Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Hand rail (?)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Rockwall Texas
    Posts
    4,519

    Default Hand rail (?)

    Is this handrail considered an approved "graspable" type. I know it doesn't return back to the wall as needed but am questioning the handle only.

    Thanks,
    Rick

    Similar Threads:
    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Inspection Referral

  2. #2
    Nolan Kienitz's Avatar
    Nolan Kienitz Guest

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    Rick,

    Here is a good visual of stair requirements ...

    Attached Files Attached Files

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Rockwall Texas
    Posts
    4,519

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    Thanks Nolan for that PDF !!!


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    One of the things I've always found missing in that guide and which is only shown in an unintentional way and totally missed in a specific drawing or reference is the handrail supports and what is needed to allow for the continuously graspability part all the way up and down the stair.

    Refer to photos 1 and 3 at the very beginning, notice the handrail support brackets, the handrails and support brackets shown in white-out allow for the required continuously graspable handrail. I have not yet found that addressed anywhere in that guide (maybe I keep missing it?).

    Rick, in your photo you will see handrail support brackets which *do not* allow for the handrail to be continuously graspable.

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

  5. #5
    Binford Tools's Avatar
    Binford Tools Guest

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    505.6 Gripping Surface. Handrail gripping surfaces shall be continuous along their length and shall not be obstructed along their tops or sides. The bottoms of handrail gripping surfaces shall not be obstructed for more than 20 percent of their length. Where provided, horizontal projections shall occur 1 1/2 inches (38 mm) minimum below the bottom of the handrail gripping surface.

    I figured you know this but your right the doc does not call it out.
    I like that pdf as it's pictures with the numbers for fast reference.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hurst View Post
    Is this handrail considered an approved "graspable" type. I know it doesn't return back to the wall as needed but am questioning the handle only.

    Thanks,
    Rick
    The answer is no.

    The repurposed older ornament guard is also short for the flight (bottom risers and landing).

    Continuity, continuous graspable surface, doesn't meet any exceptions.

    Glass at intermediate landing above should be guarded and/or safety type glazing.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 08-26-2011 at 05:32 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    The repurposed older ornament guard is also short for the flight (bottom risers and landing).
    I saw that at the top (looks to be that way at the top), but I can't see enough of the bottom to be able to tell???

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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    I saw that at the top (looks to be that way at the top), but I can't see enough of the bottom to be able to tell???
    It helps if you actually open the picture instead of just looking at the thumbnail, and scroll down to actually see the bottom (esp. left corner) of the picture, then actually look at it.



    Lookie here ^^ Jerry.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    It helps if you actually open the picture instead of just looking at the thumbnail, and scroll down to actually see the bottom (esp. left corner) of the picture, then actually look at it.
    Yep, I did that, and always do that.

    I see where the top is short, but, given the angle the photo was taken, cannot see for sure that the bottom is also short.

    I was surprised that you mentioned the bottom (which is questionable) but did not mention the top (which is rather obvious) - that was why I was asking, to find out what you saw that I did not (but we are seeing the same things - at least at the bottom).

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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Yep, I did that, and always do that.

    I see where the top is short, but, given the angle the photo was taken, cannot see for sure that the bottom is also short.

    I was surprised that you mentioned the bottom (which is questionable) but did not mention the top (which is rather obvious) - that was why I was asking, to find out what you saw that I did not (but we are seeing the same things - at least at the bottom).

    First off, I did, and you agreed in reference to the "top" as you call it, the "landing" as I referred to it (and earlier, suggested it appeared to be an intermediate landing).

    Next, yes I believe enough is visable and it can be determined. First off the lower riser's capped front and applied mouldng against it upon the tread (which shouldn't be there) is in the foreground of the "twisted not-quite circular straight line" of the handrail. (Which is too narrow and not a true "circle" at any cross section of its "twisted" length by the way).

    The capped risers aside the lowest riser, i.e. the starting or first riser is not shown. please look at the stringer on the left, it suggests that is not floor but tread/step surface at the lower left - otherwise that capped stairway and flight of stairs has even more problems due to the improper termination of the slotted stringer plowed into floor!


  11. #11
    Tony Leto's Avatar
    Tony Leto Guest

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    From what I can tell, graspability is not the issue. If not under the 1-1/4" to 2" diameter allowance, it looks like it would meet the equivalent graspability definition of a maximum cross-section of 2-1/4" with a perimeter dimension of between 4-1/4 and 6-1/4". Clearance is a concern though. Code requires a minimum of 1-1/2" between the underside of the handrail and the horizontal bracket arm. This dimension can be reduced based on the size of the handrail such that for a 2" diameter, the clearance requirement would drop down to 1".


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    First off, I did, and you agreed in reference to the "top" as you call it, the "landing" as I referred to it (and earlier, suggested it appeared to be an intermediate landing).
    You mean this:
    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    The repurposed older ornament guard is also short for the flight (bottom risers and landing).
    I took that as meaning what it said: the bottom riser and landing, not the top or intermediate landing.

