*
Andrew:
It seems to me there are three issues involved here and that two of those three may be erroneously informing one another.
First, there is a difference between a handrail and a guardrail and how they gets used.
With an enclosed side of a stair, that’s a handrail. With an open side of a stair, that’s a guardrail.
ALL guardrails have a “handgrip portion” (some guardrails could have a ‘handgrip portion,’ looking like a handrail, inside of it, but that’s not the case here). With a true handrail, the wrapping your arm up to the armpit is not as important because there is no danger in a paraplegic who has fallen and who is trying to use the stair as an accessible route from pulling themselves up and falling over the side (the wall enclosing the space prevents this). So, the 1-1/2″ distance off the wall is irrelevant as far as needing to use your arms to ‘pull yourself up.’
Having said that, your design (the drawing) doesn’t interfer w/ a paraplegic needing to use the guardrail for support, quite the contrary I’d say! It’s good to go on this account. The local person interpreting some “interference” may have it wrong, which leads to the second issue.
In this instance, the issue of the handrail having a “stringer” attached beneath it should only be a problem if you have not provided enough, or too much, handgrip portion in this design. (Now bear w/ me here because we in the midwest operate more on the UBC than CABO, and the CABO we do use in a surrounding area is still the ’92) It doesn’t say or infer that the guardrail’s handgrip portion cannot have decorative or structural elements MOUNTED BENEATH IT (you have a structural element).
Qouting the ’92 CABO, “the handrail portion of the handrails shall not be more than 2-5/8 inches in cross sectional dimension,” note that they call it the “handrail portion” meaning were the hand commonly rides along the rail. It’s not saying you cannot have anything mounted beneath it. Otherwise, you would be quite right that many ballustrades would be illegal.
As long as your within the cross sectional dimension and the ride of the hand is smooth your OK. It does go on to say that this grip portion should “have a smooth surface with no sharp corners.” I’d go to the ADA guidelines for interpretations of that — ADAG 4.26.4 “Eliminating Hazards” states that handrails, grab bars and the like “should be free of any sharp or abrasive elements. Edges shall have a minimum radius of 1/8.” Unless the newer CABO’s state something that contradicts this, it’s the folks at ADAG Access Board that are the real authority here! I mean, these are THE PEOPLE that know ACCESS (I think they are in your area of the country too). You should be o.k. on the ‘handgrip portion’ (too often refered to as handrail) of your guardrail unless you’ve exceeded the AREA that the hand commonly wraps.
Oh, and finally … it was lost on me that in your earlier illustration you put (” ” ) around — illegal –. I’m currently working on a home out of state in which the entire community/locality/town whatever the heck ya call it, has NO requirements. NO code, NO ordinances, NO review board. NO inspections. NO building codes dept. Isn’t that interesting.
Replies
*
Andrew, surely you must have tried this already:
"Yes, sir, (maam) I realize my railing is unsatisfactory.
Will $50 help make our little problem go away?"
Of course you know not to listen to me after all that
business with the deck/wife thing, right?
Dog
x
*
Well, from that drawing, I'd say this guy is off his rocker, or doesn't have much common sense. If that handrail alone is legal, you sure haven't done anything to compromise its effectiveness. I'm with ya on this one (dang! that's hard to say!) - jb
*Thank guys. You are helping me to flesh this out. I didn't discuss the 1 1/2" thing with the reviewer (an architect by training, incidentally) -- he was not, shall we say, open to discussion.jb ... thanks, sort of ... :-P prp, thanks for your explication, i agree entirely. The '95 CABO is a "streamlined" version of what you cite in the '92 and can be read to permit only floating cylinders. But if so I think they went too far:>315.2 Handrail grip size. Handrails shall have either a circular cross-section with a diameter of 1 1/4" to 2", or a non-cicular cross-section with a perimeter dimension of at least 4 inches but not more than 6 1/4" and a largest cross-section dimension not exceeding 2 1/4". Edges shall have a minimum radius of 1/8".Guardrails are discussed separately. Most handrails require intermediate support ... I don't see the difference between balusters every 4" and a stringer and a wall bracket every 4'. Technically the brackets would be the "best," but if you can't reach all the way around in any normal grip or because of the wall geometry who cares? Well, we'll see who happens.Mad Dog ... what part of the country are you in? You're not writing from the "big house" are you? (Who knows who we really are? "On the Internet no one knows you're a dog.")View Image
*Andrew - by hook grip I meant uplift - the ability to pull. Just getting your finger tips under what is essentially a fat 1/2 round (3/4" radius) is questionable. Try pulling yourself up on that little grip.And yes, pull or uplift is common need in arresting a stumbel in descent - and injuries from falls in descent greatly outnumber falls in ascent.I'd have to check this but I don't think balusters as you suggest are permitted under handrails in other than houses.Any rail profile that you can do chin-ups on or wouldn't mind using as a handle on a tool should be fine - and its a good way to demonstrate to the code official.Keep in mind the cost of injuries from falls now exceeds those from motor vehicle accidents and by most estimates about half those are on stairs. And of all injuries from falls, I believe I read 85% are in the home - though this could be someone playing a little loose and could mean residential occupancies.
