Handrail Extensions - In direction of stairs

[nealderidder]

On the attached you'll see a couple of handrail options at the top landing of an exterior stair. Option A is what I'm proposing with a continuous interior handrail and an exterior rail that terminates with the required 1' extension.

Option B is what the plan checker is telling me CBC (California) 1014.6 requires, where it says …extension shall be in the same direction of the flight of stairs...

My argument is that the handrail is continuous and therefore no extensions are required. He's telling me because it is at the top of the stair, the extension needs to continue straight (red segment on attached), no exception for the handrail being continuous.

Who would you agree with?

Thanks for your input!

Neal

 

[BN4537]

ADA 505.10, exception 1 appears that it may allow what you are proposing, but the IBC doesn't have the same exception if read strictly.

Weird. I wouldn't have a problem with either picture.

 

[steveray]

I think it says continuous between flights?....B


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......

 

[nealderidder]

I think it says continuous between flights?....B


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......

Steveray - the CBC language is ...or shall be continuous to the handrail of an adjacent flight of stairs... So I guess the argument would be that since there is no additional flight of stairs after the top landing, you can't use the exception. But it just makes no sense, how is the condition actually any different at the mid-landing vs. the top landing? If you're coming up the stairs using that interior railing and you get to the mid-landing you keep holding on as you make the right turn, then make another right turn up the last flight. If you're approaching the top landing you make the same right turn but then you're done, no more stairs to go up. Requiring the extension at the top just seems like adding something to snag your sweater on without improving safety or usability.

 

[tbz]

Though the argument can be made that it is similar to a mid-landing, it is not, as you are continuing to wrap and turn to the next flight, not bank left after getting there and is the exact reason why the advocates for the same direction want it that way.

And though if the handrail wrapped to another ramp or flight 30 feet away it would comply, and I have no answer for how any difference is there. None, but it is what it is.

When I tech stair flight design for compliance, I always try to get the designers to buy in to making the last tread level with each landing, in other words, add 22" to each flight by having 1 tread depth at the top and bottom before the landing requirements are drawn.

I realize losing all that square footage can be costly, but it makes for much better flow in use of the stair flights and handrails, and it is the main egress when it is needed.

But "B" is correct, not "A", though a lot of inspectors never flag it....

 

[nealderidder]

Though the argument can be made that it is similar to a mid-landing, it is not, as you are continuing to wrap and turn to the next flight, not bank left after getting there and is the exact reason why the advocates for the same direction want it that way.

And though if the handrail wrapped to another ramp or flight 30 feet away it would comply, and I have no answer for how any difference is there. None, but it is what it is.

When I tech stair flight design for compliance, I always try to get the designers to buy in to making the last tread level with each landing, in other words, add 22" to each flight by having 1 tread depth at the top and bottom before the landing requirements are drawn.

I realize losing all that square footage can be costly, but it makes for much better flow in use of the stair flights and handrails, and it is the main egress when it is needed.

But "B" is correct, not "A", though a lot of inspectors never flag it....

I hear what you're saying tbz. But I don't like it : )

You noted that the difference between the top landing and a mid-level landing was - as you are continuing to wrap and turn to the next flight, not bank left after getting there and is the exact reason why the advocates for the same direction want it that way. But consider every main floor landing below this one in question. At all the other main level landings, It's exactly the same condition (banking left to get to the door) but the extension isn't needed because the stair continues. How is it less safe where the stair doesn't continue? This just feels like one of those provisions that was poorly worded and now it needs to be defended.

Thank you for indulging my ranting!

 

[tbz]

Neal...

For a few decades now I have listened to both sides, and since my leaning was and still is more towards your viewpoint, I have also gotten a better understanding of those that champion the requirement for the full-length extension.

As thus, about 8 years ago I started and continue to express to designers that the stair towers when drawn on projects should be 22" longer in size than the minimum currently allowed and at a minimum at least 11" longer on the floor level landing side in the way of a step at landing level before the full width landing is intersected.

this allows for compliant handrail extensions to be placed, without the long projection shown in your "B" design. Hence, when the stair tower was drawn it could have been configured to prevent the "REQUIRED" handrail extension from projecting outward over the landing, the designer just choose a different direction.

Here is a question, why is the door centered across from the upward side of the stair flights on many stair towers and not the downward side of the stair flights?

Would it not make more sense that the stair towers are more for exiting than entering?

and if so, why add additional changes in direction and flow at a convergence point to start down the stair flight?

Those that request the handrail extension often ask would not the door be better placed to flow with the extension, at least on the top floor level?

The same can be said for the bottom level exit discharge door, yes I get that being inline with the upward flight, as people are coming down to it.

