Handrail

[m.r.scott2u]

In the IBC 2021 code 1014.6 on Handrails, it states that the handrail is required to return to the wall, and be continuous, among other things, but not important to this question. When I was in the field I always had inspectors tell me the continuous part meant you could not use a miter and had to use the premade cured 90 to return to the wall. Now that I'm in a different role and different area, contractors argue that part (the curve not the return to the wall) and miter the wood rail. Why can't the ICC -IBC book just say miters are or not allowed? Or am I missing something?

 

[jar546]

In the IBC 2021 code 1014.6 on Handrails, it states that the handrail is required to return to the wall, and be continuous, among other things, but not important to this question. When I was in the field I always had inspectors tell me the continuous part meant you could not use a miter and had to use the premade cured 90 to return to the wall. Now that I'm in a different role and different area, contractors argue that part (the curve not the return to the wall) and miter the wood rail. Why can't the ICC -IBC book just say miters are or not allowed? Or am I missing something?

A miter will cause you to violate 1014.4 for graspability, so it is already in the language.

 

[m.r.scott2u]

Admin,
Thank you for responding, in 1014.4 again only the word continuous appears, it doesn't say " not mitered" and that's the argument I keep running into. This is not coming from me, btw, Mitered wood handrails are still continuous and graspable. Enjoying this web site too.

 

[m.r.scott2u]

And yes the word gropability.

 

[walker.t]

A miter will cause you to violate 1014.4 for graspability, so it is already in the language.

Assuming the return is after the 12” extension, then the required 12” of gripping area has been provided and I would not have expected a miter to be an issue. If you’re using a 1.5” clearance between the handrail and wall per A117.1 505.5, there’s really not enough handrail to grip anyway.

I also thought that handrail extensions were intended to keep someone from getting poked by the of the handrail or snagging their clothes on it, commentary in the IBC supports that:

Commentary on 2021 IBC 1014.6 Handrail Extensions (partial quote)
The purpose of return requirements at handrail ends is to prevent a person from catching an article of clothing or satchel straps, or from being injured by falling on the extended end of a handrail.

I would also say the handrail return is not intended for graspability because the return is allowed to return vertically to the walking surface - we can run it to the floor so no one gets poked, the user is not expected to follow the handrail extension to its end with their hand.

 

[m.r.scott2u]

Assuming the return is after the 12” extension, then the required 12” of gripping area has been provided and I would not have expected a miter to be an issue. If you’re using a 1.5” clearance between the handrail and wall per A117.1 505.5, there’s really not enough handrail to grip anyway.

I also thought that handrail extensions were intended to keep someone from getting poked by the of the handrail or snagging their clothes on it, commentary in the IBC supports that:

I would also say the handrail return is not intended for graspability because the return is allowed to return vertically to the walking surface - we can run it to the floor so no one gets poked, the user is not expected to follow the handrail extension to its end with their hand.

Good point. The return isn't in question, more so how it returns to the wall, to have one of those premade curved pieces of wood that is available from most stair part manufactures, or a miter. I get a lot of push back from contractors, because a mitered wood rail is still " continuous" and " graspable", but where, when I used to do stairs and handrails, wall rails, I always had to use that curved piece of wood. If it's a half wall, going past the wall that 1.5 inches, and back around, I've seen them both mitered and curved to the back side of the half wall. I'll see if I can get a picture. My question for everyone is mitered code or not? In the two pictures (not sure why they are sideways) obviously these are metal, but if they were wood, could you miter the 90's?
Would the last two pictures be a code violation?

 

[Joe.B]

In my world I would not question a miter in a one- or two-family home.

If this were a handrail that was required to comply with Chapter 11B (Accessibility to Public Accommodations, Commercial Buildings and Public Housing) then I would think a little harder about it.

Specifically, I would look at this:


Would the cross section at any point (including at the miter) comply with this?

(Again, this is in my CA world, may not be applicable to your situation.)

 

[redeyedfly]

A miter will cause you to violate 1014.4 for graspability, so it is already in the language.

This interpretation is why people dislike inspectors. That is ridiculous.

