# 2015 IBC Section 1014.6 Handrail Extensions



## tbz

Good morning All,

I have a project that I need clarification on and when I tried to search old posts, well I can't seem to find it, though I believe we have talked about it in the past on here.

Have a split stair going from 1st floor main office space to 2nd floor main office space, not required MOE, the stairs and 2nd floor opening is a wrap around glass guard.  The handrails are drawn that when they reach the 2nd floor level that they turn prior to the required 12" extension in the same direction and then wrap completely around and then back down the stair flight.  

Thus handrail comes up the stair flight levels off and continues to run 7 inches approximately and then turns left and then continues to run completely around the 2nd floor level opening, about 40 ft, turning 5 times before going back down the other side of the same stair flight.  

Based on 2015 IBC 1014.6, handrails shall extend not less than 12" beyond the top riser and that required extension is not allowed to turn prior to reaching the 12 inch dimension.  I posted the code section below for quick reference.

Now I am being told that the design professional and the sub-code official disagree with me and say that because the handrail is continuous and runs around the entire floor level and then goes back down the same stair flight that it does not need to have the required 12 inch extensions at the top of the stair flight.

So I ask how do you all see this code interp; are the handrails required to extend the 12 inches before turning or not?  And provide a little commentary also, as it will help.

Thanks - Tom  

2015 IBC 1014.6 as adopted by NJ
“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.*_ At ramps where handrails are not continuous between runs, the handrails shall extend horizontally above the landing 12 inches (305 mm) minimum beyond the top and bottom of ramp runs. _*The extensions of handrails shall be in the same direction of the flights of stairs at stairways*_ and the ramp runs at ramps."


----------



## JBI

_*"Where handrails are not continuous between flights..."*_
Qualifying language? ICC has changed this language in the last cycle or two.


----------



## tbz

JBI said:


> _*"Where handrails are not continuous between flights..."*_
> Qualifying language? ICC has changed this language in the last cycle or two.



This is the wording directly from the 2015 IBC, the qualifying language is between flights, not the same flight, and my understanding that was inserted to allow for the reduction in landing size between switch back stair flights, were you are continuing up the stairs more times than not.  Not for removing the extensions at the top of the landing.

41 views and no input, how do you all inspect for the extensions being required or not?


----------



## fatboy

The extension will be required at the top and bottom terminations of flights of stairs. Not required where the handrail is continuous through intermediate landings in a series of flights.  Did I get your situation right? That's the way I read it.


----------



## JBI

Was the extension at top and bottom removed from the IBC?
I seem to remember a conversation about that...


----------



## Paul Sweet

IBC & ADA removed the horizontal extension at the bottom.  The horizontal extension at the top and sloped extension at the bottom are still required.

ADA has an exception for the extension being in the direction of the flight in alterations where the full extension would project into the path of travel.


----------



## steveray

I think FB has it for you Tom...continuous or not is the kicker.


----------



## Sifu

I do not require the extension between flights.  If the rail is continuous it is not required, and in my opinion could be an obstruction.  Ch. 34 for existing buildings has an exception for just that reason, allowing the extension at the bottom to be omitted where plan configuration would make it hazardous.


----------



## tbz

Thanks for the input everyone,

The way I read it is continuous between flights, thus from one flight to another flight.  That is not the case here even when continuous because it continues to the same flight.

The ADA exception is intended for retrofitting an entrance to an existing building were they might not have the room at the sidewalk level to continue.

Existing building exceptions are in my opinion for when you don't have the room to comply, not to do something because you dont want too.

This is a new staircase being cut in to the middle of a floor with plenty of room.  Thus the designer just doesn't want to make the stair comply and has claimed that the continuous between flights makes it ok, the part I dont get is the AHJ has concluded with the same read, which I don't agree with.

So I was just confirming my read.

Thanks - Tom


----------



## RLGA

A "flight" of stairs is defined in IBC Chapter 2. It is essentially a run of stairs from landing to landing, whether they are intermediate landings or landings at a floor. The situation here is that the stairs in question are not the switchback type found in most interior stairways. Thus, the question at hand: is the entire 40-foot length of floor area between the bottom of one flight to the top of the next flight considered a "landing"? Since the IBC does not define "landing," it is open to interpretation. If the building official will accept the floor area connecting two flights of stairs as a landing, then the design as submitted complies.


----------



## tbz

RLGA said:


> A "flight" of stairs is defined in IBC Chapter 2. It is essentially a run of stairs from landing to landing, whether they are intermediate landings or landings at a floor. The situation here is that the stairs in question are not the switchback type found in most interior stairways. Thus, the question at hand: is the entire 40-foot length of floor area between the bottom of one flight to the top of the next flight considered a "landing"? Since the IBC does not define "landing," it is open to interpretation. If the building official will accept the floor area connecting two flights of stairs as a landing, then the design as submitted complies.



RLGA, 

I understand that one could interpret the 40ft run from one stair flight to another stair flight being continuous, but that is not the case here, the case here is it is the same stair flight.

The handrail comes up the right side of stair (we will call it Stair A) "A" turns left 6 times while running 40ft and then goes back down stair "A" on the left side.

So you are not connecting 2  separate flights of stairs with the floor area, you are only dealing with 1 flight of stairs, thus connecting to it's self in this case.

The issue I have is though the building official may accept it, that does not mean they or it is correct, and since they are protected by the AHJ from personal wrongs, as the fabricator/installer, we don't have that same luxury.

Thus getting it right is a concern always.

Thank you for the input - Tom


----------



## RLGA

tbz:

Now I understand (an illustration would've been nice, but your description clears it up). Although the building official has the final word in matters regarding the building code (unless overturned by appeal), he does not have the authority to override compliance with the ADA.

The 2010 ADA Standards Section 505.10 requires the extensions unless they are "continuous handrails at the inside turn of switchback or dogleg stairs and ramps," per Exception 1. The stairs you describe are neither "switchback" nor "dogleg"; thus, extensions are required. The building official can allow it as designed and the owner may accept it as designed, but it will leave the owner open to litigation if a complaint is filed through the DOJ or a lawsuit is permitted through other means.


----------



## CityKin

The 12" horizontal at the top is clearly required on a single run new stair.  Howerver, from your description, the horizontal extension as designed is 7".  Will 5 more inches really make a difference?


----------



## tbz

CityKin said:


> The 12" horizontal at the top is clearly required on a single run new stair.  Howerver, from your description, the horizontal extension as designed is 7".  Will 5 more inches really make a difference?



I guess sketches will help here, the red marks are what they would like to do, the blue and magenta are were they would have to be placed to comply with both the required extensions and max projection code requirements.  The issue is we have instructed them to cut 11" more tread depth from the floor and make the top tread even with the landing, this would allow the handrails to travel the required 12" extension minimum and then turn.  They have the room and this would allow the glass panels on all 4 sides to be the same distance set in from the edge.  Reminder no hole cut yet.  The lower sketch is the plan view. 

So just extending the extension would exceed the 4-1/2" max projection and moving the glass panel to compensate for that will change the setback on at least one side.


----------



## Jmb

At the top and bottom of a run of stairs, the handrails should extension in the direction of stair travel.
This would occur on the lowest landing and the top landing termination for a stair run.
This would be the same condition for a ramp run, exception 12" horizontal extension at the top and bottom.
I.E. The landing at the top is not a continuation of a stair flight, so the handrail should not turn 90 degrees without the extension in the direction of stair travel

I recall speaking with the ICC a number of years ago, and was told that this is a very common mistake by design professionals


----------



## ADAguy

Great to see a fabricator being concerned about code/legal compliance and not just what the drawings show. The devil is in the details.


----------