So why are the doors always in the same place? Could not each level have the door placement where it makes most sense?

But, as with many things, everyone has their side of the fence and seldom think about the other persons side other than it being the wrong position, and the truth is until we personally need to use any questionable device placed in the field for the intended reason, one always has a hard time understanding its true reason.

Personally, IMO the issue is more with the door placement on that level than the required handrail extension, you see the designer had a choice of where to place that door, but there was no option on the handrail extension placement.

 

[mark handler]

IMPO
The code section at the top and bottom of the stair is not 1014.6 it is 11B-505.10 Handrail Extensions
Handrail gripping surfaces shall extend beyond and in the same direction of stair flights and ramp runs in accordance with Section 11B-505.10
11B-505.10.2 Top Extension at Stairs
At the top of a stair flight, handrails shall extend horizontally above the landing for 12 inches minimum beginning directly above the first riser nosing. Extensions shall return to a wall, guard, or the landing surface, or shall be continuous to the handrail of an adjacent stair flight.

 

[e hilton]

I was in an REI store in oregon last week, saw that exact situation. Looked strange. In plan view, the handrail made a U about 6” OC and returned to the mezzanine rail, in elevation it stayed at 34-ish” and did not drop to the floor. So no cane detection.

 

[nealderidder]

IMPO
The code section at the top and bottom of the stair is not 1014.6 it is 11B-505.10 Handrail Extensions
Handrail gripping surfaces shall extend beyond and in the same direction of stair flights and ramp runs in accordance with Section 11B-505.10
11B-505.10.2 Top Extension at Stairs
At the top of a stair flight, handrails shall extend horizontally above the landing for 12 inches minimum beginning directly above the first riser nosing. Extensions shall return to a wall, guard, or the landing surface, or shall be continuous to the handrail of an adjacent stair flight.
View attachment 9009

1014.6 gives me the option of providing a handrail that is continuous to the handrail of an adjacent flight of stairs. if I do this, no extensions are required. But at the top landing there is no "adjacent flight" so the continuous option doesn't work and I must provide the extensions. 11B-505.10 is similar but exception #1 (that eliminates the need for extensions) says shall not be required for continuous handrails at the inside turn of switchback or dogleg stairs. No mention of "adjacent flight" until I get to 11B-505.10.2 but if exception #1 applies then I never get to 11B-505.10.2 and it doesn't apply.

I realize I'm grasping at straws here trying to find the language that allows me to do Option A (see uploaded PDF) and I haven't persuaded the B.O. thus far with my arguments. BUT I still believe this should be allowed. I just can't see how Option A is less safe than Option B. I would argue Option B is less safe since that extension could easily snag a jacket and trip someone up.

I am giving up and moving on. The unfortunate solution here is that I'm going to make the stair 3' wide instead of 4' wide (residential, occ load < 50). I don't want to re-design the spaces around the stair to allow the stair run to be longer (the other solution). If the stair is narrower the landing can be narrower and I can fit in another riser. Just doesn't seem like a good outcome. Another idea is Option C (attached) which puts a riser mid-landing which would eliminate the top riser. Any reason I couldn't do that? Again, it seems like a poor outcome.

Neal...

For a few decades now I have listened to both sides, and since my leaning was and still is more towards your viewpoint, I have also gotten a better understanding of those that champion the requirement for the full-length extension.

As thus, about 8 years ago I started and continue to express to designers that the stair towers when drawn on projects should be 22" longer in size than the minimum currently allowed and at a minimum at least 11" longer on the floor level landing side in the way of a step at landing level before the full width landing is intersected.

this allows for compliant handrail extensions to be placed, without the long projection shown in your "B" design. Hence, when the stair tower was drawn it could have been configured to prevent the "REQUIRED" handrail extension from projecting outward over the landing, the designer just choose a different direction.

Here is a question, why is the door centered across from the upward side of the stair flights on many stair towers and not the downward side of the stair flights?

Would it not make more sense that the stair towers are more for exiting than entering?

and if so, why add additional changes in direction and flow at a convergence point to start down the stair flight?

Those that request the handrail extension often ask would not the door be better placed to flow with the extension, at least on the top floor level?

The same can be said for the bottom level exit discharge door, yes I get that being inline with the upward flight, as people are coming down to it.

So why are the doors always in the same place? Could not each level have the door placement where it makes most sense?

But, as with many things, everyone has their side of the fence and seldom think about the other persons side other than it being the wrong position, and the truth is until we personally need to use any questionable device placed in the field for the intended reason, one always has a hard time understanding its true reason.

Personally, IMO the issue is more with the door placement on that level than the required handrail extension, you see the designer had a choice of where to place that door, but there was no option on the handrail extension placement.

Food for thought, thanks.

