# Handrail Projection



## D.Louis (Aug 2, 2019)

Per NYC Building Code 1012.8, handrails can project into the required width of stairways or ramp up to 4 1/2". Does this projection include the vertical post that supports the handrails? The posts will be mounted to the ground and located 60" O.C. This is an exterior application. 

Thoughts?


----------



## D.Louis (Aug 2, 2019)

Drawing for clarity:


----------



## cda (Aug 2, 2019)

Welcome 

And welcome to your first post


I do not see the picture.

It may be because you are not a Sawhorse or may be trouble on my side 

If not a Sawhorse, forum supporter, than one way is to make the picture a link and post the link.


I am not into projections, but I would say yes support can not violate the projection rule 

Plus did you look st the cane rule??


----------



## D.Louis (Aug 2, 2019)

I am not a Sawhorse, and the link I posted was an Imgur link. No sure why it didn't come through. 
I'm familiar with cane rule. The post would technically be below 27", so I assume that would be ok, like any other free standing handrail.


----------



## D.Louis (Aug 2, 2019)

https://imgur.com/TYyLhzA


----------



## Glenn (Aug 2, 2019)

I'm not referencing the specific NY code, but even if it is amended from the model I-codes, this particular subject may not be.  Here is the I-code answer:

The projection distance applies from the top of the handrail, down to the floor/treads.  This means the handrail could be mounted to a wall and simply project out horizontally.  This also means the handrail could be attached on top of a guard assembly, and the entire assembly below the guard can cut in to part of the required width.  The minimum width must be maintained in the region above the handrail(s)

Consider the average human body.  We are wider at our shoulders than our hips.  We carry stuff in our arms.  The stairs can be narrower between the handrails and to the ground than it can be above the handrails.


----------



## e hilton (Aug 2, 2019)

Glenn said:


> Consider the average human body.  We are wider at our shoulders than our hips. .



Obviously you have never met my ex sister in law ....


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 6, 2019)

Glenn said:


> I'm not referencing the specific NY code, but even if it is amended from the model I-codes, this particular subject may not be.  Here is the I-code answer:
> 
> The projection distance applies from the top of the handrail, down to the floor/treads.  This means the handrail could be mounted to a wall and simply project out horizontally.  This also means the handrail could be attached on top of a guard assembly, and the entire assembly below the guard can cut in to part of the required width.  The minimum width must be maintained in the region above the handrail(s)
> 
> Consider the average human body.  We are wider at our shoulders than our hips.  We carry stuff in our arms.  The stairs can be narrower between the handrails and to the ground than it can be above the handrails.



Not all are, some are shaped like bowling pins (smiling)


----------



## Glenn (Aug 6, 2019)

Glenn said:


> Consider the *average* human body.  We are wider at our shoulders than our hips.


----------



## e hilton (Aug 6, 2019)

unfortunately ... the average american body is not suitable for leggings or speedos.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 7, 2019)

Mirror, mirror on the wall; tells all (smiling)


----------



## e hilton (Aug 7, 2019)

Yep.  I have seen myself in the mirror.  Storefront reflections.  I accept that i am not speedo-qualified.  More people should pay attention.


----------



## tbz (Sep 22, 2019)

Glenn said:


> I'm not referencing the specific NY code, but even if it is amended from the model I-codes, this particular subject may not be.  Here is the I-code answer:
> 
> The projection distance applies from the top of the handrail, down to the floor/treads.  This means the handrail could be mounted to a wall and simply project out horizontally.  This also means the handrail could be attached on top of a guard assembly, and the entire assembly below the guard can cut in to part of the required width.  The minimum width must be maintained in the region above the handrail(s)
> 
> Consider the average human body.  We are wider at our shoulders than our hips.  We carry stuff in our arms.  The stairs can be narrower between the handrails and to the ground than it can be above the handrails.


Glenn makes a good point, as there are a lot of inspectors that don't understand this and try to measure the width of stair flights at the tread level, if the handrails project over the treads then below is considered dark space.

