Handrail safety terminal

[mark handler]

Yes Mark, no one is saying they don't but when and why was they handrail termination put under the microscope....in the model codes

But that is exactly what we do as Building Official, Put things under the microscope and try to figure out the verbiage and the intent of the code.

Per the original question, is it in the residential code, yes

R311.7.8.4 Continuity​

Handrails shall be continuous for the full length of the flight, from a point directly above the top riser of the flight to a point directly above the lowest riser of the flight. Handrail ends shall be returned toward a wall, guard walking surface continuous to itself, or terminate to a post.​

 

[jpowell]

But that is exactly what we do as Building Official, Put things under the microscope and try to figure out the verbiage and the intent of the code.

Per the original question, is it in the residential code, yes

R311.7.8.4 Continuity​

Handrails shall be continuous for the full length of the flight, from a point directly above the top riser of the flight to a point directly above the lowest riser of the flight. Handrail ends shall be returned toward a wall, guard walking surface continuous to itself, or terminate to a post.​

Just a small correction here. The 2018 IRC as I see it reads:
Handrails shall be continuous for the full length of the flight, from a point directly above the top riser of the flight to a point directly above the lowest riser of the flight. Handrail ends shall be returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals.

 

[mark handler]

Just a small correction here. The 2018 IRC as I see it reads:
Handrails shall be continuous for the full length of the flight, from a point directly above the top riser of the flight to a point directly above the lowest riser of the flight. Handrail ends shall be returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals.

Depends on Version of code you are using, not everyone is under the same code.

 

[steveray]

So Yankee,

Please explain how you believe none of the posted handrail terminations you flagged are not compliant with the IRC and specifically highlighting prior to 2021 model IRC and post 2021, Remember the OP is asking about 2018 IRC.

For the record, none of the pictures were on flights that required guards.

He may have been talking about the HR themselves...do they meet the type II 6-1/4" perimeter and that stuff?

 

[ICE]

He may have been talking about the HR themselves...do they meet the type II 6-1/4" perimeter and that stuff?

Geometry class all over again. It's a bit of a surprise when you learn that one size fits all.

R311.7.8.5 Grip size. Required handrails shall be of one of the following types or provide equivalent grasp-ability.

1. Type I. Handrails with a circular cross section shall have an outside diameter of not less than 11/4inches and not greater than 2 inches. If the handrail is not circular, it shall have a perimeter of not less than 4 inches and not greater than 61/4 inches and a cross section of not more than 21/4 inches. Edges shall have a radius of not less than 0.01 inch.

2. Type II. Handrails with a perimeter greater than 61/4 inches shall have a graspable finger recess area on both sides of the profile. The finger recess shall begin within 3/4 inch measured vertically from the tallest portion of the profile and have a depth of not less than 5/16 inch within 7/8 inch below the widest portion of the profile. This required depth shall continue for not less than 3/8 inch to a level that is not less than 13/4 inches below the tallest portion of the profile. The width of the handrail above the recess shall be not less than 11/4 inches and not more than 23/4inches. Edges shall have a radius of not less than 0.01 inch.

 

[tbz]

He may have been talking about the HR themselves...do they meet the type II 6-1/4" perimeter and that stuff?

All (4) of the handrail profiles shown in my post #8 of the thread are compliant for type I handrail ("not Circular")

and (2) of the profiles where specifically provided to the Access-Board back sometime between 2002-2004 by me personally during the hearings putting for the model that there published 2004 handrail requirements meet. So I am very confident on the handrail profiles in that manner.

They are all residential terminations and the terminations have been covered under the safety terminal description for decades....

 

[steveray]

not less than 0.01 inch.

That is a pretty small radius....

 

[ICE]

That is a pretty small radius....

I took another look at the code and that's what is there. .01" (.25mm) That has to be converted to human hairs.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

So Yankee,

Please explain how you believe none of the posted handrail terminations you flagged are not compliant with the IRC and specifically highlighting prior to 2021 model IRC and post 2021, Remember the OP is asking about 2018 IRC.