*I'm sure most of the injuries on stairs are on the horrifying examples I see everywhere, far far worse than the code's goals. But I do worry -- our 3 y.o. literally rolled down the stairs a couple of times. You know those fatal falls you see in the movies where the gal in the hoop dress rolls all the way down a curved "Tara" staircase? Like that. Good thing kids bounce like rubber balls. We always chant "use the handrail!"Well, I did a little looking around on the Web and found some help from handrail manufacturers. Turns out that I win on the baluster point but probably lose on the stringer approach. With reference to the CABO/ANSI ADA accessibility standards, which i assume to be if anything stricter than residential requirements, J.G. Braun Company reprints some of most recently clarified regulations:>505.6 Gripping Surface. Gripping surfaces shall be continuous, without interruption by newel posts, other construction elements, or obstructions. > EXCEPTION: Handrail brackets or balusters attached to the bottom surface of the handrail shall not be considered obstructions provided they comply with the following:> * 1.Not more than 20 percent of the handrail length is obstructed; > * 2.Horizontal projections beyond the sides of the handrail occur 2-1/2 inches (64 mm) minimum below the bottom of the handrail, and > * 3.Edges have a 1/8 inch (3.2 mm) minimum radius. >505.7 Cross Section. Handrails shall have a circular cross section with an outside diameter of 1-1/4 inches (32 mm) minimum and 2 inches (51 mm) maximum, or shall provide equivalent graspability complying with 505.7.1. >505.7.1 Non-Circular Cross Sections. Handrail with other shapes shall be permitted provided they have a perimeter dimension of 4 inches (100 mm) minimum and 6-1/4 inches (160 mm) maximum, and a cross-section dimension of 2-1/4 inches (57 mm) maximum.I'd also run afoul of the perimeter requirements of 505.7.1. So I COULD, I suppose, run my stringer 2 1/2" below the handrail and attach the two with dowels every so often. It would be a rigid assembly I suppose. As for the lovely spiral stair, slots could be routed through the rail beneath the grippable area to provide a similar effect -- e.g., rout out 8", leave 2" intact, repeat. Wouldn't that be fun! But I bet the manufacturer could be persuaded to do it. Again, they had not heard of any problems and even considered routing a finger groove an "option."If the sharp-eyed are wondering, further interpretation of the regulation above has clarified that handrail brackets can have horizontal obstructions within the 1 1/2" to 2 1/2" range --- otherwise nearly all brackets on the market would be illegal. This information is all secondhand and should not be relied upon without first consulting your local building inspector, who has final authority on all code compliance issues (see, a legal disclaimer even).
*Andrew - I have no "side" on this and certianly no financial interest either way. (I believe that there are a lot of disabling injuries from falls and as a designer try to incorporate what I have learned about stair safety into my designs.) But, since you are quoting stair manufacturers, I should point out that they are unified and steadfastly against ANY changes. They are among the most outspoken against changes at the code hearings. Based on having witnessed this I, for one, would be at least a little skeptical of anything they would publish.I guess its a little like attic venting - "it the way (I've) always done it and I'll be danged if its wrong!"
