• 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.

Handrails - limit on lateral distance from walking surface?

steveray said:
Why does the text say 3" and the drawing shows 3.25"?
Click to expand...
The original post #1 had a downloadable pdf that had highlighted the 3.25".
I took it, added the CBC code section and pasted it into my own post.
I agree that California's additional language is vague. It appears to me that they tried to strap on the detail from CBC's 11A, figure 11A-6B(c), which applies to private housing, and which looks like this:

1675812250560.png

Again, it's still a confusing-looking detail. But perhaps a clearer way to state the intent is:
  • Handrails should be provided with min 1.5" additional finger/knuckle space beyond the outside edge of the handrail
  • At no point should the outer extent of that 1.5" additional finger/knuckle space be more than 3" away from the walking surface of the ramp.
To put it another way, if this project is under California jurisdiction, and the detail is showing 1.5" O.D. handrails, then the inside face of the handrail needs to vertically align with the edge of the ramp walking surface below.
 
Yikes,

I get the intent but just wondering the thought process for the wording in 11B-505.5 Clearance

Using the language based of the verb "IN",

"Handrails may be located in a recess if the recess is 3 inches (76 mm) maximum deep and ...."

Then the use of the noun recess which is more about a restrictive confined area than an open setting like the OP,

I am questioning for informational reasons only how the governing body defined this wording in the reason statement for justification and commentary.

You have any background links one might find on this for Cali? Again for knowledge not challenging.
 
Yikes said:
The original post #1 had a downloadable pdf that had highlighted the 3.25".
I took it, added the CBC code section and pasted it into my own post.
I agree that California's additional language is vague. It appears to me that they tried to strap on the detail from CBC's 11A, figure 11A-6B(c), which applies to private housing, and which looks like this:

View attachment 10075

Again, it's still a confusing-looking detail. But perhaps a clearer way to state the intent is:
  • Handrails should be provided with min 1.5" additional finger/knuckle space beyond the outside edge of the handrail
  • At no point should the outer extent of that 1.5" additional finger/knuckle space be more than 3" away from the walking surface of the ramp.
To put it another way, if this project is under California jurisdiction, and the detail is showing 1.5" O.D. handrails, then the inside face of the handrail needs to vertically align with the edge of the ramp walking surface below.
Click to expand...
So zero "setback" in cali.....
 
tbz said:
Those are ADA reaching distances and A117.1 as noted in post #5 a little there is nothing that addresses this issue on stairs and ramps specifically within any published model code of the ICC.

However in the Part "A" cycle more than a few proposal where submitted to establish a range, they were disapproved during committee action hearings, but a single version was approved at the final action hearings in Pittsburgh. I have to look up the specific code change, however that information and documentation will be published in the 2024 IBC, and as thus is coming but not currently adopted by any AHJ I am currently aware of with a local modification.
Click to expand...
Do you happen to know what dimension was arrived at? I'm also curious what your opinion is, you're the one actually fabricating and installing these, do you think my original detail meets code? Is it useable?
TheCommish said:
ramp rail like this
View attachment 10072
Click to expand...
Commish - Where is this from? I've never seen it and never done it on a ramp.
 
tbz said:
The wording is a little off also for interpretation, as it says the recess can only be 3-inches, not the distance to the closest point of the handrail.

Symantec's I know, but questionable.
Click to expand...
I had the same thought. I see Yike's point, he's using the information available to reach a reasonable position. But I still don't see this particular dimension called out anywhere. I don't want to offset the posts to one side, would rather have them set right in the center of the wall. But I could do that and put the handrail on standoffs (like the other side) and achieve both things.
 
Commish - Where is this from? I've never seen it and never done it on a ramp.

Mass Architectural Access Board, 521 CMR, seem to mirror ADA as far as I know

Ramp grater then 1 in 20 no more than 1 in 12
 
tbz said:
Yikes,

I get the intent but just wondering the thought process for the wording in 11B-505.5 Clearance

Using the language based of the verb "IN",

"Handrails may be located in a recess if the recess is 3 inches (76 mm) maximum deep and ...."

Then the use of the noun recess which is more about a restrictive confined area than an open setting like the OP,

I am questioning for informational reasons only how the governing body defined this wording in the reason statement for justification and commentary.

You have any background links one might find on this for Cali? Again for knowledge not challenging.
Click to expand...
I have no background links, and did not participate in the adoption of that additional language that CA added to the ADA Standards when CA created CBC-11B.
So, all I can do is speculate and extrapolate form CBC 11A, so my thoughts aren't worth much without the archival research to back it up.

For most of us, we see the noun "recess" and think "alcove".
In my own speculation (via extrapolating from CBC 11A), I think the phrase "setback from the path of travel surface" would have been more useful (in the California language) to describe the distance from the path-of-travel surface to the handrail; and then measure it to the outside face of the handrail.
It would also be much more helpful to provide a separate paragraph called "handrails in a a recessed alcove", or something like that.
 
