IBC / OSHA STAIRS 1

[jchi]

We mainly design/construct industrial/grain/seed facilities and this question keeps coming up: What are the strair/handrail/guardrail requirements for equipment access?

Do equipment access stairs need to be 36" wide with 7" rise and 11" run?

Do equipment access stairs need the 42" guardrail with the third rail (handrail)?

If I must design my small platform stairs to these requirements, how are equipment mfg's such as tower mfg's (Brownie, Lemar, Warrior, ect) and grain bin (Brock, GSI ect) abel to erect stairs narrower, steeper and w/o the handrail? Also when we buy equipment with a stair platform 9 times out of 10 it would not meed IBC requirement.

Does anyone have a IBC reference with an exception for equipment stairs? I have not found one.

Do industrial stairs only have to me OSHA requirements?

Any help appreciated,

Jeff

 

[MiketheEngineer]

Seems that industrial applications only need to meet OSHA - UNLESS you run into a local permitting agency that gets all out of whack when you propose it.

We do a lot of industrial scaffolding and none of it would ever meet IBC, UBC, BOCA, whatever - but it does meet OSHA.

However - we never use it where the "public" might have access.

 

[JedClampett]

Almost all exceptions for Equipment Access have been removed. You need handrail, 7 inch maximum risers and 11 inch minimum treads etc. etc. everywhere except residential. Believe me, we've looked. And we just get burned because we didn't provide closed treads for metal stairs (2006 IBC Section 1009.3.3).
I can't justify what equipment suppliers provide except to say that when a inspector finally catches up to them, there's going to be much weeping and consternation.

 

[kslee1000]

Yes, you need to comply with OSHA rules for equipment access and working platform. For walk-on stairs with landing at a hight greater than 4' (?), standard handrails with toe board needs to be provided at the side allows free fall. For vertical climb ladders, check OSHA for latest on man-cage and intermediate landing requirement.

Equipment usually only come with limited number of work platforms that are deemed essential for its assembly and operation. The purchaser is responsible to provide assess to those platforms, and fits the maintenance needs.

Since building official usually does not involve with non-building, non-structural, subjects, you may have 100s of violations on those access, but still been granted the building permit. Every violation would only be exposed either by an OSHA visit (inspection, if required for your work place), or from the event that a worker is seriously injuried, or killed. By then, the owner will be forced to bring the access to meet the rules with hefty fines.

OSHA rules change with time (such as the 4' hight, addressed about, was lowered from 6', I believe). I don't know if the so called "Grandfather clause" apply here or not. But the new construction must comply with the rule. At least, it is advisable.

 

[minorchord2000]

This the reading I got from our local development services pukes:

If the facility can be accessed by the general public then you must comply with the more stringent IBC rules for rise over run, etc. If the facility is only used by company personnel and is not open to the general public, then you can used OSHA.

 

[hokie66]

Aren't there also rule for ladders? Maybe the steeper, narrower "stairs" qualify as ladders.

 

[H57]

I don't know where in the IBC it is located but we recently ran into the same issue. The code official was taking the stand that all stairs, even those accessing mechanical equipment, shall be 36" wide with the 11" treads and 7" max rise. In our discussions with him he called me and stated that while reading the commentary of the IBC code he agreed with us that these stairs are only required to meet OSHA requirements. After talking with him I have tried to find it in the commentary, but have been unable to.

What he stated was that the intent of the code is that there is one definition for a stair, and that all stairs must be 36" wide and have 11" treads w/ 7" max rise. BUT stairs accessing equipment platforms are outside of this requirement because they are not defined as stairs. Or something like that.

I was the one talking to the code official about it, but I am not an architect.

With all of this keep in mind that the code official can always make more stringent requirements than what the code states.

 

[JedClampett]

Someone, not me, should take this up with the code writers. All the sections on stairs are in the section on fire access and egress. Why the same requirements are enforced for stairs accessing an air conditoner that only a couple of able bodied repairmen go up to twice a year borders on ridiculous.
It encourages the designer to skimp and provide the more hazardous design of a ladder.

 

[Bagman2524]

IBC section 505 covers equipment access stairs. They only have to meet OHSA requirements and do not fall under the requirements of IBC chapter 10 (i.e. 1009).

 

[civilperson]

Ladders are the category to use.

 

[JLNJ]

Stairs and accessibility are concerns for all workers, not just the "public". Remember, OSHA stairs can be very very steep (>45 degrees!) and can be no picnic to climb.

I agree with the idea that if one could place a ladder by code and chooses to place a stair, then it seems to me an OSHA stair will be OK. If the building code requires a stair access, then put in the 7/11 stair.

 

[jchi]

IBC 2003 section 505.5 commentary:
"Additionally, if a stair is used to access an equipment platform, it would be subject to all the dimensional requirements for stairs in accordance with Section 1009.1"

I see no way out of designing all equipment access stairs per IBC... I have also received variances from code officials, but that is no good. Because if do not get it, there is a lot of redesign.

 

[Bagman2524]

That commentary to 505.5 looks like something newly added to me. 505 allows alternating tread devices. I don't know why it would require a 7/11 stair.

 

[Bagman2524]

IBC Commentary is not part of the code. It is an opinion of the author of the commentary. If the code has been adopted as law by a jurisdiction the commentary is not law, unless the jurisdiction adopts the commentary as well.

 

[JLNJ]

One argument I've heard put forward by architects in defense of keeping all stairs to 7/11 is that the user gets conditioned to 7/11 stairs in buildings everywhere and in an emergengy you don't want a user in a panic to confront a 9/8 stair and fall.

There is some logic to this position.

 

[JStephen]

In looking through the sections mentioned, it does seem to be worded very poorly, which is unfortunately not uncommon with the code.

For example, is a building synonomous with a structure? The wording in 1001.1 seems to use the terms interchangeably, although ASCE 7 recognizes that there are "non-building structures". That seems to be the insight that is missing here.

If you look over at the definitions of "structure" and "building", they are both fairly meaningless. A structure is "that which is built or constructed". A bollard post, a chain link fence, a telephone pole, a swimming pool, and an automobile all fit that definition of a structure, and by the wording in Section 1001, require appropriate egress.