PA - 2018 IBC & 2017A117.1 Handrail terminations/extensions

[tbz]

So I am posting this in the building code as it would apply to all handrail extensions, not just accessibility.

This termination will be located at the top and bottom of ramps on a project.

The following design #01 was on the designers drawings and I am looking for if you believe this is compliant, HR extension compliance & Protruding objects



I am also posting the following 2 other designs



here is the third design



Please feel free to ask questions, we run into these type of questions all the time and we are trying to provide context to this subject that comes up many times over each year.

Thanks - Tom

 

[RLGA]

Tom, great question, and my answer is: it depends.

Does the 4-1/2" projection in #1 encroach into a circulation path that runs perpendicular to the stair run? For #2, this is borderline under the same condition: if only 4" of the projection above 27" projects into the circulation path, then I would say it is okay. For #3, this too is borderline--I would feel more comfortable if the point where the curl connected to the baluster/newel post was at 27", then most of the termination ornament will be below 27" and compliant.

If no circulation path runs perpendicular to the stair run, then I would say that each one is compliant:

1. Each has an extension that is at least 12".
2. They do not project into the stairway width.
3. They are in the same direction as the stairway run.
4. They return to the baluster/newel post, which returns to the walking surface. (This might be problematic for #1 if there is a gap between the curl and the baluster/newel post--this could be filled with a small plate.)

 

[walker.t]

as it would apply to all handrail extensions

Do the proposed handrail profiles comply with A117.1-2017 505.7.2, I’m wondering if they have the 4” minimum perimeter.

HR extension compliance

The drawings show a 4.5” maximum projection per 307.2 (Exception)…

A117.1-2017 Commentary on 307.2 Protrusion Limits (partial quote, emphasis added)
This exception is limited to the run of the stair or ramp. Handrail end projections must be detectable.

Regarding “limited to the run,” handrail extensions are beyond the run of the ramp and therefore are limited to 4”, not 4.5”. The 4.5” (measured perpendicular to the direction of travel) over the ramp allows an extra 0.50” into the run so there’s more room for a gap between the handrail and a wall, for example.

Regarding “must be detectable,” I don’t think A117.1-2017 Section 307 (Protruding Objects) specifies the direction of travel relative to the protruding object, so even if the extension is not perpendicular to the circulation path it still needs a detectable edge - this keeps someone from walking straight into the end and getting poked.

The following design #01

I would not consider this compliant because the bottom of the curl is above 27” and it is returning to the handrail itself.

None of the drawings show the pitch break between the handrail and extension in the correct location, the dashed blue line is correct because it starts where the ramp and landing meet per A117.1-2017 505.10.1, therefore the actual start of the handrail extension needs to be corrected on all the drawings.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

From the 2021 IBC Commentary:



In my opinion, none of the proposed designs is acceptable -- they all have profiles that could catch clothing or bag straps.

All three designs appear to be bog standard wrought iron railings, and those typically don't comply with handrail graspability dimensions established by IBC 1014.3.

 

[RLGA]

That may have been the intent for the handrail return requirements, but that is not what the code states. As we all know, the Commentary is not code.

The code includes no performance or dimensional requirements for handrail returns, so there is nothing to provide a definitive judgment regarding handrail termination compliance that has not already been stated above. However, the B.O. is the final interpreter of the code, and if an applicant wants to challenge the interpretation, there is a means to do so, but it will require time and money. The Commentary provides good supporting evidence, so applicants will have to choose their battles wisely.

 

[tbz]

Good morning everyone,

so I got the input coming and I like where this is going.

To follow in Jeff's footsteps a little, I provided just enough information to get this jump started, but not enough to be clear.

