Universal Design Newsletter
Client Login

The Graspable Handrail

Jake Pauls

This summary pertains mainly to stairway handrail use by adults. It expands upon an article published in 1991 (Reference 1), particularly that article's list of several handrail functions, the most important of which is "graspable support... to maintain or recover postural support during walking—especially during a misstep, such as on a stair." For children's use of stairs and handrails, see the postscript to this summary.

Stairway handrails that will function reasonably well for usability and safety must be

To provide these functions the handrail(s) must be geometrically positioned

Furthermore, for effectiveness—especially in helping a person to arrest (mitigate) a misstep and potential loss of balance or footing—the handrail must have the following:

Handrails complying with the requirements of the 2003 edition of the ICC/ANSI A117.1 standard will generally come very close to meeting all of these functional criteria (aside from those dealing with surface finish and thermal characteristics for which the standard has no requirements).  Handrails complying with the ICC International Residential Code (IRC) will not necessarily comply as this code permits many dysfunctional features for dwelling unit handrails, especially those serving stairways.  For example, in the 2003 edition, provision of handrails is not required for all stairs (under the scoping in section R311.5.6); full continuity is not required (under section R311.5.6.2); and graspability is violated with the so-called "Type-II" handrails (under "grip size" requirements of section R311.5.6.2).  Figures 1a and 1b illustrate just how bad a stairway can be if it mostly complies with IRC's compromised stairway rules and incorporates several dysfunctional features—even though it is the "Universal Design Demonstration" house (in Prince William County, Virginia) widely discussed during late 2006 and early 2007.

Figure 1 (a) the overall view and a top-of-flight detail of a traditionally detailed Type II handrail, with (b) one aspect of its dysfunctional geometry illustrated by internationally-known Universal Design authority, Satoshi Kose.

IRC requirements for the Type II handrail have been relatively intensively debated recently as the Stairway Manufacturers Association (SMA) has been attempting to have Type II handrails accepted for non-dwelling contexts in the ICC International Building Code and in the forthcoming edition of the ICC/ANSI A117.1 standard for all handrail contexts.  While the debates have addressed several research issues, the grip performance differences between the so-called Type I handrails (which comply with A117.1-2003 and mostly meet the bulleted functional criteria listed above) and the Type II handrails (which do not comply with A117.1-2003 and mostly do not meet the bulleted functional criteria listed above) can be summed up as follows:

Figure 2

effective power grip vs. ineffective pinch grip

Notably, in Figure 2, the upper portions of the two shapes are relatively similar so that if viewed from directly overhead, they appear alike.  Other shapes that comply with requirements for Type I handrails are shown cross-hatched in Figure 3, which compares the sizes and shapes of many railing sections (not including R) that were tested in 1985 in a study of adults in Toronto, Canada, by Dr. Brian Maki as part of the most extensive research to date—in terms of variety of shapes and sizes—of handrail graspability plus stairway use and safety biomechanics (Reference 2).  Note section D, the 2-inch diameter round, was questionable; it is too large for some adults and for most children.

Figure 3

Rail shapes, A to Q, tested for quality of grip by Brian Maki for National Research Council of Canada.  Cross-hatched sections function relatively well.  Crossed out sections are not recommended.

To help improve development of codes and standards, a critical review (based on European plus North American research) was done for the Building Research Establishment in the UK in 1994 by Feeney and Webber (Reference 3).  This science-based review concluded, "guidance that can be provided with confidence is...

The largest recommended section with the oval shape was tested in 1985 by Maki (Section P in Figure 3).  The oval is an example of a non-circular shape that performed well in testing of both functionality and user preference.  Biomechanically, it is best oriented vertically so that bending of the user's wrist is minimized. 

Figure 4 depicts such an oval handrail in use with a relatively large male hand.  The bracket and wall mounting plate illustrate some other features of good handrail geometry as shown in the seventh bulleted item in the list of functional criteria with which this article opens.  In the view of this long-term student of stairs, handrails and the associated ergonomics, Figure 4 represents the best, most comfortable and most usable handrail shape that is not circular.  Many professionals in the building industry would agree with this opinion if they fully understood the ergonomics behind it or, failing that, if they merely noted that no handle for a power or manual tool used in the building industry has a shape and size anything like the Type II handrail—which would quickly lose market share once people realized just how dysfunctional it is for the human hand, particularly the hand of someone challenged by stairway use and safety.

Figure 4

Lateral clearance between handrail and wall and vertical clearance underneath the handrail facilitate a grab response, as well as relaxed use of the handrail with fingers extending downward, ready to curl under the handrail and achieve a power grip as illustrated.

image 10

Postscript

Regarding research behind current understanding of handrail usability and safety, a major development was the research completed in 1996 by Maki and colleagues on the grab response for a handrail (specifically one with a round section of 51 mm, 2-in diameter).  First proposed in 1987, in conjunction with Maki's work for the National Research Council of Canada, the testing eventually received funding from the SMA which finally recognized the quality of Maki's research.  It was published in a peer-reviewed journal in 1998 (Reference 4).  (A review of all the handrail work by Maki and colleagues was published in 2006, Reference 5.)  Much of the current debate on other research funded by SMA—specifically the work it claims to show the comparable performance of certain Type II and certain Type I handrails—would be much more focused and productive if the other SMA-funded research was also published in detail in a peer-reviewed journal recognized for its stature in safety and ergonomics. This other research by Dusenberry and colleagues entailed a very unrealistic testing protocol with subjects' arms stretched out horizontally on a table with (ultimately) a hook grip on test railing sections.  To date these other studies have been very inadequately reported formally and then only in relatively obscure conference proceedings that have relatively little impact in the safety and ergonomics field (References 6 and 7). Finally, regarding children's use of stairs and handrails, see Reference 8.

Jake Pauls, CPE (Certified Professional Ergonomist), has 41 years of experience in international research, consulting, falls investigations and work on numerous codes and standards (with several committee appointments in the USA, mostly representing the American Public Health Association) in North America and overseas.  For full information—including free access to over 80 papers and presentations on egress performance, falls and stairway design plus regulation internationally—see http://web.mac.com/bldguse. (In the interests of full disclosure, the studies by Brian Maki and colleagues, between 1982 and 1987, referred to in this summary were performed with funding from Jake Pauls' biomedical engineering research program, focused on fall-related injury prevention, at the National Research Council of Canada.)

References