# Please review this Handrail Design (for code compliance)



## error404 (Jan 13, 2017)

Project is a single family home remodeling. Under the Florida Building Code (I believe 2012 IRC would be identical for this portion of the code). 
I'm most particularly interested in knowing if we comply with:

*R311.7.8.2 Continuity*: 
Handrails for stairways shall be continuous for the full *length of the flight*, from a point directly above the top riser of the flight to a point directly above the lowest riser of the flight.

*R202 Definitions:*
*FLIGHT.* A continuous run of rectangular treads or winders or combination thereof from one landing to
another.

*R311.7.8.1 Height.*
Handrail height, measured vertically from the sloped plane adjoining the tread nosing, or finish surface of ramp
slope, shall be not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mm).

_(In order to clear the design at the corner, I need place the Handrail 2" higher at each turn... so one flight is at 34", the next is at 36", and the last one at 38". Not ideal, I wish I had more space, but it's an existing stair.)_

*R311.7.8.3 Grip-size:*
_(We are going for Type I)_
1. Type I. Handrails with a circular cross section shall have an outside diameter of at least 11/4 inches (32 mm)
and not greater than 2 inches (51 mm). If the handrail is not circular, it shall have a perimeter dimension of at
least 4 inches (102 mm) and not greater than 61/4 inches (160 mm) with a maximum cross section of
dimension of 2 1/4 inches (57 mm). Edges shall have a minimum radius of 0.01 inch (0.25 mm).

Anything else that I could be missing?
Thanks


----------



## steveray (Jan 13, 2017)

Looks like I would buy it....


----------



## fatboy (Jan 13, 2017)

Looks OK to me, you might get some that do not think the lower end has a return to wall, possible catching hazard. I gave it a second look, but would be OK with it.


----------



## error404 (Jan 13, 2017)

Thank you for the input


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jan 13, 2017)

There is the requirement of width above the handrail; suggest checking with the AHJ beforehand.

*R311.7 Stairways.*

*R311.7.1 Width. *Stairways shall not be less than 36 in. in clear width at all points above the permitted handrail height and below the required headroom height. . . .


----------



## tbz (Jan 13, 2017)

Ok,

2012 IRC, I don't think this complies, type 1 handrails have a maximum perimeter of 6-1/4" if you are over 6-1/4" perimeter then you fall to a type 2 handrail,

The last time I purchased a pair of pants they measured my perimeter to the point the tape touched again.

I don't think this complies as a type (1) handrail, the perimeter is way over 6-1/4", because there is NO PERIMETER on the design shown it never runs around and touches.... 

Now for type 2, my understanding on a type 2 handrail is that the first sentence in R311.7.8.3  2. Type 2 handrails says the recess is required to be on both sides of the handrail and the second sentence says the inward recesses are required to begin within 3/4" from the top of the handrail.  

Thus the design 1st off does not have an under cut recess at all on the stair side and the outer side scaled looks to be over 3/4".

The 4th picture of the proposed handrail cut view even says type 1, max 6-1/4" perimeter, please tell how in that cut view you are measuring 6-1/4" (Perimeter)

Take another look at the 4th picture...

If I am wrong please explain....

But I don't think this complies.

Tom


----------



## steveray (Jan 13, 2017)

Tom...Agree that it would have to be type II but doesn't the recess start just below the 1-3/4" measurement where the "ghost thumb" is?


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jan 13, 2017)

It depends on ones interpretation of equivalent;

*R311.7.8.3 Grip-size. *All required handrails shall be of one of the following types or provide equivalent graspability.


----------



## ICE (Jan 13, 2017)

steveray said:


> Looks like I would buy it....


I couldn't afford it.  The framing alone will equal a big screen tv.


----------



## tbz (Jan 14, 2017)

steveray said:


> Tom...Agree that it would have to be type II but doesn't the recess start just below the 1-3/4" measurement where the "ghost thumb" is?



steveray,

The recess has to begin within 3/4" below the top level of the handrail, with the handrail shifted to a 30 degree angle, I dont see that happening on both sides of the handrail shown.  The kick out never returns under it's self, if someone is going to say it equals the same graspability, well I open for talks, but as shown, nope.

I would love to see the OP take the type 2 handrail compliance grid that you find on the back of all the SMA's lit. and overlay his drawing to scale with the required notations within the type 2 code requirements.
http://www.stairways.org/SMA-Books/Stair-Code-2009-Visual-Interpretation
http://www.stairways.org/SMA-Books/Stair-Code-2009-Visual-Interpretation

I would not accept this design for the graspability compliance.

Just my 2 cents - and 2 cents is not much on today's market

Tom


----------



## tbz (Jan 14, 2017)

Francis Vineyard said:


> It depends on ones interpretation of equivalent;
> 
> *R311.7.8.3 Grip-size. *All required handrails shall be of one of the following types or provide equivalent graspability.



Francis,

I would agree with interp of equivalent is ones judgement and we all know agreeing is not the norm, but one also has to look at the access to that equivalent, the reduced opening to the handrail along with the handrail angled back and away, I would want the handrail to fit in to a type 1 or 2 access grasp, the OP noted it as being compliant with type 1, I dont agree with it being a type 1, I also don't agree with it being a type 2.

Thus, the only way one could interp it complies is by "or provide equivalent graspability", and with the limited access to the proposed handrail with the none compliant shape, I am not sure I would agree with that or not without a mock up.

When one reaches for a type 1 or 2 the hand goes straight down on top and then grips, with the angles back design in that cutout I don't think the hands access and gripping is equivalent, a type 1 or 2 would be more graspable and thus non compliant IMO.

Now I know, even I would argue that the codes does not say anything about accessing the handrail for graspability, but when one grabs the handrail the act of doing it is graspability.

Again just my 2 cents - Tom


----------



## tbz (Jan 14, 2017)

ICE said:


> I couldn't afford it.  The framing alone will equal a big screen tv.



ICE, I would venture you could buy more than one 70" tv and maybe a jeep for what the cost of that overall design when done will be


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jan 14, 2017)

The proposed handrail could be constructed and if not satisfactory to the AHJ a typical handrail can be added to the outer wall surface and be none worse as if the recessed handrail was added after the fact.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 14, 2017)

*Not the first recessed rail nor the last
Get the diameter down and it shold comply w/the code

Your proposal is more compliant than these*


----------



## JBI (Jan 18, 2017)

The key is 'graspability' for those with limited grip strength. 
I'm not thrilled with it, wouldn't do it in my own home, but... IMHO it provides equivalent graspability.


----------