Last edited:
nealderidder said:
Do you happen to know what dimension was arrived at? I'm also curious what your opinion is, you're the one actually fabricating and installing these, do you think my original detail meets code? Is it useable?
Click to expand...
E73-21 code Change

E73-21 Gov Vote "AS/D"

6" off set to face so within 6"
Not going to help in Cali, unless you get an inspector not up to date on 11B-505.5 as noted by Yikes....
 
Yikes said:
I have no background links, and did not participate in the adoption of that additional language that CA added to the ADA Standards when CA created CBC-11B.
So, all I can do is speculate and extrapolate form CBC 11A, so my thoughts aren't worth much without the archival research to back it up.

For most of us, we see the noun "recess" and think "alcove".
In my own speculation (via extrapolating from CBC 11A), I think the phrase "setback from the path of travel surface" would have been more useful (in the California language) to describe the distance from the path-of-travel surface to the handrail; and then measure it to the outside face of the handrail.
It would also be much more helpful to provide a separate paragraph called "handrails in a a recessed alcove", or something like that.
Click to expand...
The code change uses the wording "outward" and "within",

Correction to post#33 above, it should be outward not off set
 
Hello,

My interpretation of this passage from the 2010 ADA is that you cannot have the handrail inset over the thickness of that wall next to the ramp. It seems to me that the wall is a continuous obstruction to the bottom of the handrail that exceeds the 1-1/2" minimum obstruction depth allowed. Also, from a common sense point of view, anyone who has difficulty raising and extending their arm to the side will find it hard to reach over that wall and grab the handrail, or what if they need to bear weight on the handrail? Having the wall right there makes it very difficult.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2023-02-11 at 4.42.40 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2023-02-11 at 4.42.40 PM.png
    80.9 KB · Views: 5
TheCommish said:
Commish - Where is this from? I've never seen it and never done it on a ramp.

Mass Architectural Access Board, 521 CMR, seem to mirror ADA as far as I know

Ramp grater then 1 in 20 no more than 1 in 12
Click to expand...
Commish - it's not the part about a handrail being required because of the slope that surprised me. It's that second lower handrail that I've never seen. It's not an ADA requirement. Must just be MA?
 
nealderidder said:
Good Morning all. I'm pondering some shop drawings and came across something I'm not sure about. There are plenty of regulations around handrails. Things like height, diameter, graspability, projection limits etc. But I'm not seeing a limit on how far away from the walking surface a handrail can be. There is certainly a practical limit, but is there any code limit? I'm talking about the 3-1/4" dimension on the attached. Is 3.25" too far? How about 6" or 8"?
Click to expand...
BACK to the original post: The question regarding a handrail setback distance from the edge of the walking surface reminded me of several stairs built in our City. The side curbs have a groove on the walking side of the handrail to allow people to pushing their bike up the stairs. Some people found the handrails were uncomfortable set back 7 inches from the inside face of the curb. The Public Works Director asked me what the building code required, and we determined that the maximum projection into the stairs beyond the inside face of the handrail is 4-1/2 inches, as per IBC 1014.8.

The City changed their detail so the bike grooves are now on the outside of the stairs.
 

Attachments

  • DSC05204.JPG
    DSC05204.JPG
    2.7 MB · Views: 9
  • DSC05205.JPG
    DSC05205.JPG
    2.7 MB · Views: 9
1012.5.1 seems might restrict that 1014.8 allowance of 4 1/2". I guess you could have 2 part height walls 36" clear between and set hand rails bak on top of wall with 45" between them. Just can't project inside handrails when they are at the minimum 36" allowed.
 
Inspector Gift said:
BACK to the original post: The question regarding a handrail setback distance from the edge of the walking surface reminded me of several stairs built in our City. The side curbs have a groove on the walking side of the handrail to allow people to pushing their bike up the stairs. Some people found the handrails were uncomfortable set back 7 inches from the inside face of the curb. The Public Works Director asked me what the building code required, and we determined that the maximum projection into the stairs beyond the inside face of the handrail is 4-1/2 inches, as per IBC 1014.8.

The City changed their detail so the bike grooves are now on the outside of the stairs.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting detail! But I can't picture how the groove on the outside would help. Wouldn't the stair handrails (and their posts) interfere with the bike handlebars (depending on height)?
 
Yikes said:
That's an interesting detail! But I can't picture how the groove on the outside would help. Wouldn't the stair handrails (and their posts) interfere with the bike handlebars (depending on height)?
Click to expand...
We didn't care if it's on the outside of the handrails, because then it's not a code issue. :^) And actually, the grove location doesn't matter to the bicyclists. They don't use the handrails. They are using both hands to move the bike up (or down) the stairs anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top