Technical Insights: Handrails for Children

TECHNICAL INSIGHTS

The articles featured in Technical Insights are to prompt thought and discussion to assist our members' questions and evaluate their understanding of the technical requirements of Australian Standards and other national/international source material. Technical Insights is intended to provide background information, a different viewpoint, a perspective from an individual with lived experience of disability or to prompt further discussion and/or research by you as an access professional.

Handrails for Children

by Howard Moutrie ACAA Accredited Access Consultant Accessible Building Solutions

As this issue of the magazine is focussing on children, I have been asked to write an article on the design of handrails for children, so here is the final instalment of this series on handrails.

The BCA requires that in primary schools an additional handrail be provided at a height between 665mm and 750mm. This presumably is to cater for the smaller occupants of a primary school. I have always been sceptical of this requirement because, from my experience as a parent, children do seem quite happy to use a normal handrail and I have put this down to the fact that they are used to reaching up to hold your hand. So, is the requirement for a lower handrail valid? I also note that from September, with BCA 2022, a stair or ramp in a childcare centre, shall have a secondary handrail at a height between 450mm and 700mm and have a cross section of 16mm to 45mm in any direction.

As we learnt in a previous Technical Insight, handrails perform two functions, firstly as a aid or guide as we travel along the stair or ramp and secondly, as something to grab to arrest a fall. Perhaps the lower handrail is not so important as a guide but is an aid to prevent falls as statistics indicate that children and the elderly are most likely to fall on stairs.

As in the previous articles, my first point of call is to see what other Countries require. In the US, the ADA requires that when children are the principal users, a second handrail should be provided with a maximum height of 28”, which is 710mm. So that is somewhat consistent with the requirement within the BCA. In the UK, secondary handrails (for people of short stature) are required to be 600mm above the line of the nosing, which is considerably lower than the BCA. Finally, the ISO Standard covers the whole range, requiring a secondary handrail to be at a height of 600mm to 750mm. Interestingly, and for comparison, AS 4685 Playground Equipment, requires handrails to be between 600mm and 1000mm, and when a second handrail is provided, it shall be above 400mm. This Standard also has additional requirements for (essentially) childcare centres, where the children are likely to be younger where a single rail is to be located between 450mm and 700mm and where a double rail is provided, they must fall within the zone of 400mm to 900mm. This is at least consistent with the new BCA requirement.

In the previous articles, I have referred to the book, The Staircase by John Templar, and once again I have referred to this work. Templar refers to 2 works, one by Jake Pauls who recommends a height of 24” (610mm) and one by Kevin Lunau who, based on anthropometric data for children aged 4 to 15, recommends 21.8” to 28.7” ( 554mm to 730mm). This led me to a further work, Ergonomics For Children: Designing products and places for toddlers to teens edited by Leuder and Berg Rice. The following is based on that work.

Handrails for children should be based on how they use the railings and the US requirement which can be as low as 430mm is too low to protect from falls. Referring to research in Canada, it is again suggested that the required handrail height is too low. This research also found that when presented with two handrails, children would often choose the higher one. The research identified that younger children were comfortable using a handrail at a height of 770mm. Interestingly, in this book they also refer to research by Seeger and Bails, (yes the same Bails whose research informed AS 1428.1) and they recommended the following handrail heights.

Age / Handrail Height

3 to 6½ - 870mm

6½ to 10½ - 875mm

10½ to 14½ - 920mm

Given the source of this data, I reviewed the requirements of AS 1428.3, which after all is for children with a disability, so some variance could be expected. The following is taken from that Standard.

Handrail Height

Age / On Ramp / On Stair

3 to 6½ - 860mm - 860mm

6½ to 10½ - 900mm - 910mm

10½ to 14½ - 925mm - 960mm

So, again there is considerable variance with what is considered an appropriate height. It is interesting that my long held thought that a standard height handrail is suitable for children seems to be supported by research. I was also pleased to see that Leuder & Berg Rice made comment on long held view, that children are used to holding an adult hand and thus are comfortable with a higher handrail.

As it will be referenced in the 2022 BCA, perhaps it is appropriate to also look at the handrail diameter. Research undertaken by Morris & Wilson in the US in 1995, suggests the following grasp diameters for children. Note, this is a reduced version of the data. From this data the recommendation is a diameter of around 32mm for children generally.

Age / Grasp diameter

2½ to 3 - 28.9mm

3 to 3½ - 29.8mm

4 to 4½ - 31.6mm

5 to 5½ - 32.5mm

6 to 6½ - 34.3mm

7 - 36.2mm

8 - 37.9mm

9 - 39.7mm

10 - 40.9mm

11 - 43.3mm

12 - 44.7mm

13 - 47.1mm

One interesting aspect to come out of writing this article is that there is no consideration of climbability. For stairs where there is a drop of more than 4m, there can be no horizontal element in the range of 150mm to 750mm, which could be used to aid climbing. There is nothing preventing a stair in a primary school having such a height and the secondary handrail would fall within this zone. In such a case, another safety barrier must be used. In reality, a child can be injured no matter what the height they fall, so perhaps more consideration should be given to this. Leuder & Berg Rice also recognised this as an issue and noted that in the US the high rate of accidents from children jumping or falling from stair landings etc was understood to be a problem but with little in the way of a solution.

So in summary, as with handrails for adults, there is considerable variation between the Standards. The requirements of the Standards do not seem to be fully supported by the research. This is probably due to the limited data available and the difficulty in changing from tradition. Leuder and Berg Rice concluded in their work that “ Building codes and standards have not adequately addressed these key factors ………This is due in part to inadequate technical information……(and) the political realities of the construction industry ….. and building code development, adoption and enforcement, especially in the United States.” Sound familiar?