Intermediate Handrail Continuity & Extension Past Riser

[srartvandelay]

So recently a metal fabricator of on our site decided to change the intermediate handrail detail during an install on a set of egress stairs (see detail attached). To me this feels wrong but I haven't really been able to find anything in IBC or ADA that really addresses what I think is an issue. As a person is using the the handrail they have to step off the final tread onto the landing and the height changes. If an extension is required on the side handrails for one tread length, then using that same spirit of the code, this doesn't seem appropriate. Since it's continuous, maybe it doesn't need to extend out a full tread, but the change in height during the step down seems wrong. The only bit of ADA that seems to support this idea is from section 505.4 stating, "Handrails shall be at a consistent height above walking surfaces, stair nosings, and ramp surfaces". Technically it is at a consistent height across the stair nosing but then immediately drops. I feel it should be a consistent height for a bit past the stair nosing into the landing. Anyways, anyone have any thoughts or insights into this?

Handrail Detail

 

[steveray]

The extension is exempt on "continuous flights"....

1014.6 Handrail extensions. Handrails shall return to a wall,
guard or the walking surface or shall be continuous to the
handrail of an adjacent flight of stairs or ramp run. Where
handrails are not continuous between flights, the handrails
shall extend horizontally not less than 12 inches (305 mm)
beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one
tread beyond the bottom riser.

 

[srartvandelay]

I agree it does count as continuous but it just doesn't seem correct to me. If you want the handrail at consistent height through each stair, why would it not matter for the very last step before the riser?

 

[srartvandelay]

I agree it does count as continuous but it just doesn't seem correct to me. If you want the handrail at consistent height through each stair, why would it not matter for the very last step before the riser?

Sorry I meant landing.

 

[steveray]

You have the one on the other side.....It is near impossible to make that inside transition perfectly....

 

[Tim Mailloux]

on a switch back stair the only way to make that condition work nicely is to offset the each flight of stairs one tread depth at the intermediate landing. This is my typical stair details but most architectse rarely do this because it makes the stair shaft 11" larger than the bare minimum.

 

[tbz]

So recently a metal fabricator of on our site decided to change the intermediate handrail detail during an install on a set of egress stairs (see detail attached). To me this feels wrong but I haven't really been able to find anything in IBC or ADA that really addresses what I think is an issue. As a person is using the the handrail they have to step off the final tread onto the landing and the height changes. If an extension is required on the side handrails for one tread length, then using that same spirit of the code, this doesn't seem appropriate. Since it's continuous, maybe it doesn't need to extend out a full tread, but the change in height during the step down seems wrong. The only bit of ADA that seems to support this idea is from section 505.4 stating, "Handrails shall be at a consistent height above walking surfaces, stair nosings, and ramp surfaces". Technically it is at a consistent height across the stair nosing but then immediately drops. I feel it should be a consistent height for a bit past the stair nosing into the landing. Anyways, anyone have any thoughts or insights into this?

Handrail Detail

Welcome to the forum.

First lets start with what is shown is a very common and highly used inside turn continuous handrail transition.

Secondly, the reason it is done this way is because many of the architects and designers don't design the stairways large enough to allow for an extra tread depth on the landing at the top and the bottom of stair flights.

In an effort to reduce the size of the exit enclosure, many, I would say a good majority of the designers shove the minimum amount of treads need with the minimum amount of landing needed and can care less about how the handrails flow.

Because there is not enough run out room to flow down at the same angle, the fabricator has to pick a point where they need to make the harsh drop for the height change. These are always shown on the shop drawings and no one ever complains till the installation. The height change at the riser is less out of the way than putting it at the corner with the large vertical drop.

If the design firm had added one tread depth on the landing before the required minimum landing depth, the handrail could flow to a level turn point, wrap around and then descend down the next flight.

This same condition occurs at the top of many stair flights when the handrails are not continuous and extensions are required.

Designers constantly put the top riser right at the same point of the walkway cross traffic flow and then complain that the handrails extend out in to the flow.