• To start with many of the traditional metal handrail profiles do comply with the IBC, A117.1 and 2010ADA.
  • I know this because over the last 28 years I wrote many of the proposals for the parameters in the code so they would and I also submitted all the metal samples to the access-board and attended the hearings in DC when they did the 2004 update, plus worked with Dan Magee with the bracket clearance reduction that was also done 25-years ago and in the codes and standards.
    • If you have questions please feel free to contact me and I will be more than happy to do a zoom meeting to review them with you.
  • And to simplify the smaller profile question and get it off the table, I will clarify that the smaller 1-3/4" width traditional steel caps require an under support bar to make the 4" minimum perimeter requirement, but with it, it complies.
• I will also note here that the drawings are only showing the bottom of a ramp and not stairs, and the code & standards require a handrail to extend a minimum of 12-inches at the top and bottom of ramp runs on the landings before terminating.
  • All 3 design are compliant with this, as the post and the termination is past the minimum 12-inches as delineated and shown with the blue box and measurements
    • Additionally, the height of the handrail is also in compliance 34-3/8" above the walking surface.
    • And once you are past the minimum 12-inches, the rest of the handrail profile is not required to meet 1014.3, nor the minimum clearances nor the heights between 34-38.
      • Just the protruding objects section of the post mounting and termination requirements
        
• The fitting on design #1 is a bronze casting, it is solid and is called a vertical volute to provide the technical term.
  • Since it is a casting, added to the end of the handrail profile, how would it return to to the post, and be able to be considered to return to the floor?
    • I know it meets the projection limit as it is under 4-inches, but it does not technically return to the floor.
    • As CC stated it can catch clothing and other items, but as Ron points out that is not in any of the code language.
      • The Intent explained in the commentary only works if the code language supports it.
• Next deign #2 is called a Lambs Tongue, and or a starting easing
  • This can be accomplished with either a continual forming of the handrail profile or a casting and its under support. It is rolled over or mitered and then returned to the support post, which then completes the path for the return to floor option for termination.
    • It meets all the requirements within the language of the IBC, A117.1 & 2010ADA
    • The question becomes that preverbally commentary "intent" question, that is not written in the language.....
      • Let's remember, a wall handrail can have a flat return that can catch a purse or strap, as long as, it returns to the wall to prevent the strap from going past that point.
• Then there is design #3
  • This is a larger vertical volute
    • It returns to the post to complete the flow for returning to the floor
    • It rolls to be under the 27-limit of protruding objects
      • it is just shy of the 4-inch at 27-inch location
    • Thus, are we measuring with a micrometer in the field??

so with this additional information I ask the following questions

1. Since the code & Standards don't publish a definitive height for what a purse or backpack or draping overcoat belt hanging loose will catch, what is your technical requirements for meeting this?
   1. I am guessing those that enforce this commentary description not in the code language it will be a WAG, but I am looking for information to explain and show designers where the design limits are in dimensions.
2. If you are failing metal handrails because you don't believe they are compliant with 1014.3, how are you making that call?
   1. What specifically are you citing and what would you need to see on a drawing to show proof of compliance?

I want to thank everyone for chiming in and I look forward to your additional comments.

regards - Tom

 

[tbz]

Tom, great question, and my answer is: it depends.

Does the 4-1/2" projection in #1 encroach into a circulation path that runs perpendicular to the stair run? For #2, this is borderline under the same condition: if only 4" of the projection above 27" projects into the circulation path, then I would say it is okay. For #3, this too is borderline--I would feel more comfortable if the point where the curl connected to the baluster/newel post was at 27", then most of the termination ornament will be below 27" and compliant.

If no circulation path runs perpendicular to the stair run, then I would say that each one is compliant:

1. Each has an extension that is at least 12".
2. They do not project into the stairway width.
3. They are in the same direction as the stairway run.
4. They return to the baluster/newel post, which returns to the walking surface. (This might be problematic for #1 if there is a gap between the curl and the baluster/newel post--this could be filled with a small plate.)

Good morning Ron,

So in this specific circumstance, the bottom of the left side ascending does encroach into the circulation path, but the other side does not, nor the top 2 terminations.

 

[tbz]

Do the proposed handrail profiles comply with A117.1-2017 505.7.2, I’m wondering if they have the 4” minimum perimeter.


The drawings show a 4.5” maximum projection per 307.2 (Exception)…


Regarding “limited to the run,” handrail extensions are beyond the run of the ramp and therefore are limited to 4”, not 4.5”. The 4.5” (measured perpendicular to the direction of travel) over the ramp allows an extra 0.50” into the run so there’s more room for a gap between the handrail and a wall, for example.

