2018 IBC Required Ramp Width (1012.5.3, 1014.8)

[Yankee Chronicler]

I'd agree on a one family dwelling, they ought to be able to check and coordinate drawings.

I learned AutoCAD when there were a few dozen commands. Had to write a basic program (remember basic?) to do that. I was able to keep up with new editions at least till 2010. Could not for the life of me make the transition to Revit - owned it and had on my computer for 10+ years. Retired. People long in the tooth generally don't do well with fast changing technology. I know one colleague who still drafts by hand. Of course exceptions.

A few years ago I had lunch with a younger architect from the next town over. Discussion turned to CAD and learning curves. The chap said "I can teach anyone to use AutoCAD in a month. I might be able to teach someone to use Revit in a year."

I have used AutoCAD off and on since it was still an MS-DOS program and commands were either entered manually from the keyboard or picked by moving the target crosshairs on an electronic puck over a digital menu and clicking your selection. I consider myself to be fairly competent with 2-D AutoCAD, and not at all competent with 3-D. I'd love to get a copy of Revit to play with for the learning experience, but Autodesk has it too tightly locked up. I certainly can't afford to buy it just for grins and giggles, and I'm not enrolled in an educational institution so I don't qualify for an educational copy.

 

[bill1952]

Ahhh - MS-DOS - remember it fondly. I started with AotoCAD 1.1 in fall of 82.

The basic program was to "mirror" - not till mid 80s did AutoCAD add that.

 

[tbz]

If there is a requirement to have a specific clear width between handrails, obviously I would design a ramp with at least that clear distance between the handrails.

Where does the IBC, A117.1, or the ADA specify a minimum clear distance between handrails? The only specific requirement I found is that after allowances are made for permissible protrusions, accessible ramps must have not less than 36 inches clear between the handrails. But not all ramps are for accessibility.

The IBC in 2012 Sec. 1003.3.4 Clear Width, does not have exceptions, as thus projections into the minimum required width between handrails on the ramps of accessible routes, if more than 36" is required by the calculated minimum, then the handrails are not allowed to reduce the wider clear width for the calculated larger minimum. Fabricators across the country have been getting flagged and called out on this on final inspections for many years on many projects and the width between the handrails is more than the 36-inch minimum noted in the code 1012.5.1 width and capacity, but less than the calculated minimum.

In the 2010ADA Section "307.5 Required Clear Width. Protruding objects shall not reduce the clear width required for accessible routes. "
I see and in talking with Tech support from the Access-Board there are no exceptions to reduce the minimum width of an Accessible route.

The same is true in ANSI A117.1,

Thus, the 36-inch minimum is the smallest, if the calculated minimum width is in line with the minimum. Or if the ramp is not part of an accessible route, but in new buildings today how often do we see these anymore. and there are a few other possible, but highly unlikely locations it might not comply, but from what I have seen, that type of ramp is more like a unicorn on a project than the norm.

The 4.5" projection is an inward maximum limit from anything the handrail is mounted too, the minimum width between handrails on ramps is a separate requirement that has nothing to really do with projections into an accessible route, since they are not allowed.

Additionally, the clear width between handrails on ramp mid-landings was never really called for the minimum width between handrails and in recent years has become a focus of inspectors for the minimum 60-inches required here between handrails, and not the 60-inch minimum width being measured above the handrails. This is noted in ANSI A117.1 Section 405.7.4 Change and 2010ADA Section 405.7.4 Change in Direction.

 

[tbz]

So you're right, the architects and drafters and force writers are not quite up to the task today. Sure, the starkitects get enough fee so they can do better. Some regional firm cranking out high schools for, if lucky, 5 1/2% of the construction, just aren't paid enough.

These bad details are often pushed down to the fabricators who in the past have always said the architect and engineers know best, to learning just because it is on a sealed set of drawings, does not mean what they designer provided is correct. Leading to the question I receive the most from many fabricators, why aren't these incorrect typical details not flagged by plan reviewers? My answer, they only have so many eyes and just because the plans are approved for construction, the reviewer clearly stamps them, this does not approve the construction of non-compliant work to be done, even if in the approved construction drawings. Which always leads to then what good are the approved construction drawings?

I am in my 30th year with AutoCAD, and as noted, the level of drafter has changed from someone being trained in their field and drawing by hand, to someone that is trained in the software following hand sketches and notes with no real knowledge of what they are drawing learning on the fly. And it shows more and more each day.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I am in my 30th year with AutoCAD, and as noted, the level of drafter has changed from someone being trained in their field and drawing by hand, to someone that is trained in the software following hand sketches and notes with no real knowledge of what they are drawing learning on the fly. And it shows more and more each day.