IF I sound a little harsh, it's because fabricators have been complaining to designers for over 25 years about this exact issue, and we are always told the stairways are not important we need more floor space.

Not the fabricator - its the designer, its hard to shove a size 12 foot in a size 11 shoe.

 

[srartvandelay]

Yeah, I think this detail is technically correct. I just don't like it.

on a switch back stair the only way to make that condition work nicely is to offset the each flight of stairs one tread depth at the intermediate landing. This is my typical stair details but most architectse rarely do this because it makes the stair shaft 11" larger than the bare minimum.

Yeah I agree that would be nice solution. Unfortunately this is an existing stair enclosure with existing stair pan, so we're kind of stuck in terms of our dimensions; we're just replacing the guard and handrail. I think it's one of those things that is technically correct but it could have been done better. For some reason the contractor was hung up on keeping the switchback at 2'-10".

 

[srartvandelay]

Welcome to the forum.

First lets start with what is shown is a very common and highly used inside turn continuous handrail transition.

Secondly, the reason it is done this way is because many of the architects and designers don't design the stairways large enough to allow for an extra tread depth on the landing at the top and the bottom of stair flights.

In an effort to reduce the size of the exit enclosure, many, I would say a good majority of the designers shove the minimum amount of treads need with the minimum amount of landing needed and can care less about how the handrails flow.

Because there is not enough run out room to flow down at the same angle, the fabricator has to pick a point where they need to make the harsh drop for the height change. These are always shown on the shop drawings and no one ever complains till the installation. The height change at the riser is less out of the way than putting it at the corner with the large vertical drop.

If the design firm had added one tread depth on the landing before the required minimum landing depth, the handrail could flow to a level turn point, wrap around and then descend down the next flight.

This same condition occurs at the top of many stair flights when the handrails are not continuous and extensions are required.

Designers constantly put the top riser right at the same point of the walkway cross traffic flow and then complain that the handrails extend out in to the flow.

IF I sound a little harsh, it's because fabricators have been complaining to designers for over 25 years about this exact issue, and we are always told the stairways are not important we need more floor space.

Not the fabricator - its the designer, its hard to shove a size 12 foot in a size 11 shoe.

Thanks this seems like a great place to debate all the crazy nuances of code and the reality of building.

I understand where you're coming from but in this situation, the shops did show the handrail extending at the same angle past the guard and then dropping which I think is a nicer solution than dropping the handrail height right at the nosing of the first / last stair. The contractor has told me that they wanted to maintain the 2'-10" height at the landing and that's why they made the change. That reasoning doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me since they could've hit the 2'-10" height with the way it was shown on the shops... also 2'-10" is the minimum, it could be higher.

I know designers don't always think through field conditions but in this was an existing enclosure and we're getting rid of some old, lead paint covered rails, so in this case the architect isn't the guilty party.

The installer hasn't really impressed me much either. They brought out the new railing and guard and then completely ripped it apart and reweld it on site since they didn't do any field measurements properly. I would be happier if they built it according to their shop drawings but it seems like there isn't anything "wrong" with this, it's just not as good as it could've been. This is also a healthcare facility so I'd prefer the users get as much consistent railing while going up and down as possible.

 

[Paul Sweet]

If the sloping rails were both extended they would almost meet, so there would just be a drop of a couple inches while rounding the newel.

 

[e hilton]

Looks like you have two issues: code compliance and contract compliance. Depending on interpretation, it might meet code. Clearly looks like a failure to meet contract requirements, so its not acceptable. Remove & replace, or accept half payment.

 

[srartvandelay]

Looks like you have two issues: code compliance and contract compliance. Depending on interpretation, it might meet code. Clearly looks like a failure to meet contract requirements, so its not acceptable. Remove & replace, or accept half payment.

Yeah that's an excellent point, I suppose there is no reason we should need to accept a deviation from the approved shop drawings. Originally the shop drawings "matched" the contract drawings for that railing detail.