handrail return without extensions

[umbachdw]

Is there any way to make a simple handrail that returns to the wall but does not have a flat extension?  I did the attached one in sketchup.  Extensions are not required in the residential code, so it seems like this would be a common need for small residential projects, but I can't find a way to do it through the typical handrail options.

[RDAOU]

Using the standard rail (wall fixed) you need to tab over the rail to select only the top rail (not the whole handrail)  then edit it - remove fixture by setting to none and add top/bottom extension to wall (length = sectional dimension of top rail) this is the quick easy way

Otherwise you need to customize your own handrail;

- you can go for an adaptive rail option but it will be too much work (30 mins) for a small rail

- you can go for Model - in Place and use an extrusion/sweep can do it with a profile family or rail family

[umbachdw]

Thanks...Maybe I am being obtuse...I have tried setting the extensions to none. That eliminates the extension...

but if I draw a path back to the wall it does funky things - I still end up with a flat transition at the top and I get a warning about a discontinuous rail and broken joint at the bottom.....

I can't seem to make it return to the wall without some sort of horizontal transition. I can make various other strange things happen by changing the handrail options under the main railing family, but I have found no combination that give me the desired result.  It would be way too much trouble to model every hand rail, but I do a lot of residential work that does not require extensions, so I am determined to find an answer to this one.

[alan.quinn]

The short answer is no. Revit will not turn a railing to wall without adding a flat extension. In reality (unless your are modelling an existing condition) all hand rails should run past the bottom and top threads. I the attached file where I altered the top railing by editing it and adding an extension, then turning it into the wall. In this case its right angles but you can have a radius. On one set of stairs (left) I went 16" top and bottom and on the others I keep the extension as short as I could until Revit could not create it. It differs in the two stairs, straight run and one with a middle landing (right set of stairs). 

The other thing to keep in mind is Revit is always trying to keep you honest. In the railing properties you told Revit that the top rail is a certain distance from the host (stair). Then you alter the railing and ask Revit to do something different, Revit will simply not allow you to do this or at the very least give you inaccurate results. As the other poster suggested adding an inplace family or modelling a rail end are good alternatives.

I have included my test file for reference, if you are getting different results please make a video and upload it and your Revit test file.

Thanks for posting.

[umbachdw]

Thanks for looking at this.  I will take a look at your file.

I do feel the need to correct you on one point.

"In reality (unless your are modelling an existing condition) all hand rails should run past the bottom and top threads."

I realize that most revit users are probably working on projects that are governed by the IBC (or local adopted versions). Most of my work, however, is single family and townhome governed by the IRC.  On the subject of handrail continuity the IRC requires "Handrails for stairways shall be continuous for the full length of the flight, from a point directly above the top riser to a point directly above the lowest riser of the flight".  Handrail extensions are not required for any project that can be constructed under the IRC.  The detail is cleaner without the extensions and most of the builders I work with don't provide extensions since they are not required.  It seems like it should be a simple thing to do, and since it is a very common condition on single family construction in the US it would be nice if Aurodesk would make that function available.

Thanks

[alan.quinn · Accepted solution]

Thanks for the additional information and you are correct the magority of single family dwelling only require a rail with no extensions. Most of my background was just like yours and I typically added rails that followed the (IRC) requirements. If I need to show then run beyond I simply added a Callout on at top and bottom and used a Filled Region to indicated the run on. I dimensioned as required from the thread or wall or what ever was appropriate for that set of drawings. This way Revit got me most of the way and I bent the rules to suit in my Details. After all "Its all about the details!".

Also, I took a look at some of the internal cases (wish list items) where development is investigating ways of importing/changing features in Revit. Railing are a popular item and what you are looking for is mentioned in a few. All case are currently on going and hopefully this and other things will continue to improve with future releases. 

In any event let me know if you have any additional questions of comments.  Thanks again,

[RDAOU]

@alan.quinn 🙂

I got notified that a solution was found for this post and was like: Hurray!!! Finally?! A break through! Autodesk has answered to the long time wish list request of modifying the stairs and railing tools...

Respect 🙂 to your diplomacy and way of reply … Nonetheless; whoever been following this topic since more than just a couple years and those who know Autodesk’s policy, know it is not not going to happen and I can give several undeniable facts why certain wishes such as the above can and will not happen anytime soon.

PS: if I may add to that wish list:

1. “I wish Autodesk and/or employees on Autodesk's behalf don't give us poor customers/students/educators false hopes and pretenses” 🙂 Autodesk need not to be afraid that customers will run off to other providers if you say something is not possible in the present moment for x y z reasons.

[RDAOU]

@umbachdw 

Sorry for the long post but this is not just addressed to you but also to any other visitor who might run accross this post while searching for an answer. I do have some students who every now and then come accross this forum and some do quote Autodesk Forum when it comes to Revit. Hence, I would like to see Autodesk denying the following (just for the purpose of the avoidance of doubt) - So please do accept my appologies in advance if what I wrote hereafter doesn't come to your liking 🙂

When it comes to wishes, Autodesk will never tell you its not possible even when it is. You can search this forum and check for yourself. Don't wait up...If you are unable to understand the WHY just accept it as it is and work around it. The stairs and railing tool has been a complain of quite some considerable number of Revit users (Not the majority) over the past 4 years at least. It is NOT a hard thing to code in, if it was meant to be added it would have been added by now (you may hold me accountable to this, it is not coming in Revit 2017 nor 2018).

