Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    Jeff Remas's Avatar
    Jeff Remas Guest

    Default Residential Handrail Termination

    If the handrail for interior steps terminates at the lowest step(tread) with a turnout, is the turnout required to be within the 34"-38" height requirement?

    Similar Threads:
    Inspection Referral SOC

  2. #2
    RANDY NICHOLAS's Avatar
    RANDY NICHOLAS Guest

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    IS THIS ANOTHER TRICK QUESTION TO MASSAGE YOUR EGO??


  3. #3
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Remas View Post
    If the handrail for interior steps terminates at the lowest step(tread) with a turnout, is the turnout required to be within the 34"-38" height requirement?
    R311.5.6.2 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. Handrail ends shall be returned or
    shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals. Handrails
    adjacent to a wall shall have a space of not less than 1
    1/2 inch
    (38 mm) between the wall and the handrails.

    Exceptions:
    1. Handrails shall be permitted to be interrupted by a
    newel post at the turn.
    2. The use of a volute, turnout, starting easing or starting
    newel shall be allowed over the lowest tread.
    The two exceptions to this section create situations where
    the graspable portion of the handrail may not end up
    being completely continuous from the top riser to the
    bottom riser. These traditional situations have routinely
    been accepted in the past and therefore are
    permitted by the code.



  4. #4
    Jeff Remas's Avatar
    Jeff Remas Guest

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    Thanks AD, I agree. The volute or turnout is actually considered a decoration and can be above or below the 34-38" requirement.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,797

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    How does that wording create an exception to the height requirements? I understand that perhaps it should have been worded to explicitly provide an exception, but it was not.

    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Last edited by Michael Thomas; 02-08-2009 at 04:33 PM.
    Michael Thomas
    Paragon Property Services Inc., Chicago IL
    http://paragoninspects.com

  6. #6
    Jeff Remas's Avatar
    Jeff Remas Guest

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    It is an actual ICC interpretation

    Q: Where a handrail is terminated with the use of a volute over the lowest tread as permitted in Section R311.5.6.2 of the 2003 International Residential Code, is the height of the volute above the lowest tread required to be within 34 inches and 38 inches in accordance the provisions of Section R311.5.6.1?

    A: No. The volute is a decorative ornamentation and is considered to be separate from the actual handrail and is therefore allowed to exceed the 38-inch height restriction. __________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RELEVENT TO PROPOSED COMMITTEE INTERPRETATION 23-08 Section R311.5.6.1 in the 2007 Supplement to the 2006 International Residential Code contains two exceptions that will be included in the 2009 International Residential Code. Although Exceptions 1 and 2, see below, are not part of the requirements provided in the edition in question, they are relevant and do provide some clarity to the application of the published requirements.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Remas View Post
    Thanks AD, I agree. The volute or turnout is actually considered a decoration and can be above or below the 34-38" requirement.
    Aaron's wording from the commentary does not address the height of a starting easing, turnout, or a volute.

    "The two exceptions to this section create situations where the graspable portion of the handrail may not end up being completely continuous from the top riser to the bottom riser"

    What that commentary wording is referring to are these two exceptions, red text is mine for highlighting.

    - Exceptions:
    - - 1. Handrails shall be permitted to be interrupted by a newel post at the turn.
    - - 2. The use of a volute, turnout, starting easing or starting newel shall be allowed over the lowest tread.

    *ONLY* the "newel post" will cause, is allowed to cause, the referenced "The two exceptions to this section create situations where the graspable portion of the handrail may not end up being completely continuous from the top riser to the bottom riser".

    This is because a newel post actually interrupt the handrail.

    A starting easing, turnout or volute does not create the condition referenced in the commentary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Thomas View Post
    How does that wording create an exception to the height requirements? I understand that perhaps it should have been worded to explicitly provide an exception, but it was not.

    Michael,

    The wording does not provide an exception for the starting easing, turnout, or volute.

    The starting easing, turnout, and volute are the beginning of the handrail and must remain graspable (the handrail must be continuously graspable throughout its entire length), thus the cross sectional designs of the starting easing, turnout, and volute match the cross section design of the handrail.

    When the starting easing, turnout, or volute is installed onto the handrail, the design of those items causes those items to turn horizontal from the angled line of the handrail height, meaning that it is physically not possible to keep those items at the same height as the handrail. Additionally, the longer the starting easing, turnout, or volute is, the greater the difference in height there will be to the plane of the nosings. See my attached drawing attempt at drawing what I was explaining.

    Contrary to what Jeff said, those are not considered "decorative items", they are "structural items" which support that end of the handrail and therefore must also support and resist the load applied to the handrail.

    The "decorative" aspect is only "what style" do you choose. Kind of like roof shingles are not "decorative", the color of the roof shingles and the style of the roof shingles, though, are "decorative".