*Hence the disclaimer. And yeah, my experience working in hospitals confirms that esp. for the old the beginning of the end is usually a fall ... resulting in a broken hip ... bedrest ... then pneumonia .... Not just really old people; this happens to those with another 20 years left. It is my subjective judgment that this railing is very safe. I understand the mfr bias but am surprised that the stair folks aren't more wary of liability in this litigious age.
*Look! The new FHB (126), p.106. Everyone's getting one.
*
Just received my FHB. Stairs on page 106 are beautiful, but unsafe: open risers, gripless handrail, too far betwixt balusters. Why, in such a huge home, did they not put in site-built stairs?
*
I remember reading a recent article which also gave rather consequences for older people who had broken their hip, but maybe it was only for those who had to enter a rest home because of a continuing problem. Couldn't find the article, but the Mayo Clinic website gives a much more positive outlook on this:
"Hip fractures occur in more than 250,000 Americans
each year. Over the next 50 years, as the population ages, the number of hip fractures in the United States is expected to double. Fortunately, surgery to repair a hip fracture is usually very effective, although recovery often requires time and patience.
"A hip fracture is a serious injury. Although the fracture itself is treatable, complications can be life-threatening. In fact, the death rate within 1 year of a hip fracture ranges from about 15 percent to 35 percent."
"The increased death rate is generally attributed to the fact that hip fractures often occur in people of advanced age who have other serious health problems. If complications occur, these other health problems can make recovery more difficult."
"However, most people — even those over age 80 — make a good recovery from a hip fracture. Generally, the better your health and mobility, the better your chances for a complete recovery."
Couldn't find comparable statistics for the U.S., but a medical site in Britain gave the following stats:
"The lifetime risk that a woman will suffer a hip fracture before age 85 years is 12%. For a man it is 5%. Of patients admitted with hip fracture, 87% are over the age of 65, and 82% of these are women. The most common underlying pathology is loss of bone density - osteoporosis."
Your word for today is "psysiatrist":
"A physiatrist, pronounced fizz ee at' trist, is a physician specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation." Probably what the guys on the "remember that sound" thread need...
*
I have a dispute with my inspector's office over what a proper handrail is under '95 CABO. I took a classic 2" oval handrail (Home Depot stuff) and attached a 1x stringer underneath for a stiff freespanning handrail. No guardrail was needed. The permit reviewer said "No." He wanted essentially nothing but a cylinder-like shape, interrupted only by wall brackets, that one could wrap an arm around and slide down. (This would actually be weaker and more unwieldy in my opinion, and how the heck do you wrap your arm around a rail that's only required to be 1 1/2" from the wall?) Even a rail supported by balusters doesn't meet this standards. Certainly wrought iron rails don't cut it.
Now, the field inspector will probably say it's fine, but I'm worried about a spiral stair this woman would like to order, worth $4k, that has a modified 2x-on-edge rail with finger grooves routed on each side -- essentially the identical grippability of my forbidden rail.
Of course I would get advance approval before ordering the stair ... but I'm afraid they'll ding it. I just called the stair factory and they hadn't heard of any problems with their rails.
What to do? Don't want to piss them off, but I think this is the death of common sense and appealing stair design -- with no safety benefit. Yes? No? Solutions (aside from the obvious "forgetting" to pull a permit & going in under cover of darkness and a new moon)? Related experience?
*andrew, man, I am unclear about your "1x stringer underneath..." . Is there some way for you to post a drawing of what you did? Does it stop someone's fingers from gripping the other railing? - jb
*Andrew:I gave away my old code text but this is from my '97 Edition CABO code book that we use here in NC:515.1.."Handrails adjacent to a wall shall have a space of not less than 1 1/2 inches between the wall and the handrail"..and515.2 "Handrail grip size. The handgrip portion of the handrails shall not be more than 2-5/8 inches in cross-sectional dimension, or the shape shall provide an equivalent gripping surface. The handgrip portion of handrails shall have a smooth surface with no sharp corners.Exception: Exterior handrails shall not be more than 3-1/2 inches in cross-sectional dimension."If you are going to be doing this stuff, you probably need to get a copy of your local code. The way I handle a situation like yours is: I flip open to the applicable page, show it to the building official, and say "help me understand what this says".