This is true, and to a large extent I blame Autodesk for this. AutoCAD is obscenely expensive (as is Revit), and they keep adding new features that require more training just to be able to use the software for simple tasks. It's not possible for the actual architects in a firm to keep up with changes in codes, changes in materials and technology, and changes in CADD software. The result is that the people who produce the drawings are often CAD operators. They may be graduates of a technical high school or a private occupational school and they don't know anything about architecture or codes -- they just know how to make lines on a screen and plot drawings.

Several years ago I helped out a friend, the sole practitioner in a small firm, when he had two projects due at the same time. I took his CAD operator with me to field measure an existing office building we were going to renovate. She was there -- she saw what the building looked like, and she wrote down the dimensions as I read them off.

When I looked at her first draft of the existing plan, the columns were each a different size and they weren't on a uniform spacing. When I asked her why, her response was that she's only paid to use the CAD system, not to think. Yes, that's exactly what she said. Within her self-imposed limitations she was a nice girl and a good CAD operator, but an android could have done the same job. We absolutely could NOT rely on her to catch any mistakes, because that was outside of her reality.

 

[walker.t]

The result is that the people who produce the drawings are often CAD operators. They may be graduates of a technical high school or a private occupational school and they don't know anything about architecture or codes -- they just know how to make lines on a screen and plot drawings.

Principal of a firm where I used to work once hired some computer consultant to help with something related to the firm’s financial software. She said she thought about learning AutoCAD and then offering drafting services to clients and she asked what I thought. I told her I didn’t think it would do much good if she didn’t know what she was drawing, the example I gave her was to ask if she knew what the actual size of a 2x4 was.

When I looked at her first draft of the existing plan, the columns were each a different size and they weren't on a uniform spacing. When I asked her why, her response was that she's only paid to use the CAD system, not to think. Yes, that's exactly what she said. Within her self-imposed limitations she was a nice girl and a good CAD operator, but an android could have done the same job. We absolutely could NOT rely on her to catch any mistakes, because that was outside of her reality.

I feel like if I had ever said something like that CAD operator said that my employer would be looking for my replacement.

 

[walker.t]

The IBC in 2012 Sec. 1003.3.4 Clear Width, does not have exceptions, as thus projections into the minimum required width between handrails on the ramps of accessible routes, if more than 36" is required by the calculated minimum, then the handrails are not allowed to reduce the wider clear width for the calculated larger minimum. Fabricators across the country have been getting flagged and called out on this on final inspections for many years on many projects and the width between the handrails is more than the 36-inch minimum noted in the code 1012.5.1 width and capacity, but less than the calculated minimum.

Thank you for your further comments on this topic.

I agree with the concept that if there is a calculated width based on occupant load that this calculated width becomes the new minimum clear width. But as I think more about it now I wonder if the IBC doesn’t have something else in mind:

1. I notice that Section 1005 (Means of Egress Sizing) makes reference to two things:
a. Minimum width based on component (1005.2): “minimum width, in inches…specified for such component, elsewhere in this code.” So this would be the 36” width of an accessible route per A117.1 403.5.
b. Required capacity based on occupant load (1005.3): “required capacity in inches…determined in accordance with Sections 1005.3.1 [Stairways] and 1005.3.2 [Other Egress Components].” It is odd to me that they measure “capacity” in inches, I would say “capacity” is measured in number of occupants - that’s just my way of thinking, I guess.

Now I’ll assume that the accessible ramp in question is part of the means of egress which would mean 1005 applies to the ramp. Because the minimum width of the accessible route is 36”, the ramp must be at last 36” between the handrails. When 1003.3.4 says protruding objects cannot reduce the “minimum width of accessible routes” maybe they are not thinking of additional width beyond the 36” minimum as “minimum width” but instead that additional width is “required capacity.” And so, maybe they are OK with a maximum 4.5” projection on each side into the width of a “required capacity” until it reaches the “minimum width” of 36”. But in my mind, the width required based on occupant load is the new required minimum width and cannot be reduced by projecting objects. This differentiation may be supported by 1014.8 (Projections) when it makes reference to a “clear [minimum] width” as well as “required width.”

But in applying everything I just said to my original post regarding 1012.5.3 (Restrictions,) when 1012.5.3 says “Projections into the required ramp and landing width are prohibited,” “required width” is “required capacity” (per 1005.3) so the distance between the handrails has to be at least what the calculated width is without consideration of what a “minimum width” is because the calculated “required width” exceeds that minimum. This would be the grounds for fabricators’ drawings to be flagged as you described.

 

[walker.t]

In the 2010ADA Section "307.5 Required Clear Width. Protruding objects shall not reduce the clear width required for accessible routes. "
I see and in talking with Tech support from the Access-Board there are no exceptions to reduce the minimum width of an Accessible route.