    Next, yes I believe enough is visable and it can be determined. First off the lower riser's capped front and applied mouldng against it upon the tread (which shouldn't be there) is in the foreground of the "twisted not-quite circular straight line" of the handrail. (Which is too narrow and not a true "circle" at any cross section of its "twisted" length by the way).

    The capped risers aside the lowest riser, i.e. the starting or first riser is not shown. please look at the stringer on the left, it suggests that is not floor but tread/step surface at the lower left - otherwise that capped stairway and flight of stairs has even more problems due to the improper termination of the slotted stringer plowed into floor!
    That's not what I see, so I guess Rick will need to be the one to address if that handrail went down to the first riser or if it stopped short of the first riser (the handrail does not need to go to the landing - just first riser).

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

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    You mean this:


    I took that as meaning what it said: the bottom riser and landing, not the top or intermediate landing.



    That's not what I see, so I guess Rick will need to be the one to address if that handrail went down to the first riser or if it stopped short of the first riser (the handrail does not need to go to the landing - just first riser).
    I don't care how you now wish to distort it NOW to hide your ignorance.

    You've also refered to the brackets as "handrail brackets". They are not - they are obviously curtain rod/decorative ornament brackets and further not designed to "seat" or support anything on other than a straight horizontal orientation and encroach upon the stairway width far beyond the "rod"; therefore, in NO STRETCH of the IMAGINATION could they EVER be ANYTHING CLOSE to a HANDRAIL BRACKET for a stair or a landing - and would never withstand resist the (code) MINIMAL forces necessary to meet code for either handrail or guard no matter what fastener or substance fastened to was utilized.

    The demark in the Code for the handrail at the beginning or start of the flight is at the FIRST RISER face not the floor - nothing to do with a landing.

    The only LANDING in that photo is above, and was clearly identified in my post as having a large glazed area so close to the floor as to REQUIRE a guard and/or SAFETY GLAZING.

    Selective memory loss and games you play just to hide your ignorance and your having overlooked the obvious regarding just where the start of the flight (and therefore the first riser) is NOT.

    You also ignore the obvious "capped" risers encroaching on the stair itself, the nosing, and the moulding (shoe or quarter-round) applied to those faces and upon the treads - as well as obviously visable trip hazard at THE landing on the right - only one in the picture.

    There is only ONE "landing" in the picture any other is in your mind.

    However - the most obvious is that this "handrail" is NOT continuous or uniform in its shape - or graspable surface. The entirety is not a circular cross section - and the "twisted" cylindrical bar stops SHORT (untwisted) at both "ends" as they were then formed to volutes (smooth - untwisted). A handrail must be uniform, have continuity in its graspable surface profile throughout - there are exceptions - such as when interupted by a newel, etc. but this does not meet any of them AND IT IS THAT CHANGE IN PROFILE which stops FAR SHORT of EITHER the PICTURED RISER (let alone the actual FIRST RISER) AND THE SOLITARY LANDING IN THE PHOTO.

    No, curtain rod & brackets, decorative ornaments are not appropriately nor safely as a graspable stairway handrail in this photo, this stairway has a multitude of safety issues.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 08-29-2011 at 08:22 AM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    I don't care how you now wish to distort it NOW to hide your ignorance.
    Not distorting it to hide my ignorance, trying to clarify what you meant to hide your ignorance on calling the top the bottom. This is what one gets for trying to help Watson out of the hole he put himself in.

    You've also refered to the brackets as "handrail brackets". They are not - they are obviously curtain rod/decorative ornament brackets and further not designed to "seat" or support anything on other than a straight horizontal orientation and encroach upon the stairway width far beyond the "rod"; therefore, in NO STRETCH of the IMAGINATION could they EVER be ANYTHING CLOSE to a HANDRAIL BRACKET for a stair or a landing - and would never withstand resist the (code) MINIMAL forces necessary to meet code for either handrail or guard no matter what fastener or substance fastened to was utilized.
    You sure are making A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS as facts WITHOUT KNOWING THE FACTS. Gosh, Watson not only thinks he knows it all, but if you point out that something just might not be what he says it is, he goes all haywire and gets indignant over the fact that he may actually by wrong.

    The demark in the Code for the handrail at the beginning or start of the flight is at the FIRST RISER face not the floor - nothing to do with a landing.
    Ummm ... Watson, that is what I said: the first riser, and the first riser IS AT THE LANDING (the floor is the landing.

    You take a VERTICAL LINE UP FROM THE FIRST RISER ... which happens to be at the landing ... oh, wait, you must be thinking that the FIRST RISER is located in the middle of the flight of stairs .... ???? Crimeny!

    The only LANDING in that photo is above, and was clearly identified in my post as having a large glazed area so close to the floor as to REQUIRE a guard and/or SAFETY GLAZING.
    NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEPLACE - and that is good.

    You are not admitting that there is no lower landing shown, which also indicates that the riser in the photo MIGHT NOT BE the "first riser", and that it could very well be THE SECOND RISER, and the handrail starting and ending point is with the FIRST RISER, not the second riser.