 

[nealderidder]

Neal...

For a few decades now I have listened to both sides, and since my leaning was and still is more towards your viewpoint, I have also gotten a better understanding of those that champion the requirement for the full-length extension.

As thus, about 8 years ago I started and continue to express to designers that the stair towers when drawn on projects should be 22" longer in size than the minimum currently allowed and at a minimum at least 11" longer on the floor level landing side in the way of a step at landing level before the full width landing is intersected.

this allows for compliant handrail extensions to be placed, without the long projection shown in your "B" design. Hence, when the stair tower was drawn it could have been configured to prevent the "REQUIRED" handrail extension from projecting outward over the landing, the designer just choose a different direction.

Here is a question, why is the door centered across from the upward side of the stair flights on many stair towers and not the downward side of the stair flights?

Would it not make more sense that the stair towers are more for exiting than entering?

and if so, why add additional changes in direction and flow at a convergence point to start down the stair flight?

Those that request the handrail extension often ask would not the door be better placed to flow with the extension, at least on the top floor level?

The same can be said for the bottom level exit discharge door, yes I get that being inline with the upward flight, as people are coming down to it.

So why are the doors always in the same place? Could not each level have the door placement where it makes most sense?

But, as with many things, everyone has their side of the fence and seldom think about the other persons side other than it being the wrong position, and the truth is until we personally need to use any questionable device placed in the field for the intended reason, one always has a hard time understanding its true reason.

Personally, IMO the issue is more with the door placement on that level than the required handrail extension, you see the designer had a choice of where to place that door, but there was no option on the handrail extension placement.

Oops, think I replied to this in the wrong place. Thank you for the effort to explain! Interesting question about the door placement. I've always thought of opening the door onto an upward flight as being safer than opening onto a downward flight. It forces a deliberate change in direction and makes you look up and realize there is a stair here. Would rather fall up the stairs than down, right? Maybe even more true now with everyone constantly looking down at a phone...

 

[tbz]

Adding the riser to the one mid-landing would work and is very common on older stair flights in NYC and still done a good bit on remodels were the extra risers are needed to overcome the floor to floor height. The mid-landing riser becomes a question to do it one place and not others, but only on the upper floor level would work unless I am missing something.

I do agree with the logic of falling up preferred, however those that promote extensions make the case that if the door was aligned what's the issue.

 

[mtlogcabin]

A or C would work.. B is defiantly a code violation. The location of the door clearly places the handrail extension in option B more than 4" into the circulation path

1003.3.3 Horizontal projections.
Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches (685 mm) and not more than 80 inches (2030 mm) above the finished floor shall not project horizontally more than 4 inches (102 mm) into the circulation path.

Exception: Handrails are permitted to protrude 41/2 inches (114 mm) from the wall or guard.

Option "D" would be to furr the wall out to make the handrail extension compliant. This could be a full height wall or a partial height wall

 

[tbz]

MT,

How is "B" a violation? If the extension returns downward towards the floor to less than 27" and then returns to the guard, in a "P" type termination, the 4.5" projection limit does not apply. The same goes if it just returns to the floor period.

"A" per the letter of the code, is non-compliant as it turns prior to the minimum 12" handrail extension, and the only time it is allowed, per doe, is when it is continuous to the next stair flight or ramp run, fore which it is not, it terminates on the upper level.

"C" is compliant, because by adding the riser to the middle of the mid-landing, they can remove the top riser and make the last tread even with the upper landing, which would allow for the handrail to terminate prior to extending more than 4.5" past the guard's corner post, presumably.

But without a redesign to the stair flight and mid-landing for Option "C", I would have to disagree with "A" being compliant, it's overlooked by inspectors a lot, but it is not compliant. "B" with the proper termination to comply with the protruding objects section of the code, hence being under 27" under the projection to the floor, is the compliant option, when comparing "A" & "B".

 

[Inspector Gift]

The Building Official is given the authority to accept alternate methods and design that meet the intent and purpose of the specific code requirement. (See IBC 104.11). In a few instances, I have allowed the handrail to turn and continue the minimum required distance and then terminate to the wall or other safety return.

 

[mtlogcabin]

As mentioned by you it is the placement of the door that is causing the discussion. If the door was centered on the stairs then the circulation path would not be impacted by the handrail extension.

[A] 102.1 General.
Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable. Where, in any specific case, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.

IMHO
This is where the AHJ needs to make the call. The location of the door creates a circulation path that is not in compliance with option "B" Even if you extend the handrail to the floor you may meet the letter of the code but is it the best design? I myself and I have seen others bump into extensions as shown in option "B" and stumble or are thrown of balance. At the top of the stairs I believe that design is just a matter of time before someone in a hurry bumps into the extension and takes a tumble down the stairs.

