• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Accessible Handrail Setback

Francis Vineyard

Francis Vineyard

Registered User
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
3,105
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Is there anything that addresses handrail setback from the walking surface?

Normally the handrails are at the edge or maximum 4½ inches directly over the walking surface.
 
A handrail would only be required on a ramp and stairs not a walking surface that would be a guardrail see ANSI 405.9, 405.9.1 & 405.9.2 for ramps
 
So long as they are on both sides they meet the code, because 1012.8 only applies to stairs and the required egress capacity.

It's a monumental ramp.

Edit: Governed by A308.3.1 and A308.3.2 in A117.1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As long as someone in a wheel chair can use the handrail; it's basically an unobstructed reach. It might be a trip hazard to anyone using a cane.
 
Eureka Peach!

I never thought of 308 for accessible handrails.

The concrete curb is 4½” high for edge protection. It’s difficult to see at the angle I took the picture.

I failed two areas here because it needs to have guard rails at this point along the ramp and at the top where the deck is above the other side of this slope.

Thanks for the replies.
 
2006 IBC Section 1012.7 allows the projection of items below handrail height. The graphics in the Code Commentary shows this [ref: Figure 1012.7(2)]. The difference is your photograph shows the edge protection projecting into the 4 ½” limited area and not starting just below the handrail. Therefore, you could interpret the requirement to be; the handrail must be no more than 4 ½” from the inside face of the edge protection horizontally.

I do question the use of the railing system you photographed as a handrail. It seems there are times in the run of the ramp where a guardrail would be required. The guardrail would require more height and more restrictions in the field area of the guardrail for the sphere passage rule. If a guardrail is required then the handrail would be attached to the guardrail below the height of the guardrail and having the clearances around the handrail from the guardrail. Guardrails are required when the walking surface is 30-inches above the floor or grade below [ref: IBC 1013.1].
 
Just my two bucks, but that interpretation based on a graphic in the commentary is pess poor public policy, because it's just a fishing expedition to reject something allowed by code.
 
1012.7 Projections. On ramps, the clear width between handrails shall be 36 inches (914 mm) minimum. Projections into the required width of stairways and ramps at each handrail shall not exceed 4.5 inches (114 mm) at or below the handrail height. Projections into the required width shall not be limited above the minimum headroom height required in Section 1009.2.

The words state that you can project into the required stair width at or below each handrail height a maximum of 4.5-inches. So, the graphics is correct and is a good way to get additional education as to what the Code is trying to say. The face of the curb can be the projected item not the handrail, although the handrail could be the projected item as well. As for the location of the handrail based on the photo presented can be determined as follows;

Max projection 4.5” less the 1.5” vertical support (starting from the back) = 3” from the curb face to the inside face of the handrail. Now with the vertical concrete face at the upper ramp’s wall; the handrail must have a 1.5” clearance from the wall face. Now with a 4.5” curb width (starting from the back) less 1.5” clearance less 1.5” vertical support = 1.5” from the curb face to the inside face of the handrail where there are vertical walls occurring alone the backside of the handrail.
 
The 3" recess addressed in the ADAAG and the loction of the handrail per IBC (3" less 1.5" clearance less 1.5" vertical post or handrail diameter ) = 0" would but the inside face of the handrail aligned with the face of the curb. In the ICC/ANSI A117.1 and the pending ADA/ABA the 3" recess is not mentioned. I could not find it in the ICC/ANSI A117.1 (2003) used by the 2006 IBC.
 
Examiner said:
The 3" recess addressed in the ADAAG and the loction of the handrail per IBC (3" less 1.5" clearance less 1.5" vertical post or handrail diameter ) = 0" would but the inside face of the handrail aligned with the face of the curb. In the ICC/ANSI A117.1 and the pending ADA/ABA the 3" recess is not mentioned. I could not find it in the ICC/ANSI A117.1 (2003) used by the 2006 IBC.
Click to expand...
FYI: the new A117.1 will have a provision about clearances above the handrail. It may find it's way into the new ADAAG.
 
Also, The A117.1 addresses this for grab bars - just not handrails (silly book).

609.3 Spacing.



The space between the wall and the grab bar shall be 1 1/2 inches (38 mm).The space between the grab bar and projecting objects below and at the ends of the grab bar shall be 1 1/2 inches (38 mm) minimum.The space between the grab bar and projecting objects above the grab bar shall be 12 inches (305 mm) minimum.

​
 
I do not recall any mention in the post regarding the diameter other than using it to calculate the face of the handrail from the face of the curb.
 