For the record, none of the pictures were on flights that required guards.

I said the handrails are not compliant, not the terminations. Is the 2012 IRC old enough for you?

R311.7.8.3 Grip-size. All required handrails shall be of
one of the following types or provide equivalent graspability.
1. Type I. Handrails with a circular cross section
shall have an outside diameter of at least 11/4
inches (32 mm) and not greater than 2 inches (51
mm). If the handrail is not circular, it shall have a
perimeter dimension of at least 4 inches (102
mm) and not greater than 61/4 inches (160 mm)
with a maximum cross section of dimension of
21/4 inches (57 mm). Edges shall have a minimum
radius of 0.01 inch (0.25 mm).
2. Type II. Handrails with a perimeter greater than
61/4 inches (160 mm) shall have a graspable finger
recess area on both sides of the profile. The
finger recess shall begin within a distance of 3/4
inch (19 mm) measured vertically from the tallest
portion of the profile and achieve a depth of at
least 5/16 inch (8 mm) within 7/8 inch (22 mm)
below the widest portion of the profile. This
required depth shall continue for at least 3/8 inch
(10 mm) to a level that is not less than 13/4 inches
(45 mm) below the tallest portion of the profile.
The minimum width of the handrail above the
recess shall be 11/4 inches (32 mm) to a maximum
of 23/4 inches (70 mm). Edges shall have a minimum
radius of 0.01 inch (0.25 mm).

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

All (4) of the handrail profiles shown in my post #8 of the thread are compliant for type I handrail ("not Circular")

and (2) of the profiles where specifically provided to the Access-Board back sometime between 2002-2004 by me personally during the hearings putting for the model that there published 2004 handrail requirements meet. So I am very confident on the handrail profiles in that manner.

They are all residential terminations and the terminations have been covered under the safety terminal description for decades....

There's nothing in any of the photos to allow scaling the profiles, but most look like standard metal handrails that shops all across the country produce and sell -- and the ones I see don't meet the code requirements for profile.

 

[tbz]

There's nothing in any of the photos to allow scaling the profiles, but most look like standard metal handrails that shops all across the country produce and sell -- and the ones I see don't meet the code requirements for profile.

Have you ever done a complete handrail profile review, your assumption that they don't comply could be wrong, by looking at pictures.

All the profiles of the handrails in post #8 comply with not only 2012 IRC, 2012 IBC, A117.1 and 2010ADA (2004 Access-Board Model Standard).

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Have you ever done a complete handrail profile review,

yes.

your assumption that they don't comply could be wrong, by looking at pictures.

That's why we don't use pictures for code enforcement.

All the profiles of the handrails in post #8 comply with not only 2012 IRC, 2012 IBC, A117.1 and 2010ADA (2004 Access-Board Model Standard).

There is no way to know that from the photos.

 

[tbz]

There is no way to know that from the photos.

My point exactly, in Post #21 you stated.

None of those are even code-compliant handrails. Those are decorative guards, at best (or worst).

And you are wrong!

 

[Inspector Gift]

"...or provide equivalent grasp-ability."

I appreciate this little clause because it allows the Building Official to accept alternatives.

 

[bill1952]

"...or provide equivalent grasp-ability."

I appreciate this little clause because it allows the Building Official to accept alternatives.

True, but are many building officials trained to judge graspability? How many can judge what an arthritic hand can grasp? Do they even understand a hook grip, the most important for falls in decent?

I just wonder if it's fair of the code to expect that kind of expertise of every enforcer using the code.

 

[Paul Sweet]

The A/E would have to submit proof that it really did provide equivalent graspability.

 

[bill1952]

The A/E would have to submit proof that it really did provide equivalent graspability.

No doubt someone from far away in a three piece suit that asks to see your watch to tell you what time it is. A consultant. I might raise my hand.

 

[texasinspector]

In case it's not been mentioned

https://www.jlconline.com/how-to/interiors/wall-mounted-handrail-returns_o#:~:text=4%2C%20Continuity%2C%20which%20relates%20more,specific%20handrail%20design%20or%20component.