• 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

Does this handrail bracket meet code?

tonyleto

tonyleto

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
19
Location
Milwaukee, WI
I had initially posted this on the residential side before before I realized that the contractor was referencing the IBC residential code. So I am reposting it here:We received this question from one of our customers. His home uses this style bracket which is commonly available in the market from most home stores. The question is whether this handrail bracket meets the clearance requirements as noted in the 2006 IBC?Pertinent section is Exception 3 under "1012.4 Continuity""Handrail brackets . . . attached to the bottom surface of the handrail that do not project horizontally beyond the sides of the handrail within 1.5 inches . . . of the bottom of the handrail shall not be considered obstructions."View attachment 1217

View attachment 1656

View attachment 1656

/monthly_2012_02/Handrail2.jpg.6fcaebb0f6719da461eed0fbc17258cf.jpg
 
brudgers said:
Why do you think it meets code?
Click to expand...
I don't. The construction company is telling the homeowner that it does. I'm looking for thoughts as to how the construction company might make that claim and how inspectors would interpret the obstruction definition.
 
The drawing sez: "contact point hurts fingers!" It appears the contracor has installed the handrail bracket cleat too close to one side causing an "ouchy"

The bracket is permitted but the installer has created an issue by not centering the bracket attachment, IMO.

pc1
 
The drawing sez: "contact point hurts fingers!" It appears the contracor has installed the handrail bracket too close to one side causing an "ouchy"

The bracket is permitted but the installer has created an issue by not centering the bracket attachment, IMO.

pc1
 
Interesting to hear. Very much appreciate your comments!

What criteria do you use to accept them if they don't meet the vertical clearance requirement? Is the fact that they have "been around forever" enough to make them acceptable considering the code was changed in the 2000 cycle specifically to eliminate the use of this style bracket?

I was at the hearings during the 2000 code cycle when this was approved. The original submission clearly showed the purpose of the change was to permit the use of the handrail by someone with their fingers extended vertically down such that their fingers would not make contact with the handrail bracket. The original request was to make the clearance greater (I think it was 2-1/4 inch) and the committee allowed for a reduction to 1-1/2 inches from the underside (which reduces down to 1 inch as the handrail gets larger).

And what about the load requirement that the handrail meet a 200 lb concentrated load or 50 lb/ft uniform load?

I'm perfectly fine with a determination that these are considered acceptable by inspectors. We have retooled to make brackets that meet the clearance requirement but we have older styles that don't and are rejected. It would be a great help if I could provide a clarification to an inspector who does reject this style bracket as to by what criteria it would be considered acceptable.

I just have a sense that saying it's been around forever is not going to be enough to convince an inspector who says the clearance isn't there.
 
as i recall, but have no access to the comentay has some good drawings of acceptable railing profiles and possibly atachment
 
TheCommish said:
as i recall, but have no access to the comentay has some good drawings of acceptable railing profiles and possibly atachment
Click to expand...
The drawing depicting typical use for the clearance requirement was in the 1999 (or 2000) monograph. I don't have a copy any longer so don't have it to post. The same proposal was made to that ADA and the Access Board opinion was the same -- the clearance was to be there to allow clearance when used by those with an inability to grasp and who would use the rail with fingers extended vertically down.

In both the ICC and Access Board hearings, we provided comment that handrail is not typically used in this manner but with a "power grip" (hand wrapped around the handrail) in which case the brackets should be considered allowable obstructions in the same way that baluster bars spaced on 4 inch centers would be permitted. Both the Access Board and the ICC rejected this argument and insisted that the area as shown in the yellow box on the image posted at the top of this thread was to be unobstructed.

So the question remains, how does this bracket meet the clearance requirements of the IBC? Is there a way to get an official interpretation from the IBC?
 
tonyleto said:
Interesting to hear. Very much appreciate your comments!What criteria do you use to accept them if they don't meet the vertical clearance requirement? Is the fact that they have "been around forever" enough to make them acceptable considering the code was changed in the 2000 cycle specifically to eliminate the use of this style bracket?

I was at the hearings during the 2000 code cycle when this was approved. The original submission clearly showed the purpose of the change was to permit the use of the handrail by someone with their fingers extended vertically down such that their fingers would not make contact with the handrail bracket. The original request was to make the clearance greater (I think it was 2-1/4 inch) and the committee allowed for a reduction to 1-1/2 inches from the underside (which reduces down to 1 inch as the handrail gets larger).

And what about the load requirement that the handrail meet a 200 lb concentrated load or 50 lb/ft uniform load?

I'm perfectly fine with a determination that these are considered acceptable by inspectors. We have retooled to make brackets that meet the clearance requirement but we have older styles that don't and are rejected. It would be a great help if I could provide a clarification to an inspector who does reject this style bracket as to by what criteria it would be considered acceptable.

I just have a sense that saying it's been around forever is not going to be enough to convince an inspector who says the clearance isn't there.
Click to expand...
The IBC and IRC have different provisions. In your original post you refer to the IBC residential code. From what I can tell from the sketch the bracket does not conform to the IBC requirements, but does conform to the IRC for continuity. As to structural loading requirements under the IBC only an engineering analysis could demonstrate that.
 