Regarding “must be detectable,” I don’t think A117.1-2017 Section 307 (Protruding Objects) specifies the direction of travel relative to the protruding object, so even if the extension is not perpendicular to the circulation path it still needs a detectable edge - this keeps someone from walking straight into the end and getting poked.


I would not consider this compliant because the bottom of the curl is above 27” and it is returning to the handrail itself.

None of the drawings show the pitch break between the handrail and extension in the correct location, the dashed blue line is correct because it starts where the ramp and landing meet per A117.1-2017 505.10.1, therefore the actual start of the handrail extension needs to be corrected on all the drawings.

Good morning Walker,

• I showed the 4.5" to see if anyone would catch it, nice catch, yes that point is 4" not 4.5".
• I am not sure what you mean that none of the handrails show a pitch break,
  • but the handrail shows a break to level about 3.5-inches over the landing past the ramp/landing break.
  • The handrail on the ramp is a uniform height, higher than the height of the landing.
    • so here is my question since you also caught the difference between the handrail break point and the ramp break point.
    • were in the IBC, A117.1 or 2010ADA say the handrail must break at the ramp break and extend the 12-inches from the handrail's break point?
      • If the handrail extends 12-inches from the handrails break and complies, even though past the ramp/landing break, does it comply?

I look forward to your response.

regards - Tom

 

[walker.t]

I showed the 4.5" to see if anyone would catch it, nice catch, yes that point is 4" not 4.5".

Honestly, I would not have interpreted the exception at 307.2 (‘Handrails shall be permitted to protrude 4.5” maximum.”) to mean just over the run of the ramp or stair except for the clarification in the commentary. Similar to the comment regarding the intent stated in the commentary (but not in the code) that handrail extensions prevent snagging on clothing, one could ask how the exception at 307.2 can be construed to mean just over the stair or ramp run.

I am not sure what you mean that none of the handrails show a pitch break,

The pitch breaks are shown, but they are in the incorrect location. By “pitch break,” I mean where the angled handrail or ramp walking surface ends and the flat handrail extension or landing starts. Maybe “change in slope” is a better phrase.

were in the IBC, A117.1 or 2010ADA say the handrail must break at the ramp break and extend the 12-inches from the handrail's break point?

A117.1-2017 505.10.1 Top and Bottom Extension at Ramps (partial quote, emphasis added)
Ramp handrails shall extend horizontally above the landing 12” minimum beyond the top and bottom of ramp runs.

A117.1-2017 Figure 505.10.1 also shows the handrail extension starting at the end of the sloped ramp surface.

A117.1-2017 505.10.2 Top Extension at Stairs (partial quote, emphasis added)
At the top of a stair flight, handrails shall extend horizontally above the landing for 12” minimum beginning directly above the landing nosing.

A117.1-2017 Figure 505.10.2 incorrectly shows the pitch break location, it is not directly over the nosing.

If the handrail extends 12-inches from the handrails break and complies, even though past the ramp/landing break, does it comply?

I would not consider that to be compliant per the two provisions cited above and this one…

A117.1-2017 505.4 Height (partial quote, emphasis added)
Handrails shall be a consistent height above stair nosings, ramp surfaces and walking surfaces.

In context, “walking surfaces” refers to the landing. Therefore the handrail extensions over the landings must be the same height as the handrails, and the only way to achieve that is if the pitch break starts vertically above the intersection of the ramp and landing.

 

[tbz]

Honestly, I would not have interpreted the exception at 307.2 (‘Handrails shall be permitted to protrude 4.5” maximum.”) to mean just over the run of the ramp or stair except for the clarification in the commentary. Similar to the comment regarding the intent stated in the commentary (but not in the code) that handrail extensions prevent snagging on clothing, one could ask how the exception at 307.2 can be construed to mean just over the stair or ramp run.


The pitch breaks are shown, but they are in the incorrect location. By “pitch break,” I mean where the angled handrail or ramp walking surface ends and the flat handrail extension or landing starts. Maybe “change in slope” is a better phrase.

View attachment 16744




A117.1-2017 Figure 505.10.1 also shows the handrail extension starting at the end of the sloped ramp surface.