    You are again trying to get out of a mis-step by trying to call others ignorant, when the others simply pointed out that you made a mis-step. Sigh.

    Guess you had trouble READING what I posted:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck
    so I guess Rick will need to be the one to address if that handrail went down to the first riser or if it stopped short of the first riser (the handrail does not need to go to the landing - just first riser).


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

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    There is nothing to "admit", there is NO "lower landing" or floor shown, the lower left corner of the photograph shows a step, not "floor" or intermediate landing, as per the stringer photographed.

    The bracket is obvious, its cupped "support" which encroaches the travel path of the stairway is further not angled in that orientation - it is not a handrail bracket for a flight of stairs, and never was.

    The pictured is not a "handrail" it is improperly re-purposed decorative ornament.


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    there is NO "lower landing" or floor shown,
    BINGO!

    the lower left corner of the photograph shows a step, not "floor" or intermediate landing, as per the stringer photographed.
    DOUBLE BINGO!

    So there is no way of knowing WHERE the floor or landing is and thus there is no way of knowing if that is the first riser shown or if it is the second or third riser shown.

    The bracket is obvious, its cupped "support" which encroaches the travel path of the stairway is further not angled in that orientation - it is not a handrail bracket for a flight of stairs, and never was.

    The pictured is not a "handrail" it is improperly re-purposed decorative ornament.
    IN YOUR OPINION ... I guess you've never seen what decorators can have made for handrails and for guard rail in-fill panels?

    (Sigh ... this is like trying to tell the school bully that ... wait, HE IS the bully here ... what was I thinking? )

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

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    BINGO!



    DOUBLE BINGO!

    So there is no way of knowing WHERE the floor or landing is and thus there is no way of knowing if that is the first riser shown or if it is the second or third riser shown.
    Hence, IT FALLS/BEGINS SHORT of the FIRST RISER (duh!). And in doing so fails to meet ANY exception which might otherwise allow same. (double duh!!)

    Big words and their meanings escape you. (Seem to "fly over your head" "Continuity" and "Continuous". Both used in the code, and in my posts above. At NO point of a twisted, spiral, profile stock is a CROSS-SECTION a PERFECT CIRCLE form, - diameter, graspability, oh and continuity of form and function -- continuous throughout of same within flight required (triple duh!!!).

    IN YOUR OPINION ... I guess you've never seen what decorators can have made for handrails and for guard rail in-fill panels?
    Sure have, although this isn't a "decorator" job its unskilled, unqualified, DIY/flipper-type, and a "decorator" is not a RDP, "decorators" as you call them, when they "reach" beyond their "qualified skill set" can wreak havoc with SAFETY ISSUES. The code prescribes minimum strength and safety regarding FORCES EXPECTED to be exterted and must withstand.


    (Sigh ... this is like trying to tell the school bully that ... wait, HE IS the bully here ... what was I thinking? )
    Yes you are being a bully-brat. You always go on so, as a regular bullying, stalking, imagined argument, imagined "errors of others", completely erroneous nit-picking campaign, whenever you make a major faux pas "foot in mouth" post on the board and are called on it (your Original Formula "KILZ" is "SHELLAC" (confusing it with "BIN") post on the DIYer whose panel was ruined discussion.

    My posts on this thread have been accurate and clear - and you missed the boat, ignored the obvious, even when it was pointed OUT to you (inlaid photo with caption/comment and arrows ^^ below, responsive to your oversight).

    Now you're just "talking in circles" trying to "bury in B.$.. YOUR OWN OVERSIGHT - Bingo! Double Bingo!! and Triple Bingo!!! yourself! As usual, you "missed the forest for the trees" Magoo!

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post

    The answer is no.

    The repurposed older ornament guard is also short for the flight (bottom risers and landing).

    Continuity, continuous graspable surface, doesn't meet any exceptions.

    Glass at intermediate landing above should be guarded and/or safety type glazing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    I saw that at the top (looks to be that way at the top), but I can't see enough of the bottom to be able to tell???
    That's YOUR intellectual failure/myopia/problem/shortcoming/oversight.


    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 08-31-2011 at 08:32 AM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    Hence, IT FALLS/BEGINS SHORT of the FIRST RISER (duh!).
    MAYBE NOT ... DUH!

    Just because YOU think it MAY fall short of the first riser does not mean it does ... it looks like it makes that first riser shown ... which may or may not be the first riser.

    That is why we need to have Rick answer that question. Until the, I'll let you pound on your chest and shout into the wind calling for Jane.

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

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Healdsburg, CA
    Posts
    1,741

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    That safety handrail does not qualify as a safety handrail for obvious reasons. BTW, that loop at the top and bottom is called a volute.
    However, the question that begs asking is why is that resident bully allowed to stick around?

    Jerry McCarthy
    Building Code/ Construction Consultant

  20. #20
    Binford Tools's Avatar
    Binford Tools Guest

    Default Re: Hand rail (?)

    Bank will still loan money to the buyer, even if the hand rail falls a bit short.
    Document it and move on.


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
  •