Can handrails turn 90 degrees at wraparound stair treads?

[PatrickGSR94]

I have a stair coming out of a building, under a little porch, that has an exterior opening the same width as the stairs. The bottom 2 or 3 treads extend out past that opening, and those bottom treads wrap around to become wider than the stair main width. So the bottom 3 steps are basically 3-sided. Can the hand rail on each side turn and run along the wall outside the opening, along the 2 sides of the wraparound treads? Or do the rails need to continue down straight, effectively cutting off those 2 side areas of the wraparound treads?

 

[Joe.B]

Residential (one- and two-family) or commercial?

 

[walker.t]

So the bottom 3 steps are basically 3-sided. Can the hand rail on each side turn and run along the wall outside the opening, along the 2 sides of the wraparound treads? Or do the rails need to continue down straight, effectively cutting off those 2 side areas of the wraparound treads?

Does this show the stair configuration you are trying to describe and the two options for handrails?

 

[tbz]

New (IBC/IRC) or existing (IEBC) and is this under IBC or IRC?

I will take a guess since you noted "building" this is not a 1 or 2 family home, also I will guess it is existing and not a new building, please correct if my guess is wrong.

From my first interp without digging up the code sections these are rectangular treads and are not winders, the sides are parallel along with the leading and trailing edges and there is no landing for a change in direction.

I see these a lot in the eastern cities on renovation projects and we design for curve outs to the 45 degrees plus extensions.

The interp that we have run into the majority of the time is no landing at a change in direction and per the winder terminology only the bottom 2 might be be argued. As thus, the full handrail wall wrap has been flagged as a change in direction without a landing.

The choices we have been held to are

• Keep stairs
  • Run straight
  • Curve to maximum 45 degrees
• Keep Handrail wall wrap
  • Add a landing

But I am really interested in what the rest of you believe this falls under.

 

[steveray]

I'll start.....If it is like walker shows, no, you cannot turn like that....

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The code says the handrail extensions must continue in the direction of stair travel. Assuming the sketch provided is about what you have, there's no way anyone would (or could) walk on those tread extensions parallel to the face of the building, so the handrail extensions cannot turn like that.

 

[PatrickGSR94]

Does this show the stair configuration you are trying to describe and the two options for handrails?

View attachment 14849

yes, the right side one is what we originally showed. Left side is what I was asking if we need to change it to.

So I guess that makes wraparound treads pointless? Because I know I've seen commercial buildings with monumental wrap-around stairs like this before. Maybe they were wider and had intermediate rails or something, I don't know.

 

[walker.t]

yes, the right side one is what we originally showed. Left side is what I was asking if we need to change it to.

Thank you for the confirmation.

So I guess that makes wraparound treads pointless?

I don’t think wraparound treads are generally intended to be walked on, the intention is more for aesthetics.

Because I know I've seen commercial buildings with monumental wrap-around stairs like this before. Maybe they were wider and had intermediate rails or something, I don't know.

I would guess a combination of both, the extra width would necessitate the requirement for the intermediate rails per IBC 1014.9.

we design for curve outs to the 45 degrees plus extensions

The code says the handrail extensions must continue in the direction of stair travel.

IBC 1014.6 does state that the handrail extensions must be in the same direction as the stairs. As far as I can recall, I’ve never seen handrails that were not perpendicular to the nosings, I can’t find anything in the code that states that as a requirement.

 

[bill1952]

I’ve never seen handrails that were not perpendicular to the nosings,

Not unusual in aisles in assembly seating.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

IBC 1014.6 does state that the handrail extensions must be in the same direction as the stairs. As far as I can recall, I’ve never seen handrails that were not perpendicular to the nosings, I can’t find anything in the code that states that as a requirement.

The actual language is "The extensions of handrails shall be in the same direction of the flights of stairs at stairways and the ramp runs at ramps." It does not mention nosings. The 2021 Commentary for IBC 1014.6 explains:

The length that a handrail extends beyond the top
and bottom of a stairway, ramp or intermediate landing
where handrails are not continuous to another stair
flight or ramp run is an important factor for the safety of
the users. An occupant must be able to securely grasp
a handrail beyond the last riser of a stairway or the last
sloped segment of a ramp. Handrail terminations that
bend around a corner do not provide this stability;
therefore, the handrail must extend in the direction of
the stair flight or ramp run. The handrail extensions are
not required where a user could keep his or her hand
on the handrail, such as the continuous handrail at the
landing of a switchback stairway or ramp (see Section
1014.2, Exception 1).

And then there's ICC/ANSI A117.1. The 2017 language is:

505.10 Handrail extensions. Handrails shall extend beyond
and in the same direction of stair flights and ramp runs in
accordance with Section 505.10.

This should not be news to anyone. I was citing stair designs with handrail extensions that turned around corners twenty years ago. Almost every day, I still see plans with stairs that violate common sense design practices I learned at my first job in an architect's office, before I had even attended architecture school. It's pretty disappointing, to be honest.

 

[walker.t]

The actual language is "The extensions of handrails shall be in the same direction of the flights of stairs at stairways and the ramp runs at ramps." It does not mention nosings.

I made reference to nosings because nosings are part of the flight of stairs and I couldn’t find a code provision that said that handrails had to be parallel to the direction of travel along the flight of stairs (which in my mind is “perpendicular to the nosings.”)

This should not be news to anyone. I was citing stair designs with handrail extensions that turned around corners twenty years ago. Almost every day, I still see plans with stairs that violate common sense design practices I learned at my first job in an architect's office, before I had even attended architecture school. It's pretty disappointing, to be honest.

