# California ADA Handrail Radius Requirement



## tbz (Mar 10, 2020)

Good morning everyone,

Have a fabricator client that was told by a design team, 

"I have a project requiring the handrail wall end return outside radius to be 2” which the design team said it is ADA requirement. "

I know it is not a DOJ federal requirement, but the firm and project is in California, so I am wondering if someone knows if Cali changed something locally that I am unaware of?

Or even knows of this in anyway?

Thank you - Regards


----------



## e hilton (Mar 10, 2020)

Thats a pretty tight radius for 1-1/4” pipe ... almost a 90* elbow.  Not that it can’t be done, but 2” inside radius would make more sense.  Oh ... wait ... this is Calif.


----------



## JPohling (Mar 10, 2020)

I am not familiar with any radius requirement in the CBC, only that it must be returned to the wall, guard or landing surface or be continuous. 11B-505.10.1&2


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 10, 2020)

The only requirement in CA is that the extension is 12" horiz. to the beginning of any radius or miter.
It is best practice to not have a mitered vertical end as it can gouge your hand, a comfortable radius is better.
Ask the fabricatore where it said 2" in the code, designer has discretion beyond the 12" min.


----------



## tonyleto (Mar 10, 2020)

tbz posted this on my behalf. This was the original note forwarded by one of our sales guys in California. "I have a project requiring the handrail wall end return outside radius to be 2” which the design team said it is ADA requirement. But I cannot find this a complying product from Wagner’s web site and I have never heard of that. So I wonder is that really ADA requirement? Do you know anything about that? Thanks in advance!"

I have asked him to request where this is being taken from. It certainly is not in the ADASAD.


----------



## James Davis (Mar 10, 2020)

tbz said:


> Good morning everyone,
> 
> Have a fabricator client that was told by a design team,
> 
> ...


been an inspector in California for over 25 years and never heard of that requirement


----------



## e hilton (Mar 10, 2020)

tonyleto said:


> tbz posted this on my behalf..


Thats funny.  Reminds me of Craigslist ads ... “I’m posting this for a friend ...”


----------



## tonyleto (Mar 10, 2020)

e hilton said:


> Thats funny.  Reminds me of Craigslist ads ... “I’m posting this for a friend ...”


LOL


----------



## tonyleto (Mar 10, 2020)

James Davis said:


> been an inspector in California for over 25 years and never heard of that requirement


Thanks for your note. It didn't sound right to me either.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Mar 11, 2020)

I wonder if the radius limit is to be able to measure the extension length to the outside of the return.  I've heard some opinions that the extension length should be measured to the point where it starts to turn for the return.


----------



## Yikes (Mar 13, 2020)

Paul Sweet is right.  There is no requirements for any radius.  the only requirement is for handrails and adjacent surfaces "rounded edges" so as not to be "sharp or abrasive".  The wording in CBC 11B-505.8 is identical to ADAS.
Paul is also correct that the radiused return starts AFTER the minimum extension length.  for example, a 1.5" diameter handrail with a 12" required extension and a return is going to be at least 13.5" long or more.  Here's the illustrations from ADAS / CBC 11B-505.10.


----------



## e hilton (Mar 13, 2020)

Ok, now it’s obvious to me where the confusion comes from.  If you accept Yikes statement the the dimension line in the drawing is intended to show the minimum straight part of the extension, you could also interpret the dimension line as showing the inside face of the vertical leg.  They need to add a mark showing the acceptable radius.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 13, 2020)

tonyleto said:


> tbz posted this on my behalf. This was the original note forwarded by one of our sales guys in California. "I have a project requiring the handrail wall end return outside radius to be 2” which the design team said it is ADA requirement. But I cannot find this a complying product from Wagner’s web site and I have never heard of that. So I wonder is that really ADA requirement? Do you know anything about that? Thanks in advance!"
> 
> I have asked him to request where this is being taken from. It certainly is not in the ADASAD.


See my prior response or have design team cite you code and verse.


----------



## Yikes (Mar 14, 2020)

e hilton said:


> Ok, now it’s obvious to me where the confusion comes from.  If you accept Yikes statement the the dimension line in the drawing is intended to show the minimum straight part of the extension, you could also interpret the dimension line as showing the inside face of the vertical leg.  They need to add a mark showing the acceptable radius.



Acceptable radius = 0".

There is NO requirement for any radius, nor for anything beyond the 12" straight section at a rail termination other than a "return to a wall, guard, or the landing surface" (ADA/ 11B-505.10.1 through 3).
Remember, square tubing with rounded edges is also allowed as a handrail per 505.7.2 and 505.8.  In that scenario you could weld an immediate 90 degree turn with no radius at all on the inside bend, because the inside bend is not an "edge".


----------



## e hilton (Mar 15, 2020)

Yikes said:


> Acceptable radius = 0".   you could weld an immediate 90 degree turn with no radius at all on the inside bend, because the inside bend is not an "edge".


True.  But the original post asked about a 2” outside radius.  Bottom line ... the inspector asking the question is a little confused.


----------