 

[e hilton]

This interpretation is why people dislike inspectors. That is ridiculous.

Why do you dislike an inspector for enforcing the code?

 

[m.r.scott2u]

In my world I would not question a miter in a one- or two-family home.

If this were a handrail that was required to comply with Chapter 11B (Accessibility to Public Accommodations, Commercial Buildings and Public Housing) then I would think a little harder about it.

Specifically, I would look at this:
View attachment 16564

Would the cross section at any point (including at the miter) comply with this?

(Again, this is in my CA world, may not be applicable to your situation.)

Good point, I'm only thinking in a commercial application, however, if you are measuring 90 degrees at any point, including the miter ( like up to it and where it starts again) it would pass, it wouldn't if you measured it at the cut of the 45 which you could technically measure at a 45 at any point then and it would fail so why measure it at the miter at a 45.

 

[Joe.B]

Good point, I'm only thinking in a commercial application, however, if you are measuring 90 degrees at any point, including the miter ( like up to it and where it starts again) it would pass, it wouldn't if you measured it at the cut of the 45 which you could technically measure at a 45 at any point then and it would fail so why measure it at the miter at a 45.

And two minutes with a grinder would take care of that.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Good point, I'm only thinking in a commercial application, however, if you are measuring 90 degrees at any point, including the miter ( like up to it and where it starts again) it would pass, it wouldn't if you measured it at the cut of the 45 which you could technically measure at a 45 at any point then and it would fail so why measure it at the miter at a 45.

Because continuously graspable means the user has to be able to maintain a firm and stable grip while sliding their hand along -- and grasping -- the handrail. That includes being able to maintain a firm grip while their grasping hand makes the turn around the mitred corner.

 

[redeyedfly]

Why do you dislike an inspector for enforcing the code?

That is not the intent of the cross section requirements. It's a ridiculously pedantic argument that makes no sense whatsoever.

It's not what the code says. Mitered returns are perfectly acceptable and meet code.

 

[ICE]

pedantic

What do you think fatboy, is that an insult?

 

[Yikes]

In my opinion, after the flight of stairs and required minimum length of extensions on the landings, there is no longer a requirement for graspability of the handrail. In fact, any return to the wall "breaks" the graspability. Therefore a miter is OK at the termination / return to wall.

On an intermediate landing, where the stair does a switchback and no handrail extensions are provided, the graspability must be continuous and a radiused (not mitered) handrail turn is best practice to not exceed maximum allowable cross-section.

It would be similar to the image below, except that many accessibility consultants say that handrail should not go totally vertical, again for continuity.

 

[ICE]

I saw the OP before there were any replies. I thought that it was a picayune post. Little did I know!

 

[m.r.scott2u]

In my opinion, after the flight of stairs and required minimum length of extensions on the landings, there is no longer a requirement for graspability of the handrail. In fact, any return to the wall "breaks" the graspability. Therefore a miter is OK at the termination / return to wall.

On an intermediate landing, where the stair does a switchback and no handrail extensions are provided, the graspability must be continuous and a radiused (not mitered) handrail turn is best practice to not exceed maximum allowable cross-section.

It would be similar to the image below, except that many accessibility consultants say that handrail should not go totally vertical, again for continuity.

View attachment 16567

I agree very much with your opinion, thank you.

 

[Joe.B]

Yet another example of how codes are not as clear as people think they are; or want them to be anyways. We're all (mostly) reading the same language, but we do not all see it the same. Call it a grey area if you like, or call it a gray area, or call it like, your opinion man.

And you know what opinions are like, right? Everyone's got one.

 

[tmurray]

For context, the Canadian code deals with this issue as follows:

1) Except as provided in Sentence (3), required handrails shall be continuously graspable throughout the length of
a) ramps, and
b) flights of stairs, from the bottom riser to the top riser.

So, it would be OK to miter it as long as the miter isn't in the middle of the ramp or stair.

 

[Yikes]

Call it a grey area if you like, or call it a gray area, or call it like, your opinion man.

I see what you did there, LOL