• 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 spacing from rough wall - ADA 505.8 - define "adjacent"?

Y

Yikes

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
4,120
Location
Southern California
ADAS / CBC 11B-505.8 states:
11B-505.8 Surfaces
Handrail gripping surfaces and any surfaces adjacent to them shall be free of sharp or abrasive elements and shall have rounded edges.

1742321586820.png
The photo above is not my project, I'm just using it to illustrate the concept / question.
I have an exterior ramp that is 5'+ wide, a foot wider than required by code, and it has split face CMU walls. The CASp is saying that at the handrails I need to put smooth plaster on the rough split face of the CMU, which I don't want to do for aesthetic reasons. Likewise, the CASp does not allow sand float finish or machine finish on stucco adjacent to handrails.

As an alternative, I would like to install the handrails further inboard, away from the split face CMU side wall so that it is no longer considered "adjacent" to the handrail.

What minimum spacing dimension would you recommend between the inside face of handrail and the face of the CMU so that it is no longer considered "adjacent"? Is there a code rationale that would help determine this?
 
Anything less than a foot would present an opportunity for a person that is falling to break an arm.

I have encountered this problem several times. Nobody has suggested widening the gap, but then they did noit have the room for that. What they did do was grind the surface as smooth as possible and then coat it with epoxy. Needless to say, that cost more than the handrail. I wrote preemptive corrections for this after it happened at a Walmart and a Bank of America.

It happened at a country club.There was enough of it that I was replaced.
IMG_7082.JPG

IMG_7065.JPG
 
Last edited:
I don't thank there's anything in CBC / ADAS that addresses what considered "adjacent" in this situation. I would guess that this is one of those things that's dependent on the person looking at it. No clear answer for this yet.

IMO, without seeing the design, you'd probably need 6"-9" clear off the CMU before it could potentially not be considered adjacent, but the more distance the better your argument. Or put a guardrail between the handrail and the CMU. That way you can say the guardrail is adjacent and not the CMU, and it could act as a buffer to prevent hands from hitting the CMU. Probably wouldn't help with the aesthetic concerns though...
 
My only other thought is that CBC 11B-505.5 allows a max 3" deep recess for handrails, which implies that's the furthest the code expects someone to reach beyond the walking surface. So, If I kept the ramp handrail at, say, 4.5" away from the split face CMU, maybe that's not "adjacent"?

ICE, you have a good point. However, in my particular situation, I'm dealing with a ramp that is set in between two retaining wall planters. Probably not the same fall issue as with the stair in your photo.
 
I've tried about 20 different combinations of words in a google search and cannot find anything remotely close to "addressing" this issue. I did, however, find hundreds of photos showing exactly the problem being described here. And thinking back, I've definitely encountered this issue out "in the wild" so to speak. Very interesting.
 
Yikes said:
What minimum spacing dimension would you recommend between the inside face of handrail and the face of the CMU so that it is no longer considered "adjacent"?
Click to expand...

ICE said:
Anything less than a foot would present an opportunity for a person that is falling to break an arm.
Click to expand...

Using the OHSA 3" minimum and a 2" round handrail that leaves about 1.5 inches between the knuckle and the wall. I would accept it as meeting the intent of IBC 1014.7 and the wall was not "adjacent" to the handrail that would make the handrail unusable or cause injury


1014.7 Clearance.
Clear space between a handrail and a wall or other surface shall be not less than 1 1/2 inches (38 mm). A handrail and a wall or other surface adjacent to the handrail shall be free of any sharp or abrasive elements.
  1. Clearance: The minimum clearance between handrails and any other object is 3 inches (7.6 cm) on construction sites, according to 29 CFR 1926.1052(c)(6). This is to ensure that the handrail is easily graspable and there is no risk of a person's hand becoming trapped between the handrail and any adjacent object.
 
A person that is falling on stairs will naturally try to arrest themselves with the handrail. The mechanics of the event has them placing an arm on the handrail. If that arm fits between the handrail and the wall, that arm can end up trapped as the rest of the person continues to fall. That is not likely to happen with a 3" gap. A gap over 4" could be a problem. Although the arm could be broken and the shoulder dis-articulated, they probably wouldn't fall all the way down the stairs. So there's that.

Code-wise I do not see a violation if the handrail is at any distance from the wall as long as it meets the minimum distance. Of course your customer would have to weigh the odds of it happening, what it would cost if it did happen, whether insurance would cover that loss and lastly does anybody care.
 
Like the Commish said....center the HR on a 10" frieze board and call it good if you can lose the width...Might be funky on splitface block, but snap some lines and chip a bit if you wish...
 
I think I'd rather have a broken arm or dislocated shoulder than a cracked skull and/or permanent brain damage.
 
ICE said:
A person that is falling on stairs will naturally try to arrest themselves with the handrail. The mechanics of the event has them placing an arm on the handrail. If that arm fits between the handrail and the wall, that arm can end up trapped as the rest of the person continues to fall. That is not likely to happen with a 3" gap. A gap over 4" could be a problem. Although the arm could be broken and the shoulder dis-articulated, they probably wouldn't fall all the way down the stairs. So there's that.

Code-wise I do not see a violation if the handrail is at any distance from the wall as long as it meets the minimum distance. Of course your customer would have to weigh the odds of it happening, what it would cost if it did happen, whether insurance would cover that loss and lastly does anybody care.
Click to expand...
I assume that means they weren't using the handrail before they lost balance? I always use handrails and keep a good grip on it is why I ask.
 
1014.6 establishes the minimum clearance as 1-1/2 inches. In our state's version 1014.4 establishes the maximum projection into the stairway's required width is 4-1/2 inches. For a circular handrail, the minimum diameter is 1-1/4 inches and the maximum diameter is 2-1/4 inches.

Combine all that, and unless you want to design stairs that have an actual width much greater than the required width, you'll probably stick to the 4-1/2 inch projection as the controlling dimension. Owners don't like paying for any more non-rentable space than they have to.
 
This thread has produced interesting views, and I would like to add another wrinkle to this common scenario.
  • As noted by Y.C., the ICC's model codes and then jurisdictional adopted codes normally without modification for this section stipulates the Minimum clearance is 1-1/2" & Maximum Projection is 4-1/2" Per Say, the same as the 2010ADA.
    • I will ask for context is this limited to when the handrails are mounted directly to the walls or guards with brackets?
    • What if you mount the handrails directly to the ramp's walking surface or stair treads with posts, and not a wall or guard?
      • Are you still required to maintain a maximum of 4-1/2" projection inward?
      • And how does the term adjacent then apply when not directly attached to the wall or guard?
  • Next question; where does a model or adopted code designate a delineated distance for post mounted handrails from walls or guards?
    • Break point of go no go.
  • And ICE, besides I said so and for the context of education here for real, what distance would you consider a go no go distance from a surface to no longer be adjacent, and do you have an actual code section, even from another section to use for context.
Yikes question is a valid one that is being hashed out all the time on construction projects, and it is being inconstantly enforced differently from inspector to inspector, not just jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Thanks all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top