• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

height of handrail on stairs and ramps 965 mm vs 1070 mm

S

sunyaer

Registered User
Joined
Apr 21, 2022
Messages
338
Location
Toronto
This is from Ontario Building Code:

9.8.7.4. Height of handrails

(2) Except as provided in Sentence (3), Clause 3.8.3.4.(1)(e) and Sentence 9.8.4.5A.(1), handrails shall be 865 mm to
1 070 mm high.
-----------------------------------------------------------
3.8.3.4. Ramps

(1) Ramps located in a barrier-free path of travel shall,
...
(e) except as provided in Sentence (2), be equipped with handrails on both sides that shall,
...
(ii) be not less than 865 mm and not more than 965 mm high, measured vertically from the surface of the ramp, except that handrails not meeting these requirements are permitted provided they are installed in addition to the required handrail,

-----------------------------------------------------------

I know that 9.8.7.4. was amended from 965 mm to 1070 mm in 2022, is there a reason in terms of barrier-free for 3.8.3.4.(1).(e) (ii) not being changed to be consistent with 9.8.7.4.?
 
I don't know but perhaps it's felt limiting the handrail to 38" (965 mm) max is thought to help a person using a wheelchair on a ramp. Kudos to OBC allowing the 42" (1070 mm) handrail more in line with today's anthropometrics. 34" (865 mm) is far too low for today's occupants in North America.
 
There can be more than a few reasons why,

however, the first one that comes to thought is that the code had 2 different locations for the charging statement, one for stairs or handrails and one for ramps alone. and the entity that submitted the change to 9.8.7.4 never did work on ramps, and as thus, 3.8.3.4 was overlooked.

Just like the change in the 2021 IRC for stair handrail terminations was done, but they left the wording in the ramp section to the old wording.
 
The change to allow the maximum height had nothing to do with accessibility and everything to do with allowing the top of the guard to be considered a handrail.

The accessibility requirements would trump the less restrictive requirements, but would only apply within a barrier free path of travel.
 
tmurray said:
The change to allow the maximum height had nothing to do with accessibility and everything to do with allowing the top of the guard to be considered a handrail.

...
Click to expand...
It's the height of handrail that was amended from 965 mm to 1070 mm, there was no change to the height of guards.
 
sunyaer said:
It's the height of handrail that was amended from 965 mm to 1070 mm, there was no change to the height of guards.
Click to expand...
Correct. Guards were always required to be 1070. With the change in height to handrails, the top of the guard can now be considered a handrail.
 
bill1952 said:
So why permit a 42" (1070 mm) handrail on a stair and not on a ramp?
Click to expand...
You can do a 42" ramp as well, which is clearly indicated by the OP's referenced section of 9.8.7.4.(2) as well as 3.4.6.5.(7):

(2) Except as provided in Sentences (3) and (4), the height of handrails on stairs and ramps shall be,
(a) not less than 865 mm, and
(b) not more than 965 mm.

To explain further, Canada does not have your ADA. We build accessibility requirements into our building code in section 3.8 (it has the ramp section the OP references), titled "barrier free".

So, there is a requirement for handrail heights for stairs and ramps that are not along a barrier free path of travel of between 865mm and 1070mm. Handrail heights for a ramp located in a barrier free path of travel is further restricted to 865mm and 965mm. There are no requirements for stair handrail heights in a
barrier free path of travel because there cannot be stairs in a barrier free path of travel.
 
You can do a 42" ramp as well, which is clearly indicated by the OP's referenced section of 9.8.7.4.(2) as well as 3.4.6.5.(7):
tmurray said:
...
Handrail heights for a ramp located in a barrier free path of travel is further restricted to 865mm and 965mm. ...
Click to expand...
It looks like coming back to my question, why is 965mm, not 1070mm, for Handrail heights for a ramp located in a barrier free path of travel?
 
sunyaer said:
You can do a 42" ramp as well, which is clearly indicated by the OP's referenced section of 9.8.7.4.(2) as well as 3.4.6.5.(7):

It looks like coming back to my question, why is 965mm, not 1070mm, for Handrail heights for a ramp located in a barrier free path of travel?
Click to expand...
I would suspect that these requirements were all based on recommendations from industry specialists to achieve the greatest level of accessibility for a diverse range of abilities across their lifespan.
 
Tmurray cover it I believe in post #8,

The higher ranger or 1070mm is allowed in non-barrier free path of travel (Stair Flights), pre say.

Since stair flights in the Canadian code are not part of the Barrier free path of travel, it is an exception allowed, but the areas that are in the barrier free path of travel, which probably have ramps in them, the smaller 965mm still applies.

And though a 1070mm might seem right, I have to highly disagree, though adults might be gaining height, children still span the lower ranks and a 1070mm handrail height for them, IMO is just well an adult of taller height might find it a bit awkward, but how awkward is 1070mm to a 8 year old or younger?
 
tbz said:
And though a 1070mm might seem right, I have to highly disagree, though adults might be gaining height, children still span the lower ranks and a 1070mm handrail height for them, IMO is just well an adult of taller height might find it a bit awkward, but how awkward is 1070mm to a 8 year old or younger?
Click to expand...
This is a good point. we have seen a second lower handrail provided in some early learning facilities and elementary schools for this reason.
 
tmurray said:
So, there is a requirement for handrail heights for stairs and ramps that are not along a barrier free path of travel of between 865mm and 1070mm. Handrail heights for a ramp located in a barrier free path of travel is further restricted to 865mm and 965mm.
Click to expand...
People that need the barrier free path are elderly, injured, physically impaired, etc. All of that equals bent over….. 34” to 38” works for them. 34” to 42” for everybody else made sense to somebody as opposed to the American tact of lowering the guard rail height.

