IBC Use & Occupancy Classification - Guards / Handrails etc..

[JoelTXCive]

Can someone help me locate something in the IBC (if it exists?)

For low occupancy, controlled access sites such as water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants, lift stations and other similar structures; we design our guard rail systems and fall protection to be OSHA compliant. These sites are not compliant with the more stringent IBC Chapter 10 requirements.

My question is:

Where in the IBC does it say that this is okay? Is there an exemption list or written statement somewhere? I have looked at the chapter 3 use and occupancy classifications, but nothing is jumping out at me there.

I'm assuming there must be an exemption somewhere?

Thank you.

 

[JStephen]

One thing is that the IBC is only applicable where it's been specified by the local authority, which in Texas is generally city governments. So if you're outside of the city limits, or if the city doesn't have a building code, there likely isn't any building code requirement.

 

[Ron]

JoelTX....look under Group U occupancy and see if there's an exception for your application.

 

[JoelTXCive]

Thank you Ron. Yes, I'm with you that Lift Stations etc. could fall into Group U.

Once in Group U though, I'm not seeing something that says "The guard rules of section 1015 don't apply to Group U Structures."

JStephen - I'll check around the office today, but my understanding has always been that the state of Texas has adopted the 2012 IBC as the base level code. A local county or municipality can adopt a stricter code if they choose. In the event the local government does not adopt a code, then the 2012 IBC will apply.

Maybe there is something at the state level that says these type structures are exempted?

I'm a mid level engineer for a large engineering firm........ I sure hope we haven't been building them wrong for the last 35 years

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

1607.8.1: Has a loading exception for areas not accessible to the public. But otherwise I've been unable to locate something that specifically exempts non-public areas from IBC required guardrails. This is moderately annoying; as I know I've not used IBC stairs and guards in industrial facilities but now you got me worried I was doing it wrong as well!

I suspect it's in the state or municipalities codes where this exception is created, or we're missing some scope exception in chapter 1 or 3 of the IBC. When I get a minute I'll see if I can dig into this more.



Ian Riley, PE, SE
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, VT, CT, MA, FL) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries

https://americanconcrete.com/

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Ah, found it for my cases; Group F is exempt from a lot of the IBC stair and guard requirements. Does appear more and more to me that Group U is not exempt, though.

Ian Riley, PE, SE
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, VT, CT, MA, FL) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries

https://americanconcrete.com/

 

[JAE]

Some past issues of the UBC, and possibly the IBC, had a difference between "public" guards and "industrial" guards (4" sphere and 12" sphere respectively).
I think at some point the 12" sphere requirement went away and all were set to 4".

I'm not sure about the Group F requirements in the IBC so TehMightyEngineer might be on to something though.



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[JStephen]

The only Texas statewide code that I'm aware of relates to commercial buildings only, which leaves out water plants, etc. If you know of a statewide building code that applies to these, I'd be interested in knowing about it.

 

[dauwerda]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe the IBC is more restrictive on guard rails than OSHA is (for this situation). Both require a minimum 42" height and per the 2015 IBC Section 1015.4 Exception 3, "At elevated walking surfaces for access to and use of electrical, mechanical or plumbing systems or equipment, guards shall not have openings that allow passage of a sphere 21 inches (533 mm) in diameter."

Chapter 10 is certainly more restrictive on stairs though. However, the beginning of the stair section states, "1011.1 General. Stairways serving occupied portions of a building shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1011.2 through 1011.13."
So depending on what your (or really the building official's) interpretation of an "occupied portion of a building" is, IBC compliant stairs may or may not be required.
At my previous firm we started calling the local jurisdictions at the beginning of projects to ask the building official what they wanted, there was only one case that I remember that the building official required IBC compliant stairs. Some local jurisdictions actually included a clause in their adopted and modified codes to specifically exempt industrial structures from the use of IBC compliant stairs.
(Just to clarify, the major difference I am talking about is the rise/run requirements)

The newest OSHA rule for stair guardrail/handrails is also somewhat contradictory/up for interpretation. 1910.29(f)(1)(ii)(B) states "The height of stair rail systems installed on or after January 17, 2017 is not less than 42 inches (107 cm) from the leading edge of the stair tread to the top surface of the top rail." 1910.29(f)(1)(iii) then goes on to give provisions for using the top rail for a combination guardrail/handrail which requires it be between 36 and 38 inches high. There is even a figure showing the requirement for a combination handrail and stair rail. It could be that these provisions were given for stairs being installed before January 17, 2017, but keep in mind the updated rule was published only 60 days before that, so it doesn't seem to make much sense to include provisions that are useful for 60 days (that are different than the previous requirements of between 30 and 34 inches). We reached out to OSHA and they told us interpretation was up to the local OSHA chapter. We then went to the (or should I say 1 of many) local chapter and we were told since there was a figure they would allow the combined detail. Another chapter told us they wouldn't allow the combined detail. We decided it would be best practice (to avoid issues for our clients) to start always using the third handrail detail.