*Andrew, Recently had an exterior stair rail fail inspection in Arlington county. Typical wood porch rail ~3 1/2" wide from Smoot's. They made us add a small handrail on brackets looks awful. Of course, the recently completed monument to women in the service located at the entrance to Arlington Cemetery has an exterior stair coming down from an upper level that has no rails at all. 20 risers minimum, probably a budget thing.
*I've been following and reading about railing and stair safety research for the past 10 years or so in connection with my code work. I'm not sure your reviewer's interp is correct but his direction is pretty well proven. I will assume you agree that a handrail should be graspable in case one should stumble and need to stop a fall. No consider the shape of the handle on your hammer and consider what it would be like to use a hammer with a colonial railing handle. Not pretty. Now consider your very young with small hands or old with arthritus.
*Ah, I hoped you would show up Bill. As I recall, you're the stair king. I believe in the graspable part and in safety (safety is why this project was commenced) -- my point is that IF only 1 1/2" clearance to the wall is required why have this standard of being to wrap your arm around the rail? The reviewer demonstrated -- he meant with the rail in your armpit, elbow straight down, palm grasping the underside of the rail. You can't do that with 1 1/2", not even a wrist will pass through -- so maybe i should add an obstruction there, a simulated "wall," to make my point? I sense a contradiction.See attached illustration of the rail. My medium-large hands fit well on the rail and do not come near the stringer in any normal grasp. The stringer is really no wider than a baluster.I can trim down the stringer at the cost of strength and appearance to get the 2 1/4" diameter they want. I just think this is pointless and makes the rail inferior.Fred, so you're the one who failed! I've driven all over Arlington looking at handrails and everyone uses that 3 1/2" stuff, or other rails that do clearly violate CABO. A brand new one with 3 1/2" handrail just went in up the street. Inspected? Maybe i'll ask.Virginia is currently up to '95 CABO. Is '97 worse?Here's a picture of the stair I'd like to install (sorry about the moiré pattern):View Imageand a shot another "illegal" handrail from a recent FHB (perhaps there was a rod on the other side of the stair).View Image
*Re your question: Is CABO 97 worse....I don't have a problems with the CABO code - just some code enforcement officials interpretations. I use the code as a minimum standard.In the area of handrails, the only change between the old book and the current is that rails are now allowed to be between 30" - 38" whereas it used to be 30" - 34". This was changed in the 98 update - I think.It sounds like your area is a bit overregulated.
*Andrew - I've never heard of the armpit thing and agree 1.5" wouldn't permit that.I have seen videos and pix and have listened to researchers debating the issue of graspability and believe that anything much bigger than a 2" round or oval is much harder to grasp. The grooved sides of a 2 by on edge are particularily useless it seems.As far as local interpreters of the code - well, thats a whope other story. Though I haver stated before the only reason I got involved in the writing of codes was because of inconsistent interps.
*Gentlemen. Remember that the code official doesn't have the final say. His rulings, interpretation are appealable. He has the right to make rulings, to interpret the code. But you have the right to challenge those rulings and interpretations. GeneL.
*Naturally, this immediately arouses the lawyer in me. I just wonder how impartial a proceeding it is -- who do you appeal to, the inspector's supervisor? And I don't want to be a pain in the a** ... without good reason.The problem is that the code is becoming overly presciptive, and because it can't anticipate every conceivable design (many not yet having been conceived) one arrives at internally inconsistent results. Hence my suggestion that parts of the rail you can't even reach with 1 1/2" clearance should be irrelevant.... Most critically, as I've suggested, the Code needs a central interpretive body to address conflicts as they arise -- with people like bill involved who are familiar with the WHY and research behind the rules. Heck, we could even send them samples of the rail to try out.The inspectors here are pretty decent guys and I bet whoever I get will say fine, go forth and sin no more. But with the spiral stair I need a guarantee in advance.Bill, I would groove the 2x deeply and wide enough so that your fingers wouldn't reach the lower portion. I think the problem with a 2x4 is that you can only grip 180° of it, and awkwardly at that. The hand needs more like 300° to encircle the grip.