R312.1.2 Height. Required guards at open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) in height as measured vertically above the adjacent walking surface or the line connecting the nosings.
Exceptions:
1. Guards on the open sides of stairs shall have a height of not less than 34 inches (864 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the nosings.
2. Where the top of the guard serves as a handrail on the open sides of stairs, the top of the guard shall be not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm) as measured vertically from a line connecting the nosings.

The first exception seems to be there for no good reason.
 
Last edited:
Higher handrails provide greater stability. Look on rapid transit cars and people grab poles and bars high - shoulder and above - not waist. Watch "The Stair Event" (on line at wew. bldguse.com ) video and kids reach for the higher rail. It's simple physics. If you observe or if you look at the research of those who observe professionally, it's clear 34 to 38 inches is too low for safety.
 
bill1952 said:
Higher handrails provide greater stability. Look on rapid transit cars and people grab poles and bars high - shoulder and above - not waist. Watch "The Stair Event" (on line at wew. bldguse.com ) video and kids reach for the higher rail. It's simple physics. If you observe or if you look at the research of those who observe professionally, it's clear 34 to 38 inches is too low for safety.
Click to expand...
Bill,

From the studies I have viewed of Jake's published and video documentations for stanchions and moving transit are viewing hanging holds to stabilize in a fixed position or setting yourself to stay in one place or to lower or raise one's position. When reviewing studies from a wide range of authors going back to Maki and others. What I have taken from the research is the vast majority of people don't even use handrails and the mind stores the areas knowledge and when something happens that they need the grasp ability, the arm and hand travel up and then downward, thus having a set to high can result in not attaining holds for as the body descends the higher points grow further away.

As thus, though higher handrails might provide for a taller community, unless you are willing to also calculate that a majority never stabilize with just the hand, but hand pulling forearm to land on top handrails and supported during a fall, thus the higher the handrail, the more likely the arm does not have the height to land on the handrail during a fall becomes great, thus more complete falls.

The question being asked today by many is, is it better to grab high and hang or grab lower and get more mass on handrail?

From the few falls I have taken over the years, I personally prefer a lower handrail and I am 6ft, always landed on my forearm and was able to support and stabilize. The one time i fell and only a guard was in place, I ended up with my arm in a sling for a week, because I tore my shoulder a part hanging from my hand and twisting trying to stop the fall.

Just MPO, but we know researchers tend to see things other don't
 
tbz said:
Bill,

From the studies I have viewed of Jake's published and video documentations for stanchions and moving transit are viewing hanging holds to stabilize in a fixed position or setting yourself to stay in one place or to lower or raise one's position. When reviewing studies from a wide range of authors going back to Maki and others. What I have taken from the research is the vast majority of people don't even use handrails and the mind stores the areas knowledge and when something happens that they need the grasp ability, the arm and hand travel up and then downward, thus having a set to high can result in not attaining holds for as the body descends the higher points grow further away.

As thus, though higher handrails might provide for a taller community, unless you are willing to also calculate that a majority never stabilize with just the hand, but hand pulling forearm to land on top handrails and supported during a fall, thus the higher the handrail, the more likely the arm does not have the height to land on the handrail during a fall becomes great, thus more complete falls.

The question being asked today by many is, is it better to grab high and hang or grab lower and get more mass on handrail?

From the few falls I have taken over the years, I personally prefer a lower handrail and I am 6ft, always landed on my forearm and was able to support and stabilize. The one time i fell and only a guard was in place, I ended up with my arm in a sling for a week, because I tore my shoulder a part hanging from my hand and twisting trying to stop the fall.

Just MPO, but we know researchers tend to see things other don't
Click to expand...
Interesting comments. I'm a handrail user. I don't use stairs without using a handrail, and in general I find them too low. Higher ones provide much better leverage.

I am looking for some research from Australia - several decades ago - regarding children and handrail heights which purportedly showed given a choice, they preferred railings higher than code allowed. Children also demonstrate that there is little problem with shoulder high railings. If you watch The Stair Event the preference for higher rails by children is seen.

Unfortunate there is so little contemporary research on this since falls on stairs account for so many injuries and so much cost.
 
bill1952 said:
Do people who use wheelchairs use handrails? I thought not. I'm also struggling with a person using a walker one handed, with other hand on handrail.
Click to expand...

Wheelchairs not so much (based on my meagre knowledge) but I can say that when I had my hip replacement, I certainly did. Cane one side, handrail on the other. So I suspect the handrails are more used by persons who have issues walking and need the stability. After all, that's the logic behind the requirement for continuous handrails.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
Wheelchairs not so much (based on my meagre knowledge) but I can say that when I had my hip replacement, I certainly did. Cane one side, handrail on the other. So I suspect the handrails are more used by persons who have issues walking and need the stability. After all, that's the logic behind the requirement for continuous handrails.
Click to expand...
Good points. Still not convinced a person who uses a cane would not be fine or better with a railing in the 42" range. Simple geometry says more stable, better leverage. I have a torn miniscus now, and wish I had a higher something to grab when I slipped on ice and landed on my knee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top