Gene Boecker said:
Handrail dimensions are nominal pipe size. The OD will be larger than 1-1/2 inches.
Click to expand...
Really?

Where is that in ADAAG?

[Or in the IBC for that matter with it's larger sizes?]

And how then does one size a solid wood handrail?

Do you see any reference to 'pipe' in relevant the codes and standards?

Or have you been doing it wrong?
 
brudgers said:
Really?Where is that in ADAAG?

[Or in the IBC for that matter with it's larger sizes?]

And how then does one size a solid wood handrail?

Do you see any reference to 'pipe' in relevant the codes and standards?

Or have you been doing it wrong?
Click to expand...
Really!

Look at the new ADAAG, Ben. It's the same as that in the IBC. The sizes are larger to reflect the ID -v- OD concern. Nominal 1-1/2 inch pipe is 1.9 inches OD according to American Standard Pipe manufacturing specifications. Hence the reason why the language now uses the specific expression of "outside diameter" which was not in the previous (current, archaic) text.

A wooden rail? Under the current language you could argue for a wooden rail to be no more than 1-1/2 inches in diameter. Of course, if you use the alternative gripping surface as a baseline, the maximum cross section for a 1.9 inch OD is less than the allowed 2-1/4 inches and the perimeter of that wooden railing with an OD of 1.9 inches is 5.97 inches - well under the maximum 6-1/4 inches allowed. So make the wooden railing larger as well.

No, I don't see any reference to pipe in the relevant codes and standards. However, if you read through the literature on how the dimension was determined (or simply speaking with the people involved - like the Access Board) you'll find out that all the research on graspability was performed using metal railings. And, all that has been a part of the discussions at the code change and standard revision hearings so it's in the rationale statements and testimony. So, no, it's not in the written "standards." It's in the history and the revisions. Try to keep up, will ya? ;)

So yes, you HAVE been doing it wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The new ADAAG is not law, and the old one did not allow 1.5" [nominal] pipe.

Ironically by your logic, 2" nominal pipe would comply with the building code and a circular cross section could have a larger perimeter than a non-circular cross section under the IRC.

And your reference to how the size in the current ADAAG was determined is pure BS.

The 1.5" dimension comes straight from NFPA 101...where it has been for a number of years (because they're the one's who've actually done the research).

Obviously, you're content with doing it wrong.
 
brudgers said:
The new ADAAG is not law, and the old one did not allow 1.5" [nominal] pipe.Ironically by your logic, 2" nominal pipe would comply with the building code and a circular cross section could have a larger perimeter than a non-circular cross section under the IRC.

And your reference to how the size in the current ADAAG was determined is pure BS.

The 1.5" dimension comes straight from NFPA 101...where it has been for a number of years (because they're the one's who've actually done the research).

Obviously, you're content with doing it wrong.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Ben. Go back to your calculator and recheck your entries. Using the alternate calculation method a nominal 2 inch diameter pipe would afford a perimeter of 7.46 inches - NOT acceptable. I'm not sure where you got your reference from for nominal pipe dimension. Better try again.

Why are you even bringing up the IRC? As I'm sure you're aware, the ADAAG doesn't apply to any building constructed using the IRC. Whether the calculation was true or not is irrelevant to that issue. And, last timer I checked, few homes are built using steel pipe for handrails. Or is that the type of architecture you specialize in? (Just kidding)

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the 1-1/2 inch diameter was an NFPA 101 thing. The dimension was included in the 1986 ANSI A117.1 - the basis for the current ADAAG. That dimension was generated after meetings of many on the ANSI committee to submit the metrics on graspability for the last few decades. NFPA doesn't do their own research, they rely on input from outside experts who research various matters. The fact that the Life Safety Code may also have used the same original data does not make them the authors. They have and continue to say that they are not involved in accessibility issues other than as a component of egress design.

As I mentioned, I've been in contact with the Access Board as well as individuals on the A117.1 committee. They all say that the intent was to use nominal pipe size. This is clarified in the new ADAAG. It sounds like you're afraid that it will get adopted and ruin all your arguments.

(btw: the new ADAAG IS adopted - well, at least the ABA portions of it - and happily in use by a number of federal agencies. The Title III concerns of the ADA will likely be addressed soon.)

Is it possible that you just can't admit your wrong?
 
It's clear that the intent of IBC and A117.1 is to allow 1 1/2" Nominal Pipe.

But that's not in the version of ADAAG that affects places of public accommodation.

Do your friends at the access-board ever put anything in writing?

Other than "1 1/4" (32mm) - 1 1/2"(38mm)" I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top