In reply to your statements:

1. "In reality (unless you are modelling an existing condition) all hand rails should run past the bottom and top threads.”...

• Yes you are right in reality they go past and in Revit they do too when you set your threads properly...if one sticks to the default settings in the tool itself such as "end with riser & start with riser" OR if one calculates the desired height for all stairs the same way regardless of the type or its actual method of construction, one will never get the tool to function as desired and your rails will not run past the botom thread. (Tutorials never tell you that either and Autodesk is not liable to explain it) Autodesk introduced a tool which complies to sever types of stairs and is customizable only in accordance with curtain standards (never stretch beyond them). This is an undebatable fact regardless whoever agrees or not and irrespective who is satisfied with it and who is not.

1. "I realize that most Revit users are probably working on projects that are governed by the IBC (or local adopted versions)."

• Not completely true... Most Engineers and Architects don't; that’s why there are certain classifications for architectural and engineering firms. A fact one should take into account is that Autodesk products are not designed just to comply practices just in the States. And definitely not common ipso facto kind of practices. Another fact one should take into account is that in many (if not most) States (in the US as well as in EU) Small Residential projects are also governed by the local codes and standards (a minimum those related to Safety standards) although in reality it is hardly controlled and rarely implemented. One can’t have eyes everywhere! But fortunately enough there are sufficient eyes which follow up on major stakeholders in the field of construction such as Autodesk. They have a legal liability that extend beyond  the user agreement you accept when you use their products.

A factual conclusion: When the case of a non-standard or custom practice arise (regardless of the frequency of its occurance);  the only solution is to use the families and templates which Autodesk provided not just for the sole purposes of convenience but also to transfers such liabilities to the user solely.

[umbachdw]

Good point - seems like a simple thing to solve if they actually wanted to.  I will just have to accept modeling handrails in place.

[asimasko]

The issue continues to be the horizontal extension Revit wants to put on the bottom of a handrail. Without it the handrail extension looks "wonky" for lack of a better term. Looks like Revit cannot draw the wall return of a handrail running at an angle. Something I've been able to do for my 40 years of practice as an architect both by hand and with 2D drafting programs.

Alan, looks like you've been around awhile, but before you speak for the whole industry, you and and the crew at Autodesk, should go back and refresh yourself on the IBC, ADA and ANSI 117.1. The IBC never required a horizontal extension at the bottom of a handrail, just that the handrail extend for one tread depth at the bottom and return to a wall or post, except by reference in Chapter 11 to ANSI 117.1 for accessible stairs. The need for the horizontal extension was dropped from the 2003 ANSI 117.1. In 2012, the 2010 ADA was adopted and it too eliminated the need for the horizontal extension.
 

There are some nice things about Revit, but as you allude to, seems like a lot of Revit requires some kind of "rule breaking" because this very expensive software cannot deal with reality. Instead of hamstringing designers who are actually the ones held accountable for what they design it seems the software programmers should not try to force us to deal with their interpretations of building codes and construction technology, but make the software flexible to allow us to make our own mistakes. It's nice to see Revit evolving into a more user friendly software, but this handrail thing has been around for years, and so has Revit. I don't think we're asking too much to fix this so we're not wasting hours "breaking the rules."

[bspringsCC4VA]

I'm honestly really confused following this thread.  I haven't had issues with "wall mounted" railings since the Stairs/railings were updated a few revisions back.  Now maybe I'm just mistaken about the issue the original person was having, but I can most certainly provide an extension at the bottom of a railing that is both sloped and returns to the wall. Now when I create a single handrail that is "wall mounted" I create a handrail by first creating a new railing family and I only use the 'handrail 1' parameter set.  I do not use a top rail or any of the rail structure tools.  I then create a handrail type.  I then set the extension (beginning/bottom), extension style to 'wall', the length to 0'-0" and the I check the 'Plus Tread Depth' box.  This will create a bottom extension that follows the slope of the stair and extends it the depth of 1 tread (requirement for IBC/ANSI 117.1).  For the top extension required by code just set the extension (end/top), extension style to 'wall' and type in the length 1'-0".  The top extension does not follow the slope of the stair past the nosing of the topmost tread, which in reality it shouldn't because the handrail height on a stair is measured from the nosing.

Maybe, I'm just misunderstanding what the actual issue is.

[ToanDN]

Does it look like this when you zoom in?

[bspringsCC4VA]

No, it's actually clean.

[ToanDN]

Ha.. I can make it clean now with a little fixing of the OOTC profile.

[ToanDN]

... and this maybe what OP needed - a handrail returning to wall with no extension.

[asimasko]

Try that with a radius return instead of a miter return.

[ToanDN]

---

@asimasko wrote:

Try that with a radius return instead of a miter return.

---

[asimasko]

You win. Don't know how you did it. Revit is so intuitive I guess I'll go back and spend a few hours learning how to do handrails.

[asimasko]

Now that I have a little more time to respond,  that works for residential stairs. What we've been talking about are non-residential stairs that require a hand rail extension for at least one tread depth at the bottom of the stair. The horizontal portion of the extension is no longer required by any code. I've never been able to get Revit to show just the extension correctly without the horizontal piece.

[bspringsCC4VA]

Refer to my reply above. I walked you through exactly how to do what you're asking for. My screen grab may not show it exactly but the rail is extended 11" (1 tread length) without the horizontal extension.