Mj, Fatboy & Pc,

I think if you are allowing thisnbracket type in an IBC location you need take a good look back at the code. This does not comply for over 10 years now.

The IRC does not have the below handrail requirement maybe it should or not, but that is a different point.

But the bracket Tony is noting is very common and though the IRC allows no clearance the strength question is a good one because they have no back support against the wall and if directly mounted to Sheetrock from our testing will not hold under a 200 lb force load test the mountings pull right out of the wall the screws are way to small. You need to mount directly to wood to get the support.
 
And here is another thought, if you will agree that the way wood post are mounted to decks for years are no good and won't hold the loads over time, why do you think this same little cast bracket with 3 tiny little screws will?

If that same ball and chain test the wood guys accept for the right way to test posts on decks is the exact same requirement for handrails in the code do the same with this handrail bracket and see what happens.
 
imhotep said:
As to structural loading requirements under the IBC only an engineering analysis could demonstrate that.
Click to expand...
Very true and we find that we are being asked for structural load data on our products every day -- and we have it. So are inspectors asking for the load data on the railing and bracket assembly?
 
NFPA 101 7.2.2.4.4.5 [2003] requires 2 1/4" clearance between the handrail and wall to which it is fastened.

Some people will "grasp" a handrail with a closed fist, or the stump of an amputated limb.
 
tbz,

I allow the handrail bracket that Mj has posted on residential projects only and it has to be screwed to solid material, to a post or a stud behind the drywall in most cases.

It was not my intent to make reference to the IBC requirements, my mistake.

pc1
 
Sorry, should have qualified my comment, see the all the time in IRC buildings. IBC buildings typically have a bracket that is manudactured to mate with a manufactured guard system.
 
brudgers said:
NFPA 101 7.2.2.4.4.5 [2003] requires 2 1/4" clearance between the handrail and wall to which it is fastened. Some people will "grasp" a handrail with a closed fist, or the stump of an amputated limb.
Click to expand...
Ah, the NFPA :butt, well most of the places we see 101 adopted, the adopting agency modifies the 2.25 to 1-1/2" to match what all the other standards publish.

There are the few that adopt it and leave it, but we mostly see it changed when adopted.
 
Pcinspector1 said:
tbz, I allow the handrail bracket that Mj has posted on residential projects only and it has to be screwed to solid material, to a post or a stud behind the drywall in most cases.

It was not my intent to make reference to the IBC requirements, my mistake.

pc1
Click to expand...
I was kinda figuring that was the case
 
brudgers said:
NFPA 101 7.2.2.4.4.5 [2003] requires 2 1/4" clearance between the handrail and wall to which it is fastened. Some people will "grasp" a handrail with a closed fist, or the stump of an amputated limb.
Click to expand...
Now don't start muddying the water with the NFPA position.

The 2-1/4" clearance between the wall and handrail was the original proposal to ANSI, ADA and ICC. The justification presented was in regards to falls not graspability.

Most injuries on stairs are still related to non-use of handrail. The scenario presented was that someone, not grasping a handrail, who trips while on stair, will reach out to grasp the handrail. Their hand will have fingers extended horizontally in this situation. The proponent felt that the wall clearance needed to be 2-1/4 inches to allow clearance for that person's outspread fingers -- the 1-1/2 inch clear would result in finger tip impact and negate the ability to grasp the handrail.

Not enough evidence was presented to support this concept so the request to extend the minimum from 1-1/2 inches to 2-1/4 inches was denied in the ICC, ANSI and ADA.

However, the proponent of this change was able to get NFPA to accept the change for NFPA 5000. When NFPA 5000 didn't gain acceptance, it became part of NFPA 101.

Attempts to get the NFPA to change it back to match up with the others have failed but not because of the finger extension issue or the use by someone with an amputated limb. Fire fighters prefer the 2-1/4 Inch minimum because it provides clearance for their heavy-weight gloves. For that reason, it will never be rolled back at this point.

So it is now not uncommon to have situations arise where a building inspector approves a railing install based on the 1-1/2 inch minimum only to have the fire inspector reject because it does not meet the 2-1/4 inch minimum . And, until the recent ADA update, you also had a situation where the 2-1/4 inch minimum was in conflict with ADAAG which required a 1-1/2 inch absolute dimension between wall and handrail.
 
tbz said:
Ah, the NFPA :butt, well most of the places we see 101 adopted, the adopting agency modifies the 2.25 to 1-1/2" to match what all the other standards publish. There are the few that adopt it and leave it, but we mostly see it changed when adopted.
Click to expand...
Fire escapes used to be pretty standard, too. So did asbestos.

Falls kill about six times as many people as dwelling fires every year.
 
tonyleto said:
The justification presented was in regards to falls not graspability.
Click to expand...
In regards to handrails, unless you are talking about hitting them with your head as you are tumbling, those are the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top