I appreciate you noting that handrail extensions that turn corners are a code violation. I’ve even seen drawings for the bottom flight of stairs that turned the handrails 90° away from the stairs, went a few inches, then turned another 90° to form a U shape when viewed in plan. The code seemed pretty clear to me that extensions are straight and in the direction of travel of the stair. The drawings were reviewed and stamped by the building department, I know no one is perfect but not sure how that slipped by everyone (architect and plan review.)

 

[bill1952]

Isn't the "extension" just the last segment of the handrail after the last riser?

 

[walker.t]

Isn't the "extension" just the last segment of the handrail after the last riser?

Yes. For stairs the extension at the top landing is horizontal, at the bottom landing it is a literal extension (lengthening) of the handrail. For ramps, the extensions at the top and bottom of the ramp are both horizontal.

Not unusual in aisles in assembly seating.

I took a quick look at the 2018 IBC Illustrated Handbook commentary, it noted that extensions were “not required for aisle handrails in rooms or spaces used for assembly purposes,” code references appear to be:

2018 IBC 1014.6 Handrail Extensions, Exception 2
Handrails serving aisles in rooms or spaces used for assembly purposes are permitted to comply with the handrail extensions in accordance with Section 2019.16.

2018 IBC 1029.16 Handrails, Exception 3
Handrail extensions are not required at the top and bottom of stepped aisles and ramped aisles of permit crossovers within the aisles.

 

[bill1952]

No extensions in assembly aisles in ADA as well. But I think the answer to the original post lies not in handrails as much as in landings and change of direction.

My earlier comment was not limited to extensions but to handrails being perpendicular to nosings, not parallel with direction of travel. But aisle stairs - or stepped aisle in more recent editions of IBC - in assembly seating break a lot of the normal stair rules.

 

[walker.t]

But I think the answer to the original post lies not in handrails as much as in landings and change of direction.

That sounds right to me. I guess the exception would be winders but per IBC 1011.5.3 (Winder Treads) winders are only allowed in a means of egress stairway in a dwelling unit, that wouldn’t apply to the original poster’s situation.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The stair illustrated does not have winders, nor does it have a landing to suggest a change of direction of [stair] travel. The handrails cannot "return" around the corner as on the right side of the illustration.

 

[tbz]

Inspectors on projects have accepted the following 2 sketches on projects.

The turn out in the first sketch has been debated and we have found if the inspector can walk the flight with their eyes closed comfortably they have not had an issue and allowed it. Even on ABA projects on GSA buildings and landmarks.

But the wrap as drawn in your #3 post I have never seen an inspector allow it, except on the occasional interior where there are 2 handrails on a flight in a residential project that only requires (1) handrail, and the stairs are only wrapped on one side, not both, so the 1 handrail is always straight top to bottom.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I would not accept either of the above alternates. IBC 1011.5.4:

1011.5.4 Dimensional uniformity. Stair treads and risers
shall be of uniform size and shape. The tolerance between
the largest and smallest riser height or between the largest
and smallest tread depth shall not exceed 3/8 inch (9.5
mm) in any flight of stairs. The greatest winder tread
depth at the walkline within any flight of stairs shall not
exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm).

If the handrail curves, the tread depth of each tread changes along the curved portion. If the handrail is angled off at 45 degrees as in the second illustration above, what was an 11-inch tread becomes a 15-1/2 inch tread in the diagonal direction of stair travel -- in the same flight. That's not allowed. Plus, where the main stair ends onto the landing, the handrails don't extend 11" in the direction of stair travel before wrapping around the corner.

xx

 

[wwhitney]

If the handrail is angled off at 45 degrees as in the second illustration above, what was an 11-inch tread becomes a 15-1/2 inch tread in the diagonal direction of stair travel -- in the same flight. That's not allowed.

(2021) IBC 1011.5.2 says "Rectangular tread depths shall be 11 inches (279 mm) minimum measured horizontally between the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads and at a right angle to the tread's nosing." That doesn't say anything about measuring along the direction of the handrail, so your reasoning does not match the text of IBC 1011. Unless there a different part of IBC 1011 that I am overlooking?

If there is a violation in any of the layouts shown in this thread, it would be of a requirement in IBC 1014 on Handrails. I think the most applicable text is in 1014.9, which while titled "Intermediate Handrails" says in its second sentence "On monumental stairs, handrails shall be located along the most direct path of egress travel." Seems like a straight line is the most direct path, so the handrail must continue straight. Of course "monumental stairs" is not a defined term, but it seems plausible to apply it to the stair design under discussion.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[tbz]

I would not accept either of the above alternates. IBC 1011.5.4:



If the handrail curves, the tread depth of each tread changes along the curved portion. If the handrail is angled off at 45 degrees as in the second illustration above, what was an 11-inch tread becomes a 15-1/2 inch tread in the diagonal direction of stair travel -- in the same flight. That's not allowed. Plus, where the main stair ends onto the landing, the handrails don't extend 11" in the direction of stair travel before wrapping around the corner.

xx

YC,

Every inspector has their opinion, the fact is just because the handrails are on the 45deg is not how the code designates to measure the stair treads.

So though you make a lot of good interp's this one is not one I can agree with seeing your point.

Tread and Risers are measured without the handrails in mind.

As to the handrails, one can make a case for either accepting them or not, however, it is rare that an inspector has an issue with the layouts shown.

I have yet to see a version of the two posted in post 17 not accepted by inspectors with a correct interp of the code, though I wont go as far to say someone might have an issue with them and question them.