    Added with edit: I was typing while Jeff posted his with the additional "decorative" comment in it, however, I stand by the fact that it is NOT "decorative" as IT IS THE SUPPORT for that end of the handrail, and "the style" is decorative - as I stated above.

    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  8. #8
    Jeff Remas's Avatar
    Jeff Remas Guest

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    This is not from the commentary, it is from an actual committe interpretation but of course Jerry is always right and the ICC is wrong.

    Jerry, if you want I can invest some money to start your own code organization.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Remas View Post
    This is not from the commentary, it is from an actual committe interpretation but of course Jerry is always right and the ICC is wrong.
    Jeff,

    Where did I say that was from the Commentary?

    I understood that was from the ICC as an interpretation, regardless, something cannot be "decorative" when it is a "structurally required support". I don't care where that comes from. Weren't you the one who just posted something very recently that one has to use "common sense"? Yeah, thought so.

    "THE STYLE" is decorative. "THE COLOR" is decorative. But the piece itself, serving as the required support, is not "decorative". Go back and read my post again, see if you "get it" reading it again.

    Even the CHOICE of which to use is a "decorative" choice.

    Heck, I even gave an example which I figured even you could understand.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  10. #10
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Jeff,

    Where did I say that was from the Commentary?

    I understood that was from the ICC as an interpretation, regardless, something cannot be "decorative" when it is a "structurally required support". I don't care where that comes from. Weren't you the one who just posted something very recently that one has to use "common sense"? Yeah, thought so.

    "THE STYLE" is decorative. "THE COLOR" is decorative. But the piece itself, serving as the required support, is not "decorative". Go back and read my post again, see if you "get it" reading it again.

    Even the CHOICE of which to use is a "decorative" choice.

    Heck, I even gave an example which I figured even you could understand.
    JP: I've got an early inspection in a far away place, so I don't have time to get into this right now. Round about 2PM you need to have your ducks regarding this in a bit better order . . .


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Rockwall Texas
    Posts
    4,519

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    2PM. sounds like another great debate is scheduled.
    Looks like Jerry is prepared.

    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    And always thought those things were scheduled for "High Noon".

    By the way, Rick, I thought those were some nice decorative ducks there.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,797

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    Jeff, thanks for posting that.

    IMO that committee interpretation just muddles things further in some respects, it defines a volute as "a decorative ornamentation" "separate from the actual handrail", but clearly some volutes are also structural elements of the handrail, as for example in the illustration from the SMA posted below.

    Given that commentary, IMO it would be hard to defend the position that a volute's height is non-compliant (which was the question asked).

    But at the same time it's clearly sometimes more than just "decorative", in these cases the volute is a structural element of the handrail (or at least of the handrail's support) and if deficient in that regard IMO ought to be reported as defective.

    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Michael Thomas
    Paragon Property Services Inc., Chicago IL
    http://paragoninspects.com

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Thomas View Post
    Given that commentary, IMO it would be hard to defend the position that a volute's height is non-compliant

    Michael,

    The reason the volute, starting easing, or turnout does not have to comply with the handrail height requirements is because the handrail height requirements are based on two planes parallel to each other: 1) the plane of the nosings; 2) the plane (height) of the top of the handrail.

    The volute, starting easing, and turnout each deviate from those parallel planes and become horizontal with the tread. Thus, no real height measurement can be taken from a horizontal plane as compared to a reference plane which is not-horizontal - that height dimension between the two would vary depending on where along the horizontal plane versus not-horizontal plane the measurement was made.

    I understand, as I believe you do, what the ICC interpretation was "meaning", but am disagreeing with, as I believe you are, the use of the term "decorative" when referring to a "structural" component.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  15. #15
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    And always thought those things were scheduled for "High Noon".

    By the way, Rick, I thought those were some nice decorative ducks there.
    JP: Sorry, had a 16-hour day yesterday and no time to look up.

    My first post on this thread said nothing. I only posted the closest applicable code to the question asked. So, my opinion on the question was not stated and cannot be at fault.

    Additionally, the Jeff's question was a bit vague and I was waiting on more details that were not forthcoming. It seemed at first you were saying that the "decorative" portions of the railing were required to be height compliant. I would have disagreed. Now it appears you are saying that they are both not decorative and not required to be compliant. Is this correct?


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    Quote Originally Posted by A.D. Miller View Post
    you are saying that they are both not decorative and not required to be compliant. Is this correct?
    Quite correct.

    Not only not required to be compliant, but also not physically possible to make them compliant ... not when dealing with different and non-parallel planes.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  17. #17
    A.D. Miller's Avatar
    A.D. Miller Guest

    Default Re: Residential Handrail Termination

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Quite correct.

    Not only not required to be compliant, but also not physically possible to make them compliant ... not when dealing with different and non-parallel planes.
    JP: OK then, if you are sure that is what you really mean, then I guess the bad news is that we are in agreement on something - for a change. The good news is that it does not happen too often.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •