Handrail extensions beyond landings

[Meadowbend99]

Question on ramp handrail extensions. I have a straight run ramp, at the top of the ramp is a level surface "landing" 5'4" deep and same width as the ramp. The level surface connects with a walkway on the right hand side. The inside right handrail turns and completes an extension to the walkway. The left side handrail runs around the landing up to where it connects to the walkway, but does not extend into the walkway. There is no door at the top of the landing and guardrails are not required, top of landing and walkway are 2'-0" above start of ramp (which has handrail extensions)

Does there need to be an extension where it meets the walkway? Technically there is an extension past the ramp on the left side as it continues around and the ramp has ended. If someone is using the handrail there is no change in elevation where the handrail ends (at the walkway entrance).

This is in Texas, 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards

 

[Genduct]

Question on ramp handrail extensions. I have a straight run ramp, at the top of the ramp is a level surface "landing" 5'4" deep and same width as the ramp. The level surface connects with a walkway on the right hand side. The inside right handrail turns and completes an extension to the walkway. The left side handrail runs around the landing up to where it connects to the walkway, but does not extend into the walkway. There is no door at the top of the landing and guardrails are not required, top of landing and walkway are 2'-0" above start of ramp (which has handrail extensions)

Does there need to be an extension where it meets the walkway? Technically there is an extension past the ramp on the left side as it continues around and the ramp has ended. If someone is using the handrail there is no change in elevation where the handrail ends (at the walkway entrance).

This is in Texas, 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards

Your drawing looks flawed
If the landing, next to the stair is lower than the corridor as it appears, then you'll fall off the corridor floor without something to block the diff in elevation

 

[JPohling]

In California you would need the extension beyond the end of the ramp. If it was an alteration to existing then you could do the return, exception 3.
I will look at TX language.

 

[JPohling]

I do not see any language in TX that would allow the return. It indicates "extend horizontally above the landing for 12" minimum."

 

[e hilton]

I do not see any language in TX that would allow the return. It indicates "extend horizontally above the landing for 12" minimum."

So the effective running distance of his top ramp is reduced from 5’-4” to 4’-4”.

 

[Jay Smith]

505.2 requires a handrail on both sides. 505.10 requires the extensions to be in the same direction as the ramp. That means the handrail that wraps around is not a compliant extension.

 

[steveray]

This doesn't work...

 

[tbz]

The questions and key points are

• what is the minimum required width of the ramp?
• What is the min. required width of the entry onto the upper landing?
• To Keep in mind min. turning requirement.

As noted within 2010 ADA, ICC/ANSI A117.1 and the IBC model building code the handrail extensions are required to be in the same direction of the ramp run.

Hence since that is the top of the ramp the handrail extension would be required to extend and close down the opening entrance from the upper walking surface to the upper landing and not turn 180 degrees to the right as currently drawn.

If the entrance width between the far wrapping handrail on the other side and the point the handrail extension terminates on its side at the walkway to the landing meets the minimum width, you just need to note the extension non-compliance and or issue the correction if built in the field.

If the opening entrance requirement minimum width does not meet the requirement, then the size of the landing and the handrail extension needs to be noted on the plan review as undersized with the correct code section call outs again.

The argument I always get from designers and contractors is, why can I wrap the inside turn of the handrail to another ramp run but not the termination extension itself.

The simple reason is, the visually impaired community expects the handrail extensions to be the notification they are now entering into another traffic pattern, by wrapping the handrails on to a different traffic pattern of the adjacent walkway before terminating the extension you have them entering unexpected traffic without proper warning.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The argument I always get from designers and contractors is, why can I wrap the inside turn of the handrail to another ramp run but not the termination extension itself.

And the answer is, "Because that's what the books say."

