• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

2018 Model IRC is this handrail compliant?

tbz

tbz

REGISTERED
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
1,360
Location
PA/NJ - Borderlands
Afternoon all,

Let me start with the sketch shown below of the handrail, the extensions return to the wall at the top and bottom.

We know the handrail is non-compliant for the IBC, however since the IRC only requires handrails from the top riser to the bottom riser, is this design compliant with the IRC?

I am in search of yes or no and why?

Thanks in advance....
Handrail 011.png
 
Yes....

R311.7.8.4 Continuity. Handrails shall be continuous
for the full length of the flight, from a point directly
above the top riser of the flight to a point directly
above the lowest riser of the flight. Handrail ends shall
be returned toward a wall, guard walking surface
continuous to itself, or terminate to a post.


There is no "at least" referring to the top and bottom riser, so whatever you do after that point should not be in play....
 
I would not hold it to the IBC for an IRC regulated structure. I see no violation of the IRC for the extensions. It is continuous from a point directly above the top and bottom risers and is returned.
 
In other words, the IRC is meant to be all inclusive for typical residential construction and it relies on other codes only where alternatives are desired or where the code lacks coverage for the uncommon aspect of residential construction
 
bill1952 said:
Is the question "are extensions permitted"? I think both permitted and better and safer than if the minimum.
Click to expand...
Bill,

The question is a simple one, if you were inspecting this handrail installed in an 2015-2021 IRC adopted location would you pass or fail it and why?

We all know it does not comply with the IBC, so what about the IRC?
 
e hilton said:
Not all of us know that. What part is not compliant?
Click to expand...
In the IBC the bottom handrail extensions are required to extend one tread depth further than the bottom tread before any change in direction.

The current bottom part of the handrail levels off, a change in direction over the bottom riser.

Thus, not only does it not comply with the handrail extension requirements, but it is now 7 inches higher than the rest of the handrail over the nosing line.

AKA, MtLogcabin' comment the handrail is to high....
 
The handrail is compliant. It is ". . .continuous for the full length of the flight, from a point directly above the top riser of the flight to a point directly above the lowest riser of the flight." It is between 34" and 38" high.

However, the point is moot. The handrail is not necessary since there are only 3 risers.

1677599258277.png
 

Attachments

  • 1677598598179.png
    1677598598179.png
    10.5 KB · Views: 0
If you install it, it needs to be code compliant.

[RB] HANDRAIL. A horizontal or sloping rail intended for grasping by the hand for guidance or support.

That would include any horizontal extensions that are part of the handrail.
 
The horizontal bottom extension is useless, but I don't see anything in the IRC that makes it noncompliant in a one or two family dwelling.
 
Energystar said:
However, the point is moot. The handrail is not necessary since there are only 3 risers.
Click to expand...
In todays litiguous society (did i get that right?) i think it would be a risk to not have a handrail for those 3 steps. And as a card-carrying old guy, i am finding more use for handrails.
 
Just on the height here is one research project indicating a higher handrail may provide a stability advantage. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29277059/

I was told of an Australian research project where they installed a second handrail above the first - so rails at around 36" and 42" - and users by a large margin preferred the taller one, including children.

In a fall where there is a handrail, I'd much rather land an arms length below 42" than an arms length below 34".
 
I would pass it all day long. Especially since a handrail is not even required when you only have three risers as shown... If the extensions don't cause an obstruction that violates another code, I couldn't care less whether they are too high or not.
 
Just the type of discussion I was hoping for from you all.

So MT, here is my question for you, I get if there then needs to be compliant, but handrails are prefixed with "Required" as guards are.

They do have (2) exceptions when it comes to "Continuity" requirements.

I will "assume" we all can agree that in the IRC the handrail is only required over the "stair flight" not the landings.

2018 IRC & IBC both have the following exceptions: (I will summarize)
  1. Continuity shall be permitted to be interrupted by a newel post ...., "At a landing, or over the lowest tread."
  2. A Volute, turnout or starting easing shall be allowed to terminate.......
So, if we are allowed to break continuity at a landing, were does the code require the handrail's non-required extension to be at height or could it be considered a starting easing?

I will also include 2 new drawings with (4) risers, just for "Energystar" ;>),

WallHR-02.PNG
This first sketch I have noted solid no graspability, however figure you are seeing it both ways, as 2 different sketches with and without

As to the sketch below, it shows the compliant IBC, ADA & A117.1 handrail.
WallHR-01.PNG
 
tbz said:
were does the code require the handrail's non-required extension
Click to expand...

By definition a handrail extension is part of the handrail and the height requirements would apply.

[RB] HANDRAIL. A horizontal or sloping rail intended for grasping by the hand for guidance or support.

extension​

noun​

ex·ten·sion ik-ˈsten(t)-shən

Synonyms of extension
1
a
: the action of extending : state of being extended
b
: an enlargement in scope or operation
tools are extensions of human hands


2
a
: the total range over which something extends :
 
I don't buy that if something is not required but installed, it has to meet the requirements as if it required.

Consider a fully compliant handrail, and a second parallel handrail above it at 42". By mt's reasoning the second handrail wouldn't be as allowed because it was too high. Way overreaching.

The non-required and non-compliant extensions in the first post do no harm, and purely from a safety point of view, are more safe than no extension what do ever.
 
bill1952 said:
I don't buy that if something is not required but installed, it has to meet the requirements as if it required.
Click to expand...
Sometimes. For example, a guard at 29" carries an expectation of performance, it should meet the load requirement. But, I don't see this extension that way.
 
bill1952 said:
Would a guard in middle of flat floor area have to meet any guard requirements?
Click to expand...
Not in my opinion. But, this is just the way I administer the codes. If it were on a flat surface it would not meet the definition of a guard. If it were at a 1" elevation change it could be considered a guard and therefore could be required to meet all of the requirements. Some codes dictate that where provided, even if not required, certain elements must meet the code. Stairs and doors come to mind. In my example I see a deck elevated 29" above the surrounding grade. Guards are not required, so someone standing there is aware that there is a 29" drop and treat it accordingly. However, if a there is a structure that looks like a guard located at the edge, they expect that it will stay there when they lean on it. If it is only attached with roofing nails and they lean on it they are at greater risk than if it were not there at all, because they expect it to perform. So I treat them differently. If the guard were at a 1" elevation change, the same expectations would apply, but the consequences of failure may be less severe than a 29" fall, and likely no more severe than a 0" elevation change. In the absence of clearly defined methods to enforce those things where the "if provided" conundrum isn't present I try to use my best judgement. In the case of the handrail extension, my best judgement is that there is no additional risk if the extension "is provided" but not required.

This drifted a bit. Bottom line, I would not fail the installation of those extensions. There is no IRC code that requires them, and there is no technical criteria for them. I wouldn't apply the scoping or technical criteria from a different code to them. JMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top