• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Handrail Return Turn

nealderidder

Sawhorse
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
431
Location
Sacramento, CA
I know this has been discussed many times but I feel like meeting the code in this particular instance results in a worse outcome. This is about the handrail extension at the bottom of a flight of stairs. This is an interior exit stair at the ground floor. The recessed door was necessary because we couldn't swing the door out over a public sidewalk. The code says to provide the handrail extension in red. I'd like to do the extension in blue that turns the horizontal portion of the extension 90 degrees. I'm working with the CBC and I know there is an exception that allows you to turn the extension for a renovation but this is a new-build. Do I have any justification for doing the blue handrail?
 

Attachments

If this is new construction, the handrail needs to extend in the same direction as the stairs. 11B-505.10 has the exception for alterations, but 1014.6 has no exception for alterations.

Edit: If there are site constraints that make this infeasible for some reason (probably unlikely), then run this by the local building official. It's usually hard to justify in my experience because the building is new. You could design it with a bigger egress stair if you need to, you aren't limited by the existing building conditions.
 
Last edited:
How about the door maneuvering space required on the push side of that door that must have a latch and closer. That extension will be in the maneuvering space. I do not believe that exception #4 in 207.1 covers the exit door from within the stair enclosure.
 
ADA doesn't require the 12" straight extension anymore, just the one riser width sloped extension. You could ask for a code modification.

It looks like you could move the door out a foot or so without it swinging past the walls on either side of the recess.
 
ADA doesn't require the 12" straight extension anymore, just the one riser width sloped extension. You could ask for a code modification.
Not in CA. We need 12" plus tread depth at the bottom of the stairs (CBC 11B-505.10.3). Pretty sure CA can't reduce accessibility requirement by statute, only expand and provide more accessibility (unless there's a conflict with another requirement).
 
ADA doesn't require the 12" straight extension anymore, just the one riser width sloped extension. You could ask for a code modification.

It looks like you could move the door out a foot or so without it swinging past the walls on either side of the recess.
The 2010 Standards provide more flexibility than the 1991 Standards as follows:

Section 4.26.4 of the 1991 Standards requires handrail gripping surfaces to have edges with a minimum radius of 1/8 inch. Section 505.8 of the 2010 Standards requires handrail gripping surfaces to have rounded edges.
Section 4.26.2 of the 1991 Standards requires handrail gripping surfaces to have a diameter of 1 ¼ inches to 1 1/2 inches, or to provide an equivalent gripping surface. Section 505.7 of the 2010 Standards requires handrail gripping surfaces with a circular cross section to have an outside diameter of 1 ¼ inches to 2 inches. Handrail gripping surfaces with a non-circular cross section must have a perimeter dimension of 4 inches to 6 ¼ inches, and a cross section dimension of 2 ¼ inches maximum.
Sections 4.8.5 and 4.9.4 of the 1991 Standards require handrail gripping surfaces to be continuous, and to be uninterrupted by newel posts, other construction elements, or obstructions. Section 505.3 of the 2010 Standards sets technical requirements for continuity of gripping surfaces. Section 505.6 requires handrail gripping surfaces to be continuous along their length and not to be obstructed along their tops or sides. The bottoms of handrail gripping surfaces must not be obstructed for more than twenty percent (20%) of their length. Where provided, horizontal projections must occur at least 1 1/2 inches below the bottom of the handrail gripping surface. An exception permits the distance between the horizontal projections and the bottom of the gripping surface to be reduced by 1/8 inch for each 1/2 inch of additional handrail perimeter dimension that exceeds 4 inches.
Section 4.9.4 of the 1991 Standards requires handrails at the bottom of stairs to continue to slope for a distance of the width of one tread beyond the bottom riser nosing and to further extend horizontally at least 12 inches. Section 505.10 of the 2010 Standards requires handrails at the bottom of stairs to extend at the slope of the stair flight for a horizontal distance at least equal to one tread depth beyond the last riser nosing. Section 4.1.6(3) of the 1991 Standards has a special technical provision for alterations to existing facilities that exempts handrails at the top and bottom of ramps and stairs from providing full extensions where it will be hazardous due to plan configuration. Section 505.10 of the 2010 Standards has a similar exception that applies in alterations.