IBC 2021:
1014.6 Handrail extensions. Handrails shall return to a wall,
guard or the walking surface or shall be continuous to the
handrail of an adjacent flight of stairs or ramp run. Where
handrails are not continuous between flights, the handrails
shall extend horizontally not less than 12 inches (305 mm)
beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one
tread beyond the bottom riser. At ramps where handrails are
not continuous between runs, the handrails shall extend horizontally
above the landing 12 inches (305 mm) minimum
beyond the top and bottom of ramp runs. The extensions of
handrails shall be in the same direction of the flights of stairs
at stairways and the ramp runs at ramps.
A117.1:
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.
Exceptions:
1. Continuous handrails at the inside turn of stairs and
ramps.
ADAAG:
505.10 Handrail Extensions. Handrail gripping surfaces shall extend beyond and in the same direction
of stair flights and ramp runs in accordance with 505.10.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. Extensions shall not be required for continuous handrails at the inside turn of
switchback or dogleg stairs and ramps.

 

[tbz]

Yankee,

Of course, that is what the ICC code, Accessibility Standard & and civil rights law as publish and adoption into law says.

However, they ask why the code is written in that manner of specifics, hence my response.

To just say it is, does not educate, it dictates.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It's okay for people to wonder why a code says anything about what it says, but as code officials we enforce the codes, we don't write them. It's unfair for the public to ask us why the code says something. It's like asking the cop who pulls you over why the speed limit is 45 MPH when you think it's safe to drive 65.

However, as an advocate for accessible design since before the ADA became the law of the land in the U.S., I can tell you that the reason for the handrail extensions in the direction of travel is to allow people with unsteady gaits to still have something to hold onto while their feet and legs make the transition from walking on a stair or ramp to walking on a level surface. And, as a senior citizen with mobility impairments, I can attest first-hand to just how important this is. For me, the first step onto a stair and the last step off a stair are steps that require significant caution. Candidly, I NEED those handrail extensions to be there to maintain my balance.

From the IBC 2021 Commentary:

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).

There is also a Commentary for A117.1, but I don't have it. Interestingly, the 2010 ADAAG doesn't even include an explanatory paragraph for this section, so the Access Board apparently doesn't think there's even any question on the issue.

 

[steveray]

we don't write them.

Not enough of us do...but we are the final vote...and not enough of us do that...

 

[Inspector Gift]

Interesting topic... I allow for alternative methods and have permitted the handrail extension turns to reduce hazards.

The extension at end of stairs and ramps can be an obstruction and hazard. Per IBC 104.1, the "Building Official may take any action including but not limited to waiving a requirement, modifying a requirement or accepting an alternate method to the requirements..."

The attached picture shows an alternative the the handrail extension that is in the ICC A117.1 Commentary. (Page 5-13)

 

[Paul Sweet]

A 90 degree turn might meet the intent of the code because the path of travel turns, but not a 180 degree turn.

However, in a lot of areas doing anything but a straight extension will invite attention from lawyers.

 

[steveray]

A 90 degree turn might meet the intent of the code because the path of travel turns, but not a 180 degree turn.

This^^^^^^

 

[tbz]

Interesting topic... I allow for alternative methods and have permitted the handrail extension turns to reduce hazards.

The extension at end of stairs and ramps can be an obstruction and hazard. Per IBC 104.1, the "Building Official may take any action including but not limited to waiving a requirement, modifying a requirement or accepting an alternate method to the requirements..."

The attached picture shows an alternative the the handrail extension that is in the ICC A117.1 Commentary. (Page 5-13)

I.G.

Based on the photo, it looks like the wall mounted handrail, left side descending, travels the minimum required distance, then levels off and then returns to the wall. Thus, compliant unless the level off happens before the required extension is reached.

The right side descending, looks like it also extends the required distance, then runs level, before doing the full 180 degree wrap around the corner.

Thus, also compliant.

In order to delineate the end, returning to the floor in leu of wrapping around the corner helps delineate the stop and starting point of the stair flight.

More sometimes is not better, its just more.

 

[Yikes]

So the effective running distance of his top ramp is reduced from 5’-4” to 4’-4”.

No, the effective running distance remains 5'-4". What shrinks is the opening width where you enter into the ramp landing area. It will go down to about 4' clear.