 

[ADAguy]

And Chapter 10 has no implications in this discussion?

 

[Yikes]

Neal, while I believe both are equally safe in real life, a strict reading of the code says only "B" is acceptable.

If you can't get approval via alternate means and methods (see InspectorGift's post #15), and you don't have the physical room to make the stairwell big enough but you have some headroom and some money to throw at the problem, you could create a short "adjacent flight of stairs" that dead-ends onto a landing (see below).

I know it looks ridiculous, but it technically satisfies 1014.6 - - and maybe the ridiculousness actually helps prove InspectorGift's point that it is functionally equivalent in safety to just allow option B instead as an alternate means and methods of compliance.






One last thought: be careful about having even the continuous handrail protrude into the 60" door landing clearance on any of the landings. I don't think 11B-404.2.4.1 allow any encroachments into the level and clear area.





Another solution my be to use narrower studs at the door+18" to recess it back an extra 3" to get you the clearance you need.

 

[tbz]

The Building Official is given the authority to accept alternate methods and design that meet the intent and purpose of the specific code requirement. (See IBC 104.11). In a few instances, I have allowed the handrail to turn and continue the minimum required distance and then terminate to the wall or other safety return.

Yikes,
Pic-1. The first picture the handrail extension was complaint as the so called bottom step is actually floor level, thus the lower extension extending level at the bottom is in addition to the required minimum, thus compliant.

Pic-2. The second picture is not compliant, but the guard should have continued for the additional amount of about 6 or 7 inches on the landing, and the full wrap would have then been compliant, it is done that way in the field all the time to meet compliance.

Pic-3. The third one I put the blame on bad design by the design firm if in a new building and not a remodel and the building department who reviewed the plans prior to the permit being issued, as they should have flagged it. Letting something go because everyone missed it and excusing it as being ok because you believe it is safer, if the room was there to extend out and turn the handrail down to the floor it should have been done, not passed. Again if no room and it is a remodel of existing, then things are different, but not in a new building from scratch.

To not design for the correct requirements on a new building seems wrong to me, and an inspector not calling it out well to each is own how are they going to learn if you always let it slde.

 

[Yikes]

tbz, yes I agree it is generally bad design on a new building to not follow the prescriptive requirements of the code.

I also just happen to personally think that the prescriptive requirement that handrail extensions must go in direction of travel does not enhance safety greater than if they take a 90 degree turn, and the thought exercise in #19 is a demonstration of that. Still, they should have followed code to begin with.

 

[Inspector Gift]

Sorry folks, but none of the 3 pics were mine. They are some that I found on the net.

I appreciate your criticisms of the 3 pics I posted. And I agree that most problems could be avoided with better design. However, a rigid adherence to the letter of the code, is not always the best solution. (The last solution shown in Post #18 proves my point.) Understanding the intent and purpose of the code allows us to think outside the box to achieve an acceptable alternative.

All that having been said, it is my understanding that the purpose of the handrail extension at the top and bottom of stairs is to provide additional support while allowing a person adjust to the transition to the landing or floor surface. The intent is to provide a safe path of travel.

If it is the judgement of the Building Official a straight extension causes more hazard than a 90 degree extension, then the Building Official is authorized to allow an alternative.

 

[steveray]

Agreed...it just depends if you are the final say or not...I had a ramp that terminated at a top landing that exited left only and was told that the rail had to extend straight and could not wrap left....By my State folks...

 

[Jay Smith]

There are many times when as a design professional I just need to understand what the letter of the code intends. If the code official on my current project will accept an alternative, that’s fine. But someday I’m going to come across one that won’t accept that same solution. Getting to the letter of the code and the true intent is necessary.

I review drawings internally for a design firm and I always call attention to this issue when a handrail extension is shown turned away from the direction of the stair. It isn’t a question of good practice. It’s just what the code says and appears to mean. The project architect can make the value judgment or risk having it rejected.

 

[tbz]

Morning all,

Just had another fabricator get hit with this same issue on the top level of a stair flight, again, permitted drawings wrong, plan review not marked up I will assume this, engineer reviewed shop drawings approved, stair built and installed, handrail extension failed for non-compliance.

I am bringing this back to life to address one thing that everyone seems to forget, and I forgot to mention last month.

Just because the "building official" may have the authority to wave this at the local level, if this condition exists on a location which the 2010 ADA also has jurisdiction, you are not doing the building owner, contractor or fabricator any good by letting it slide.

This is a condition that a lot of designers still are not detailing and providing enough space for, but I do feel that the local AHJ, plan reviewer, should be marking these up on the drawings, this is the M.O.E., simple to add to the local departments checklist you would think.