Thread: 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:

• High Efficiency Flue Termination
• Handrail
• Plumbing vent termination
• Handrail
• Another handrail question

IS THIS ANOTHER TRICK QUESTION TO MASSAGE YOUR EGO??

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

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 11/2 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.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

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.

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

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.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

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 . . .

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

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

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.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

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?

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

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.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

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.