Handrail extensions beyond landings

[mark handler]

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?

Yes most, if not all the figures/diagrams/drawings indicate the measurements are to the open areas. not the centers of the posts/vert. rails.
Per the seminars/classes I have attended, the measurements are for full usability by the disabled.
But I still wonder, Code and code adopted Standards are a minimum, why do we still insist on just meeting bare minimums in the code, we should be designing to exceed, not just meet the code and code adopted Standards
.

 

[Yikes]

So my question is, why not?

IMO, the accessibility code illustrations are probably intended to be universal, and not intended to compel a specific material selection or material performance detailing (construction joints). For example, the ramp could be made of wood or metal rather than concrete, in which case an expansion or construction joint might not be essential at that location.

I suppose they could have omitted the post altogether from the illustration, since the intent is to graphically described the dimension of the handrail extension rather than how the handrail is supported. Perhaps the illustration would have become too abstract to recognize and interpret without a post for context. I don't know.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Yikes]

But I still wonder, Code and code adopted Standards are a minimum, why do we still insist on just meeting bare minimums in the code, we should be designing to exceed, not just meet the code and code adopted Standards

Yes, we should design to exceed, at least for purposes of construction tolerance.
But we enforce to the minimum, just a like a football referee enforces the out-=of-bounds lines to the minimum.

Anything beyond minimum becomes part of the larger balancing act of cost/benefit, a decision that we defer to property owners and their DPs.

Here in so Cal, I work on some very tight infill sites on sloping ground. When I can, I design ramps to 7.5% slope. But sometimes designing a ramp to 8.2 or 8.3% will make all the difference in being able to add just one more parking stall to satisfy code minimums.
For example, our latest code requires a min 4" curb separation between pedestrian walkways and vehicular areas, so now I need more site area to construct that transition than just a couple of years ago. This could add another 4'+ to the standard 62' bay width of a parking structure. That's a big deal on small infill lots. I need all the flexibility that code minimums can give me.

 

[mark handler]

Yes, we should design to exceed, at least for purposes of construction tolerance.
But we enforce to the minimum, just a like a football referee enforces the out-=of-bounds lines to the minimum.

Anything beyond minimum becomes part of the larger balancing act of cost/benefit, a decision that we defer to property owners and their DPs.

Here in so Cal, I work on some very tight infill sites on sloping ground. When I can, I design ramps to 7.5% slope. But sometimes designing a ramp to 8.2 or 8.3% will make all the difference in being able to add just one more parking stall to satisfy code minimums.
For example, our latest code requires a min 4" curb separation between pedestrian walkways and vehicular areas, so now I need more site area to construct that transition than just a couple of years ago. This could add another 4'+ to the standard 62' bay width of a parking structure. That's a big deal on small infill lots. I need all the flexibility that code minimums can give me.

There are always exceptions to the rules, and yes I know CA has different rules....

 

[tbz]

IMO, the accessibility code illustrations are probably intended to be universal, and not intended to compel a specific material selection or material performance detailing (construction joints). For example, the ramp could be made of wood or metal rather than concrete, in which case an expansion or construction joint might not be essential at that location.

I suppose they could have omitted the post altogether from the illustration, since the intent is to graphically described the dimension of the handrail extension rather than how the handrail is supported. Perhaps the illustration would have become too abstract to recognize and interpret without a post for context. I don't know.

Just my 2 cents.

Yes, you make a great point, be universal, however let's face it designers take the illustrations/figures to be written in stone and I can't count the number of times we have to explain that the support post does not have to be where the figure shows it.

Though there are many options for handrail materials, the vast majority are made in some sort of metal when it comes to ramps and stairs regulated by the requirements.

The PDF I posted in post #19 are very similar to the diagrams I submitted to the A117.1 editorial review committee for the next publication currently under review. I am also hopeful for them or something very similar making the IBC commentary at a future date. The following 3 sketches are what I submitted and currently being reviewed.

 

[mark handler]

Yes, you make a great point, be universal, however let's face it designers take the illustrations/figures to be written in stone and I can't count the number of times we have to explain that the support post does not have to be where the figure shows it.

Though there are many options for handrail materials, the vast majority are made in some sort of metal when it comes to ramps and stairs regulated by the requirements.

The PDF I posted in post #19 are very similar to the diagrams I submitted to the A117.1 editorial review committee for the next publication currently under review. I am also hopeful for them or something very similar making the IBC commentary at a future date. The following 3 sketches are what I submitted and currently being reviewed.

View attachment 11826
View attachment 11827
View attachment 11828

If the codes were to show/contain every condition, it would be 100's of volumes or more.
That's why, in many of my post, I note the intent of the code. Those Figures in the code try to reflect the intent, not every condition.
The Building designer and the official need to read the code, understand the intent, instead of just looking at the figures to make is easy on themselves.

 

[Yikes]

If the codes were to show/contain every condition, it would be 100's of volumes or more.
That's why, in many of my post, I note the intent of the code. Those Figures in the code try to reflect the intent, not every condition.
The Building designer and the official need to read the code, understand the intent, instead of just looking at the figures to make is easy on themselves.

I do think that tbz's illustrations would be great as part of a code commentary, and I hope he pursues it with the ICC.

 

[mark handler]

I do think that tbz's illustrations would be great as part of a code commentary, and I hope he pursues it with the ICC.

ALL illustrations, if vetted, are great, and that is why commentary books are great.
BUT
Not in the code, code needs to illustrate generic situations.
Which is another reason, CA required continuing education for Architects, specifically on Accessibility, at Re-licensure.

 

[ICE]

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.

What about blind people hitting the extension? It should be a solid panel below the extension that reaches the walking surface. Then a blind person can detect it with a cane..

 

[mark handler]

View attachment 11837
What about blind people hitting the extension? It should be a solid panel below the extension that reaches the walking surface. Then blind person can detect it with a cane..

That is still an issue and they are not exclusive, the designers must meet all the codes, if the rail is an issue for the blind, you run the rail to the ground, as represented in other code figures. (Or to a wall/pilaster.....)

 

[Jay Smith]

For the bottom height, I have been following this.

 

[JPohling]

Yes. the return needs to be below 27" to allow cane detection.

 

[mark handler]

For the bottom height, I have been following this.

View attachment 11838

No just a recommendation, it must meet all aspects of the code.

 

[e hilton]

Related question. I have stains with this condition, and the architect is saying they are not compliant. Bank branch. The text says the handrail has to return to a wall, guard, or landing surface, which the appear to do. So what’s the issue? I have asked the archy but no response yet.

 

[JPohling]

Hilton, I am not sure what jurisdiction/code your under, but if this was a return heading down another flight it would be compliant, but at least in California the bottom of the stair run the extension needs to be longer. tread + 12". After pulling up A117.1 it looks to be in compliance if that is your code..

 

[e hilton]

Hilton, I am not sure what jurisdiction/code your under, but if this was a return heading down another flight it would be compliant, but at least in California the bottom of the stair run the extension needs to be longer. tread + 12". After pulling up A117.1 it looks to be in compliance if that is your code..

View attachment 11845

I measured it yesterday, the end of the rail where it turn to the side is 15” from the nose of the bottom tread.

 

[JPohling]

As long as it extends at the angle of the stair for a tread distance prior to the return you should be good

 

[tbz]

I measured it yesterday, the end of the rail where it turn to the side is 15” from the nose of the bottom tread.

Based on the picture and your description, and the AIA questioning compliance, the only thing that seems to come to mind is the change in direction to the level off is prior than the minimum tread for the sloped portion, see pic below.

 

[tbz]

Hit send to early on post 42, the question the AIA has on returned to guard is considered compliant in my view, maybe not theirs, by the full 180 degree wrap around to an area not accessible complies with the intent. The intent is not to have the pointed end out hanging in the breeze for someone to get caught on.

So if the level off is at or after the minimum, and even that is questionable as long as the handrail stays within the 34-38 range until the minimum is reached.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Related question. I have stains with this condition, and the architect is saying they are not compliant. Bank branch. The text says the handrail has to return to a wall, guard, or landing surface, which the appear to do. So what’s the issue? I have asked the archy but no response yet.

Looking at the photo more closely, I would say that it doesn't return to the wall or to the guard. Granted, it doesn't end abruptly like a spear, but it does leave a horizontal loop that's arguably narrow enough that something like the shoulder strap of a purse could become caught on it, and that's what I believe the code provision is intended to prevent.

IBC:

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. ...

A117.1-2017:

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.

505.10.2 Top extension at stairs. At the top of a stair
flight, handrails shall extend horizontally above the landing
for 12 inches (305 mm) minimum beginning directly
above the landing nosing. Extensions shall return to a
wall, guard, or the landing surface, or shall be continuous
to the handrail of an adjacent stair flight.

The other point is that the extension under A117.1 and the IBC (which California appears to have modified) is that the handrail must continue on the same incline for a distance equal to the tread depth. Assuming the treads in that stair are 11 inches, if the rail makes that left turn 15 inches from the last nosing, then there may not be 11 inches on the incline past the nosing before that handrail levels out.

One last point: What's your role? If the architect is the party raising the objection, what do the architectural drawings for the stair show?

 

[Yikes]

Yankee Chronicler, regarding the horizontal loop aspect of a handrail return, it may be instructive to look at fire code door handle requirements. There’s a reason that commercial lever hardware is L shaped, not straight.
The fire code requires door lever handles to return within 1/2” of the face of the door. That represents the maximum limits of the gap width, after which straps can become caught.

Based on this, I would use 1/2” maximum for the gap at the handrail return.

 

[steveray]

View attachment 11837
What about blind people hitting the extension? It should be a solid panel below the extension that reaches the walking surface. Then a blind person can detect it with a cane..

If it goes below 27" not a code issue....most do....

 

[tbz]

Yankee Chronicler, regarding the horizontal loop aspect of a handrail return, it may be instructive to look at fire code door handle requirements. There’s a reason that commercial lever hardware is L shaped, not straight.
The fire code requires door lever handles to return within 1/2” of the face of the door. That represents the maximum limits of the gap width, after which straps can become caught.

Based on this, I would use 1/2” maximum for the gap at the handrail return.

Yikes, based on this past code cycle, I would venture I guess it will be moving towards more like 1/4" as though its in the 2024 IRC, I beleive we will more than likely see this same change for 2027 in the IBC from the SMA.

RB111-22

 

[Yikes]

Thanks for the heads-up. This sounds like a good practice.