A117.1-2017 Figure 505.10.2 incorrectly shows the pitch break location, it is not directly over the nosing.


I would not consider that to be compliant per the two provisions cited above and this one…


In context, “walking surfaces” refers to the landing. Therefore the handrail extensions over the landings must be the same height as the handrails, and the only way to achieve that is if the pitch break starts vertically above the intersection of the ramp and landing.

Good afternoon Walker and all lurking,

Thank you for the reply, I was hoping you were going to point to the figures in A117.1 as part of your reasons.

As with the IBC commentary, the figures are not enforceable, just context for thought.

Just an FYI to all, revised figures for all of the handrail sections under 505 in the 2017 A117.1 are part of the revised pending release open for public comment now. I will post the link later tonight for all.

And I too use the term Break, not in conjunction with pitch, but I was following your thoughts to words on this.

Currently, the IBC, 2017 A117.1 & the 2010ADA state between 34-38 inches & once at the landing minimum of 12-inches is required to be level for the extensions.

The code only says uniform between the heights, not parallel to the slope of the nosing's or or ramp run.

QUOTED Section in pic below:


As thus, I have had many debates with designers with code officials in the mix on the difference in heights on the ramp surface from the landings, when it comes to handrails.

Other that the figures, which again are not enforceable, were in the code does it say the handrails upper extension and the slope can't be installed at 37" high, and then the handrail continues to slope past the break over the lower landing to a point at which time it levels off at 34 1/2" and then runs level for the required 12-inches?

Again thank you for your responses and input on this topic.

Regards - Tom

 

[Paul Sweet]

I believe #1 & 2 comply, and #3 complies al long as it isn't projecting into a circulation path perpendicular to the ramp.

2017 ANSI A117.1 par. 307.3 allows objects on posts to overhang 4" beyond the post.

A blind person's cane will hit the post before the person hits the handrail extension.

2017 ANSI A117.1 fig. 505.10.1 shows the extension projecting 12" beyond the post and returning to the post instead of directly to the ground.

 

[walker.t]

I was hoping you were going to point to the figures in A117.1 as part of your reasons.

I think the text is clear, the figures simply support the text, they don’t make the argument. Do note I called out the error in Figure 505.10.2, it is an error because it contradicts the text.

As with the IBC commentary, the figures are not enforceable

True, per A117.1-2017 105.4.

The code only says uniform between the heights, not parallel to the slope of the nosing's or or ramp run.

It doesn’t have to use the term “parallel.” Disregarding allowable variations in riser height and tread depth (per 2021 IBC 1011.5.4), when the handrail height is uniform over the stair nosings or ramp surface, the handrail is parallel to the reference plane of the stair nosings or ramp surface.

were in the code does it say the handrails upper extension and the slope can't be installed at 37" high, and then the handrail continues to slope past the break over the lower landing to a point at which time it levels off at 34 1/2" and then runs level for the required 12-inches?

I’ve shared the provisions I think clearly support the requirement that the pitch break must occur directly above the intersection of the ramp and landing, I’m not seeing what I consider an adequate response to indicate otherwise.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

were in the code does it say the handrails upper extension and the slope can't be installed at 37" high, and then the handrail continues to slope past the break over the lower landing to a point at which time it levels off at 34 1/2" and then runs level for the required 12-inches?

I’ve shared the provisions I think clearly support the requirement that the pitch break must occur directly above the intersection of the ramp and landing, I’m not seeing what I consider an adequate response to indicate otherwise.

I agree with walker.t on this point.

 

[Yikes]

What ANSI shows:

What post #1 shows:

 

[walker.t]

Since the code & Standards don't publish a definitive height for what a purse or backpack or draping overcoat belt hanging loose will catch, what is your technical requirements for meeting this?

“Comply with the requirements for handrail returns.” As you note, the code does not have language regarding avoiding snagging clothing, therefore there are no technical requirements (meaning required by code) you could offer designers when you talk to them about the topic. About the best you can do is to tell them to make sure they comply with the requirements for returning the handrail extensions per A117.1-1017 505.10.1 (ramps) and 505.10.2 (stairs.)