• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

City Sidewalk/Ramp Project

C

Chad Pasquini

Registered User
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
211
All, we are in the process of completing a sidwalk/ramp project (City Engineering Department) designed stairs with 11 inch run, contractor built at 14.5 inches, with the added 3.5 inches the handrail protrudes that much more in the direction of travel. California Building Code Section 11B505.10.3 Bottom Extension is 12 inches plus width of tread = 26.5 inches. With the added 3.5 inches, the handrail extends almost 8 inches past corner. Question, with the minimum requirement for tread depth being 11 inches, could i use that instead of 14.5 inches?, i know the code does not have an exception for stairs for extension to turn 90 degrees. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks

View attachment 2205

View attachment 2205

/monthly_2016_04/JACOBY_STOREHOUSE_FEBRUARY_2016_2.png.6b6fd63317a0aac6d1bd29812ca1cb36.png
 
No exception based on your post for CBC 11B=505.10.3

Bottom Extension is 12 inches plus width of tread = 26.5 inches. No exception

CBC 11B-505.10 does have an exception for stairs for extension to turn 90 degrees IF this is an Alteration Not new construction
 
Brent, i think mostly for comfortability, yea Mark i informed our engineering department right after posting. It is going to work fine, i just am not a fan of rails sticking out like that.
 
Chad, what is your departments construction observation/inspection procedure?

Who inspected the forms prior to pour? Was an authorization to pour required?
 
Brent' date=' i think mostly for comfortability, yea Mark i informed our engineering department right after posting. It is going to work fine, i just am not a fan of rails sticking out like that. [/quote']They must have cane detection so people don't walk into the return loop.
Click to expand...
 
They should hire the homeless to warn impaired pedestrians of the danger. If they make it through the maze around the corner a little handrail extension should be easy. The guy in the wheelchair looks menacing...to the guy with the cane.



Am I missing something here or shouldn't that be a ramp.



The only way to always achieve the correct height above the walking surface is to extend the distance of the tread depth following the same plane as the handrail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brent' date=' i think mostly for comfortability[/b'], yea Mark i informed our engineering department right after posting. It is going to work fine, i just am not a fan of rails sticking out like that.
Click to expand...
14.5" treads are as uncomfortable as it gets. What is the riser?

But hey now....I seldom do commercial or right of way....so don't pay any attention to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chad, can you please post the correct rendition?

I'm pretty sure that's a Navy SEALs obstacle course.

Brent.
 
The picture ICE posted is not consistent with the code language. The italicized portion has 3 options that do not include a horizontal extension
 
The picture ICE posted is not consistent with the code language. The italicized portion has 3 options that do not include a horizontal extension
Click to expand...
It came from my digital copy of the CBC. I will check it against the office copy.
 
The picture ICE posted is not consistent with the code language. The italicized portion has 3 options that do not include a horizontal extension
Click to expand...
It is consistent with the CALIFORNIA building code.

California has it's own aaccessibility codes, not IBC OR ANSI 117
 
Thanks all, Ice, the ramp is towards the street, the three steps or closest to the building. Compared to what was existing, this is totally awesome. The large building on the corner is constructed of stone, yes stone. It went through a seismic upgrade in the late 80's or early 90's. ADA, our engineering teck missed it, funny because i helped him with all code provisions and he was on it, but so used to the project as he designed it, did not even think about checking tread depth.
 
Massdriver, that is the correct rendetion(lol), our engineering department can get carried away sometimes, hey the public likes pictures
 
I see now

Ice posted a stair section

Chad is referencing a ramp which handrail extensions are required at the top and bottom

Stairs do not require horizontal hand rail extensions at the bottom under what ICE posted if they are continuous to an adjacent handrail or shall return to the wall, guard or walking surface.

Similar language in the IBC.
 
mtlogcabin, i was actually talking about the bottom extension at stairs 12 inches plus width of tread, it is hard to see but the stairs are next to the building, you cannot turn the handrail unless it is a swithback so it has to go in the direction of travel, the top and bottom extensions at the ramp are not as invasive as the picture depicts. Now the bottom rail at stairs against the wall will stick out about 8.5 inches because of the 14.5 tread width, would have been 5 inches had they treads been built to plans @ 11 inches.
 
mtlogcabin, i was actually talking about the bottom extension at stairs 12 inches plus width of tread
Click to expand...
The code that ICE provided does not say the tread width plus 12 inch horizontal extensions it says

"handrails shall extend at the slope of the stair flight for a horizontal distance equal to one tread depth beyond the last riser nosing"

That is the extension requirement in your case it is 14.5 inches. Now you have 3 options

Return it to the adjacent wall or

Return it to the walking surface or

Add a 12 horizontal extension

The 12" horizontal extension is an option for not returning to a wall or walking surface. It is not a requirement unless a return is not possible or desired
 
Great mtlogcabin, just what i need, to research so more, i had it, but after reading your post i did not have it, i still think i have it but now i dont know what i dont know, but that section does say after you get past the sloping part of the horizontal extension for a tread width, it states at the bottom of a stair flight the horizontal extension Shall be 12 inches long minimum and a height equal to that of the sloping portion of the handrail as measured above stair nosing. Now my head hurts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top