Keep in mind that the 12" part is the smooth, straight part. You can't start the bend until after 12".
So in the "real world", most radiused bends such at the one shown in the Texas standard are actually at least 15-16" long, so the opening may shrink more:

 

[steveray]

The attached picture shows an alternative the the handrail extension that is in the ICC A117.1 Commentary. (Page 5-13)

Tough to tell on that one...the extension looks like it is out further than the "skirt board" which may get you your one tread extension before the u turn......Either way I would not use that as a basis for noncompliance...There is always a way to make an extension not a safety hazard...

 

[tbz]

The diagrams in both the, A1171. document and 2010ADA are not realistic for actual installation, as you would never place the posts in the locations as drawn in those documents.

The attached pdf is what we teach to designers, fabricators and inspectors, it is also currently under the editorial review of A117.1 now being worked on.

I note editorial, because the diagrams/figures within both those documents are not enforceable, the actual wording is the only enforceable portion of the documents.

 

[mark handler]

Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS) https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/
505.10 Handrail Extensions. Handrail gripping surfaces shall extend beyond and in the same direction of stair flights and ramp runs in accordance with 505.10.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The diagrams in both the, A1171. document and 2010ADA are not realistic for actual installation, as you would never place the posts in the locations as drawn in those documents.

The attached pdf is what we teach to designers, fabricators and inspectors, it is also currently under the editorial review of A117.1 now being worked on.

I note editorial, because the diagrams/figures within both those documents are not enforceable, the actual wording is the only enforceable portion of the documents.

And yet the diagrams have been unchanged since the 2003 edition of A117.1.

I see a lot of handrails that look exactly like those in the figures. I don't know why you would say they are not realistic when shops are making rails just like them every day.

 

[tbz]

And yet the diagrams have been unchanged since the 2003 edition of A117.1.

I see a lot of handrails that look exactly like those in the figures. I don't know why you would say they are not realistic when shops are making rails just like them every day.

Its simple, you can't install a post over the break of the ramp without either core drilling between 2 slabs or installing fasteners on each side of the seem, thus restricting the expansion and contraction of the points. For wood floors and metal prefab you will run into the same issue.

Thus, support posts are installed either on the ramp 4-inches minimum from the seem or a seem, or 4-inches or more past the seem of the break on the landing.

Its not the "P" point that is an issue, it is the placement of the post in the figure sketch, and then the measurement point within the "P" area.

The reality is, those that look at stuff or draw it on paper vs those that actually build it, the reality is Just because it been drawn wrong for decades, does not make it correct.

 

[Yikes]

The code diagrams usually aren’t too concerned with constructibility.
That said, why couldn’t the slab joint occur a foot or so into the landing, rather than exactly at the bottom of the ramp?
I see this done often at stairs, where the pour extends into the landing to ensure the last riser dimension doesn’t drift due to settlement over time.

 

[tbz]

The code diagrams usually aren’t too concerned with constructibility.
That said, why couldn’t the slab joint occur a foot or so into the landing, rather than exactly at the bottom of the ramp?
I see this done often at stairs, where the pour extends into the landing to ensure the last riser dimension doesn’t drift due to settlement over time.

So my question is, why not?

The cost to do what is incorrectly represented in the drawing as a concept or the occasional pour on a joint is vastly more money than the reality of not putting a support post at a break or seem.

The 2010ADA standard, nor A117.1, nor the family of IBC code requirements does not require the handrail extension to run from the face of the support post 12-inches before the change in direction. Its from the point the ramp run turns into the landing to the second point.

I just want to make sure I am getting this right, the figure/diagram shows the measurement from the side of the support post to the inside vertical or transition radius start, forewhich to accomplish that as the measuring point, the post needs to be precisely placed at a point of transition from ramp run to minimum handrail distance and you think this is a clear representation of reality?

So the worst design possible, that an unknown number of people are being instructed by daily for what is actually required vs a figure that actually better represents what the requirements are.

So your sticking with head in sand, and we wonder why the designers draw this exact detail so wrong as much as it is 20 plus years afterwards.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, I wonder what the cost of this poorly represented figure has produced for incorrectly drawn and installed handrail extensions.