Handrail Extensions

[Yankee Chronicler]

View attachment 701

let me know what you guys think.thank you,rView attachment 701

/monthly_2013_05/572953c804d3d_StairHandrailatManueveringClearance.JPG.571d9694da68e2f06dfa54db4137d3a3.JPG

I don't know how you folks are seeing a sketch. When UI click on the links, I get this:

The requested page could not be found.

 

[Phil B]

I found the answer to my question. As long as the railing extension is within the 8" offset allowed, I'm OK.

 

[Yikes]

See this thread elsewhere on the forum. The U.S. Access Board has an illustration that shows when you recess a door, the door clearance gets pushed further outside of the obstruction that creates the recess:

Y

Thread 'Where to measure <8" recessed door clearances (404.2.4.3)'

Feb 19, 2024

See my markup below of ADA / CBC 11B 404.2.4.3 regarding obstructions (such as extra wall thickness) that create a recess at accessible doorways.
We know that when X>8" the full 18" maneuvering space must be provided.

The question is, when X<8", and the recess is allowed:

• Do you measure the perpendicular 60" clearance from the face of the door, as in figure #1 below?

-OR-

• Do you measure the 60" from the face of the obstruction that creates the recess, as noted in blue in figure #2 below?

***
Figure #1:

***
Figure #2:

• Yikes
• Replies: 23
• Forum: Accessibility Codes

 

[walker.t]

So... below would be OK?

Would 2018 IBC 1012.5.3 Restrictions preclude the configuration you show because the clear width of the landing is reduced to less than 42”? Maybe that provision applies only when passage past the door and across the landing is intended?

2018 IBC 1012.5.3 Restrictions (emphasis added)
Means of egress ramps shall not reduce in width in the direction of egress travel. Projections into the required ramp and landing width are prohibited. Doors opening onto a landing shall not reduce the clear width to less than 42”.

 

[Phil B]

Would 2018 IBC 1012.5.3 Restrictions preclude the configuration you show because the clear width of the landing is reduced to less than 42”? Maybe that provision applies only when passage past the door and across the landing is intended?

Below is from the Florida Building Code. This door serves less than 50. I could swing it in, but would rather not.

Landings shall have a width not less than the width of the stairway or the door, whichever is greater. Doors in the fully open position shall not reduce a required dimension by more than 7 inches (178 mm). Where a landing serves an occupant load of 50 or more, doors in any position shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half its required width. Landings shall have a length measured in the direction of travel of not less than 44 inches (1118 mm).

 

[steveray]

Would 2018 IBC 1012.5.3 Restrictions preclude the configuration you show because the clear width of the landing is reduced to less than 42”? Maybe that provision applies only when passage past the door and across the landing is intended?

 

[walker.t]

Below is from the Florida Building Code. This door serves less than 50. I could swing it in, but would rather not.

Landings shall have a width not less than the width of the stairway or the door, whichever is greater. Doors in the fully open position shall not reduce a required dimension by more than 7 inches (178 mm). Where a landing serves an occupant load of 50 or more, doors in any position shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half its required width. Landings shall have a length measured in the direction of travel of not less than 44 inches (1118 mm).

The provision you quote is the same as IBC 1010.1.6 which is in Section 1010 Doors. You also have the requirements of the ramp landing from Section 1012 Ramps.