However, the one topic everyone forgets to talk about is that the handrails are only aloud to have 20% coverage, thus when working with a type one handrail mounting directly on top of glass panels is not allowed.  When in R2 or R3, and using a type 2 handrails the questions becomes is the 20% rule required also?


----------



## georgia plans exam (Sep 23, 2019)

tbz, I'm sorry but, where is this 20% rule? I must be missing something. We use the 2012 IBC.

GPE


----------



## georgia plans exam (Sep 23, 2019)

Found it. Section 505.6 2010 ADASAD.


----------



## formdb (Sep 25, 2019)

Glenn said:


> I'm not referencing the specific NY code, but even if it is amended from the model I-codes, this particular subject may not be.  Here is the I-code answer:
> 
> The projection distance applies from the top of the handrail, down to the floor/treads.  This means the handrail could be mounted to a wall and simply project out horizontally.  This also means the handrail could be attached on top of a guard assembly, and the entire assembly below the guard can cut in to part of the required width.  The minimum width must be maintained in the region above the handrail(s)
> 
> Consider the average human body.  We are wider at our shoulders than our hips.  We carry stuff in our arms.  The stairs can be narrower between the handrails and to the ground than it can be above the handrails.



I'm looking at a similar situation, is there a section in the California Building Code (or the IBC) that supports this, or is it a standard interpretation?


----------



## tbz (Sep 26, 2019)

formdb said:


> I'm looking at a similar situation, is there a section in the California Building Code (or the IBC) that supports this, or is it a standard interpretation?



Page 389 Cali 2017 Building code *Chapter 10 Section 1014.8 Projections*, 2nd sentence; *“Projections into the required width of aisles, stairways and ramps at each side shall not exceed 4½” (114 mm) at or below the handrail height.”* see link below,  The only double negative here is about ramps.  Ramps allow the projects at or below the handrails to be up to 4 1/2" but you are required to have a minimum of 36" between the handrails.  The interesting part here is that the way this section is written it allows the stringers to actually project inward up to 4 1/2" on each side even if the handrails only project 3.75" on each side, thus it allows more than the handrails coverage.

The gentlemens and ladies  standard accepted practice is to restrict the projects to the area directly below the handrails and outward, hence put a 4ft level on it and if it is covered, its good.  The issue with stair width is many times the stair flights are inspected prior to guards and or handrails being installed, thus I always suggest to contractors, and fabricators, and Designers and architects.  If they are going to use this allowable feature to make sure they draw a cut view of all the projects in the drawing set showing the exact distances expected and the allowable deduction for the projections, that way the building department has the information communicated from day one and then plaster a copy of the drawing on the wall when the stairs are installed so when the inspector come through they have the information right in front of them.  Always put the exact code sections on the drawings.  Saves lots of time.  Hope this helped   


https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/chapter/10000/


----------



## tbz (Sep 26, 2019)

georgia plans exam said:


> Found it. Section 505.6 2010 ADASAD.


It's in the 2010 ADA/ABA standard and the last few additions of the ANSI A117.1.  The IBC notes under continuity that brackets and balusters in exception 3, there is a flaw in this section and I am working with industry to correct it, in that there should be a better explanation that a support post is a baluster and that the second part of this paragraph which allows the reduction in clearance height to be reduced does not take in to account TYPE II handrails and the wording when written was originally adopted in to the ANSI A117.1 standard and IBC at the same time in the late 90's early 2000's, thus Type II handrails where still working their way into the code.  

However, the general rule of thumb widely accepted is that the majority of type II handrails can't be gripped in the full wrapping of the fingers and fall short of ever reaching the underside of the handrail for 99% of users, thus the grasp is done on the two vertical sides and across the top, thus in reality the bottom being blocked becomes a non-issue compared to the original issue with type I handrails.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 26, 2019)

A picture is worth a thousand words, please provide one?


----------



## tbz (Sep 26, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> A picture is worth a thousand words, please provide one?



of which situation?  the projection or the 20% on type II


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 27, 2019)

both please.


----------

