible in descent of the stair and shall have a slip-resistant surface. Marking stripes shall have a width of at least 1 inch (25 mm) but not more than 2 inches (51 mm).

In the OP's photo, it looks like, if the lowest tread has a distinctive marking stripe, then it would comply with this (as long as the cross slope is not steeper than 1:12).


----------



## lpiburn (Nov 4, 2013)

I missed that section, thanks for pointing it out.  However, I think the key phrase here is "established grade".  I believe the intent there is for retrofit on existing sites, where changing the sidewalks is impractical. Was the project in the OP all new construction including the site? If so, then I don't think the exception applies, but that is certainly open to interpretation. (same deal for the courthouse too)


----------



## lpiburn (Nov 4, 2013)

Just noticed this after re-reading the thread. The 3D handrails are not _quite _compliant as shown. The sloping handrail should follow the tread noses for 1 tread depth past the first riser, and the additional 1' extension is NOT required (that's been changed since the '03 ANSI) The way they are shown now, the extensions also stick out into the walkway. If it loops down to 27" then that portion would technically not be considered a protruding object, but it's not a very good design to have handrails poking out into the sidewalk. I suggest that they be redesigned.

View attachment 924


View attachment 924


/monthly_2013_11/572953cef13e8_fig505.10.3.jpg.ceae9257421f7f73e0d1053057fd212b.jpg


----------

