Handrail Projection Question

[tbz]

Ok,

Here is a question that I am looking for a little more input on how everyone views this.

Please note the following

1.) This is an interior stair flight within in a Landmark Building

2.) The handrails will flow directly down the middle of the stair flight, splitting the stair flight

There will be one handrail on each side of the frame and at the top and bottom the

handrail will wrap around to the other handrail, thus making a race track loop

3.) If the handrails are bent in a radius to make the wrap, we are at 4.5" of projection from

the base capital vertical, which is shown on the drawing as the blue vertical line.

With this set point we are 5.5" from the setback of the post, only at the top and bottom with the wrap.

Thus here in lines my question, on a center run free standing handrail with continues wrapping handrail returns

were would you consider the projection measurement to be taken from?

In order to bring the wrap back to 4.5" from the post, we would have to cut and make a 90 degree turn which

leaves a pointed corner rather than a continues running smooth edge at the corners.

Please provide input.

Thank you

 

[fatboy]

I'll wade in, I'm not understanding why it would be an issue if you are 5.5" from the post, rather than 4.5"? As to the general question, I could accept the measurement from the base, that is going to determine your walk line.

 

[pwood]

here you need 12" from the nose of the tread at the top step and the width of the tread plus 12" from the nose of the bottom step to comply. Anything beyond that is gravy! It does not look like a coat or purse catcher if the handrail runs continuous around the newel post.

 

[fatboy]

I would like to see a plan view, from the OP it sounds like it is continuous........

 

[tbz]

Fatboy,

How about a picture it is quicker than drawing a plan view, this is not the location, but the the same situation.

The code section I am Ref: is 1003.3 protruding objects, we all know that handrails are exempt for the 4.5", however were is the measurement taken from?

Someone with a cane you would think would be looking to hit the bottom of the post were the base is, hope this clarifies my question in more detail.

1003.3.2 Post-mounted objects. A free-standing object mounted on a post or pylon shall not overhang that post or pylon more than 4 inches (102 mm) where the lowest point of the leading edge is more than 27 inches (686 mm) and less than 80 inches (2032 mm) above the walking surface. Where a sign or other obstruction is mounted between posts or pylons and the clear distance between the posts or pylons is greater than 12 inches (305 mm), the lowest edge of such sign or obstruction shall be 27 inches (686 mm) maximum or 80 inches (2032 mm) minimum above the finished floor or ground. Exception: These requirements shall not apply to sloping portions of handrails between the top and bottom riser of stairs and above the ramp run.

1003.3.3 Horizontal projections. Structural elements, fixtures or furnishings shall not project horizontally from either side more than 4 inches (102 mm) over any walking surface between the heights of 27 inches (686 mm) and 80 inches (2032 mm) above the walking surface.

Exception: Handrails are permitted to protrude 4-1/2 inches (114 mm) from the wall.

 

[mark handler]

It appears to comply

 

[Gregg Harris]

I agree, the measurement is taken from the side walls in a path, in this scenario the edge of the rail would be the guiding edge and that is why the exception is allowed.

The code section I am Ref: is 1003.3 protruding objects, we all know that handrails are exempt for the 4.5", however were is the measurement taken from?

 

[tbz]

Mark,

When you say it appears to comply, do you mean the intent or that the 4.5" exception is from the base not the post?

I ask because the only exemption for the 4.5" projection is noted with "from the wall" and the exemption notes only on the sloped portion?

When I read through this section with more detail points, is the 4.5" compliant or are we restricted to the 4" for projects at this point?

 

[tbz]

Mark,

When you say it appears to comply, do you mean the intent or that the 4.5" exception is from the base not the post?

I ask because the only exemption for the 4.5" projection is noted with "from the wall" and the exemption notes only on the sloped portion?

When I read through this section with more detail points, is the 4.5" compliant or are we restricted to the 4" for projections at this point?

 

[steveray]

I'd approve it under the 4.5" exception....

 

[JBI]

Overthinking is the art of finding a problem where none ever really existed.

 

[tbz]

Overthinking is the art of finding a problem where none ever really existed.

JBI,

I would agree however, we have been asked to clarify where per the code the 4.5" exception applies and how do you measure it/where do you measure it from.

Hence,

1003.3.2's exception though it does not state a measurement for the handrail exception, it does limit it to the sloped portion of the stairs.

1003.3.3's exception provides for the 4.5" from a wall, however it does not state from a guard nor a center run post mounted handrail design.

AS everyone knows the devil is in the details, and though I am not looking to create an issue, one has been brought to my attention, believe me I see my next code change for clarity.

So with that said,

and with close to 300 views, and only a few responses, I was looking for a quick yes or no for complies I would do a vote, but I am not sure how to set it up.

Thanks everyone who posts their thoughts...

Tom

 

[JBI]

1003.3.2 is addressing items that a person with limited sight might walk into, sign on a sign post type obstructions.

1003.3.3 is specific to 'structural elements', which the handrail clearly is not.

1012 is specific to handrails... as borne out by Chapter 1,

[A] 102.1 General.

Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable.

 

[mtlogcabin]

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

According to the commentary the exception is for when handrails are provided along a wall such as in hospitals and nursing homes.

Note 1003.3.3 is referencing horizontal projects over any walking surface

Although not defined would you consider a stair a walking surface similar to a ramp? I would not, you climb or descend stairs and a visually impaired person would be holding the handrail to determine when they have reached the top or bottom of the stairs.

The code seems to follow this logic in section 1012 with limiting the projections into the required width. Stairs can be open or closed so the measurement between the handrails for maintaining the minimum width is the deciding factor not a wall or newel post regardless if there is a wall or not.

 

[tbz]

Ok,

I guess I am not explaining myself correctly so I will try another drawing.

Below you will see the plan view of the bottom of a stair flight, the post is labeled as being

6-1/2" inches center line back from the front edge of the wrapping handrail that is projecting outward on the landing, not to the side inward on the stair flight.

Thus, this forward facing handrail that is still not in the hands of the approaching walker is the point that I am being questioned on.

I have always used the 4.5" dimension/exception from the base vertical point, as my rule, I am being questioned as to it being limited to the 4" rule only.

We can do the 4" rule however this would make the 2 corners sharp, rather than curved, and thus the 1.5" different is justified with the additional level of safety for walking in to the handrail.

So again, how do others see this, the view count is getting high, but the comments are low.

Thanks in advance

 

[mtlogcabin]

I would not be as concerned with the projection as I would be in maintaining the required width of the stairs

1009.5 Stairway landings.

There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway . The width of landings shall not be less than the width of stairways they serve. Every landing shall have a minimum dimension measured in the direction of travel equal to the width of the stairway

As long as the handrail projection at the post, measured from the edge of the handrail to the opposite wall does not reduce the landing width to less than the measurement between the handrails on the stairs then you should be fine with the design.