*Andrew - now I'll have to paw through my files and find some of the illustrations and such, but I believe that you need a "hook" grip - one which allows pulling up on the railing. Any railing with a spine or that's deeper than 2 or 2.5" doesn't allow this - as I recall. I need to verify this and am traveling all week so it will be a while - plus I'm as busy as the one armed paper hanger with crabbes!Regarding more prescriptive - the CABO OTFDC was alwasy meant to be that a little bit - simple methods for home builders rather than performance standards that always required a design professional. In fact, the building codes (or should I say code since the three biggies all work on one - the IBC) and all the NFPA standrads are trying to move towards performance based requirements. Problem is, when you try to root out the basis for the current codes, you get some strange contradictions. I think we msut change to performance based - but it won'y be easy.
*Oops, forgot to attach the drawing of my rail previously. Here it is. As for hooks, you could rest your palm on top and still not touch the "spine." I'm just reluctant to hack it up.Thanks for your response Bill. The result here is most people will probably skip inspection. (Maybe I'm the idiot for getting a permit -- it's a "historic district" so the application for an external modification got the ball rolling). I am positive that most small projects here are permitless. Kind of foolish system, no? And the spiral stair pictured above, well I don't know what to say.
*Dang! Forgot again -- here:
*Andrew,This will pass on one of the local island communities and in the city of charleston. But Mount pleasant and one of the other islands it would not. None will allow the 3 1/2 exemption. The Rail must be grippable all the way around. Myself and several others have fought this to no avail. It is their interpretation of the code.-Rick Tuk
*Andrew:It seems to me there are three issues involved here and that two of those three may be erroneously informing one another.First, there is a difference between a handrail and a guardrail and how they gets used.With an enclosed side of a stair, that's a handrail. With an open side of a stair, that's a guardrail.ALL guardrails have a "handgrip portion" (some guardrails could have a 'handgrip portion,' looking like a handrail, inside of it, but that's not the case here). With a true handrail, the wrapping your arm up to the armpit is not as important because there is no danger in a paraplegic who has fallen and who is trying to use the stair as an accessible route from pulling themselves up and falling over the side (the wall enclosing the space prevents this). So, the 1-1/2" distance off the wall is irrelevant as far as needing to use your arms to 'pull yourself up.'Having said that, your design (the drawing) doesn't interfer w/ a paraplegic needing to use the guardrail for support, quite the contrary I'd say! It's good to go on this account. The local person interpreting some "interference" may have it wrong, which leads to the second issue.In this instance, the issue of the handrail having a "stringer" attached beneath it should only be a problem if you have not provided enough, or too much, handgrip portion in this design. (Now bear w/ me here because we in the midwest operate more on the UBC than CABO, and the CABO we do use in a surrounding area is still the '92) It doesn't say or infer that the guardrail's handgrip portion cannot have decorative or structural elements MOUNTED BENEATH IT (you have a structural element).Qouting the '92 CABO, "the handrail portion of the handrails shall not be more than 2-5/8 inches in cross sectional dimension," note that they call it the "handrail portion" meaning were the hand commonly rides along the rail. It's not saying you cannot have anything mounted beneath it. Otherwise, you would be quite right that many ballustrades would be illegal.As long as your within the cross sectional dimension and the ride of the hand is smooth your OK. It does go on to say that this grip portion should "have a smooth surface with no sharp corners." I'd go to the ADA guidelines for interpretations of that -- ADAG 4.26.4 "Eliminating Hazards" states that handrails, grab bars and the like "should be free of any sharp or abrasive elements. Edges shall have a minimum radius of 1/8." Unless the newer CABO's state something that contradicts this, it's the folks at ADAG Access Board that are the real authority here! I mean, these are THE PEOPLE that know ACCESS (I think they are in your area of the country too). You should be o.k. on the 'handgrip portion' (too often refered to as handrail) of your guardrail unless you've exceeded the AREA that the hand commonly wraps.Oh, and finally ... it was lost on me that in your earlier illustration you put (" " ) around -- illegal --. I'm currently working on a home out of state in which the entire community/locality/town whatever the heck ya call it, has NO requirements. NO code, NO ordinances, NO review board. NO inspections. NO building codes dept. Isn't that interesting.