A commenter noted that handrail extensions are currently required at the top and bottom of stairs, but the proposed regulations do not include this requirement, and urged the Department to retain the current requirement. Other commenters questioned the need for the extension at the bottom of stairs.

Sections 505.10.2 and 505.10.3 of the 2010 Standards require handrail extensions at both the top and bottom of a flight of stairs. The requirement in the 1991 Standards that handrails extend horizontally at least 12 inches beyond the width of one tread at the bottom of a stair was changed in the 2004 ADAAG by the Access Board in response to public comments. Existing horizontal handrail extensions that comply with 4.9.4(2) of the 1991 Standards should meet or exceed the requirements of the 2010 Standards


 
Section 505.10 of the 2010 Standards requires handrails at the bottom of stairs to extend at the slope of the stair flight for a horizontal distance at least equal to one tread depth beyond the last riser nosing.
Thanks Mark. Unfortunately, as arwat32 pointed out, I'm in CA so we still have the added horizontal projection at the bottom.
 
How about the door maneuvering space required on the push side of that door that must have a latch and closer. That extension will be in the maneuvering space. I do not believe that exception #4 in 207.1 covers the exit door from within the stair enclosure.

Assuming we do have to meet 11B-404 on the interior side of this door, that's where I'm really in trouble. But I think I can widen that last run and make it work. See any problems with this (attached)?
 

Attachments

Out of curiosity, what's on the approved drawings? I know sometimes plans examiners miss stuff or we overlook something, but I'm curious.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, what difference does it make? This is an enclosed stairwell at the exit discharge level, right? So the space beyond (below, in the plan orientation) is just the space under the ascending stair. That space isn't occupied and can't be used for anything, so who cares of the handrail extension doesn't make it easy for people to get back there.
 
Out of curiosity, what difference does it make? This is an enclosed stairwell at the exit discharge level, right? So the space beyond (below, in the plan orientation) is just the space under the ascending stair. That space isn't occupied and can't be used for anything, so who cares of the handrail extension doesn't make it easy for people to get back there.
It's not about the space under the stairs, agreed - who cares, it's about the access to the door and the required door clearances for an accessible egress.
 
Out of curiosity, what's on the approved drawings? I know sometimes plans examiners miss stuff or we overlook something, but I'm curious.
What you're seeing is not what was approved. The approved had fewer risers at the last flight and much more room between the stair and the door. We ran into issues above that were solved by removing risers and bringing them down to ground level. Where we of course caused this problem. So we're chasing our tails a bit.
 
It's not about the space under the stairs, agreed - who cares, it's about the access to the door and the required door clearances for an accessible egress.

Heh, heh.

That's one of those technical gotchas. The required clearances at the approach sides of doors are there to ensure that a person in a wheelchair has room to open the door and get through the opening. Nobody's going to approaching that door in a wheelchair. What an accessible stair exit means in terms of a stairway is that the stair is wide enough for two firemen to carry a person down in a "firemen's carry." If that's a 3-foot door, the stair as shown in the first plan was entirely too narrow to qualify as accessible means of egress anyway. The revised plan made the stair wider, so now you appear to have sufficient clear width between the handrails.

If things get tight, you might sit down with the fire chief and ask them how much clearance they really need around the door, since (as I commented), the wheelchair approach clearances obviously don't apply when there can never be a wheelchair occupant approach the door (unless being carried by firemen).

Is the building sprinklered, or is the stair served by areas of refuge on the upper floors? The base requirement, from CBC 1009.3, is 48" between handrails -- unless the building is sprinklered or the stair is served by an area of refuge. No matter how you parse it, there won't be anyone driving themselves unassisted through that door in a wheelchair, so there must be some path to getting the AHJs to acknowldge that you don't need the approach clearances.

Last option: don't put a closer on the door, then you don't need the 12" extra maneuvering width beyond the latch jamb of the door. Does California consider spring hinges to be "closers," or can you use a spring hinge and not need the side-jamb clearance?
 
Back
Top