The same is true in ANSI A117.1,

The ADA provision you site (which is restated in A117.1 307.5) has given me a little confusion in the past. The problem I have is how it says “clear width required for accessible routes” which makes me think they are referring to 36” per ADA 403.5.1 (Clear Width) (A117.1 403.5), but there’s an exception to both of those provisions that allows for a 24” long, 32” wide reduction to the “36” minimum” width. So, when they say “clear width required” do they mean the 36” or the 32”? I guess they allow the exception because its only 24” long which is similar to the 24” maximum depth of a door opening per ADA 404.2.2 (A117.1 404.2.3), so moving between two 24” wide pilasters in a corridor is no worse than passing through a 24” deep cased opening that is 32” wide. Those provisions do not allow projections into the 32” wide door opening below 34” so the 32" is their absolute minimum width - so maybe that is an indication that “clear width required for accessible routes” is a reference to the absolute minimum 32” allowed at the 24” long sections in an otherwise 36” wide accessible route.

I tried to think of an example of a ramp that is not part of an accessible route, I can’t think of a scenario where that would happen. Maybe somewhere on the second floor of a 2-story building that does not require an elevator? I don’t think so, floor still has to meet accessibility requirements, I thought (per ADA Advisory 206.2.3, but I can’t find the provision in the ADA that supports the advisory comment.)

 

[walker.t]

These bad details are often pushed down to the fabricators who in the past have always said the architect and engineers know best, to learning just because it is on a sealed set of drawings, does not mean what they designer provided is correct. Leading to the question I receive the most from many fabricators, why aren't these incorrect typical details not flagged by plan reviewers? My answer, they only have so many eyes and just because the plans are approved for construction, the reviewer clearly stamps them, this does not approve the construction of non-compliant work to be done, even if in the approved construction drawings. Which always leads to then what good are the approved construction drawings?

Recently I’ve seen two sets of architectural drawings stamped as approved by the building department showing stairs with incorrect stair extensions, so the architect missed this when they prepared the drawings then the plans reviewer missed it. The architect shouldn’t have missed this, some would argue that handrails are an important aspect of protecting the public’s health and safety and that the architect violated the standard of care in letting that slip by.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Recently I’ve seen two sets of architectural drawings stamped as approved by the building department showing stairs with incorrect stair extensions, so the architect missed this when they prepared the drawings then the plans reviewer missed it. The architect shouldn’t have missed this, some would argue that handrails are an important aspect of protecting the public’s health and safety and that the architect violated the standard of care in letting that slip by.

The architect didn't "let that slip by" -- the architect designed it that way. The plan reviewer missed it, so he/she let it slip by.

Handrail extensions have been in the codes, and essentially unchanged. for something like 40 or 50 years. The oldest version of A117.1 I have in PDF format and readily available to me shows the same handrail extension diagrams that are still shown, and are essentially the same as the figures in the 2010 ADAAG. As an architect, I find it incomprehensible that architects still get this wrong, but they do -- more often than they get it right. I'm convinced that at least some of them know better, but they do it to try to squeeze a tad bit more usable space out of a floor plan and they hope the nasty old plan reviewer won't pick up on it. The favorite trick is turning the rail 90 degrees and wrapping the "extension" around a corner at the top or bottom of a stair or ramp -- disregarding that the requirement is for the extension to be in the direction of stair or ramp travel.

 

[Jay Smith]

1986 and 2009 A117.1 handrail extension images are attached. This change in the bottom handrail extension is something still contributing to misinterpretation by not only architects, but also contractors and even code professionals.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

1986 and 2009 A117.1 handrail extension images are attached. This change in the bottom handrail extension is something still contributing to misinterpretation by not only architects, but also contractors and even code professionals.

Yes, the original bottom extension was one thread depth on the incline plus 12 inches horizontal in the direction of travel. I'm old enough to remember that, but I've been through so many changes that I don't remember when it was changed to remove the extra 12 inches. If anyone needs to know, I think I have all the editions of A117.1 somewhere in my basement.

The original ADAAG had the same requirement:

 

[ICE]

Thirty-six replies on a thread about the minimum width of a ramp and the question has not been answered. Lawyers must have the final say on what gets published as code.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

My perception/understanding of the issue is certainly colored by the length of time I've been at this. When I started working as an architect, we (and the codes) didn't measure required exit width in inches, we used "units of egress width" (IIRC -- might have been "units of exit width"). One unit of egress width was 22 inches, which was considered to be the width of an average adult male's shoulders. The reason why projections into required egress width were (and are) allowed below a certain height is that, for most people, the shoulders are the widest part of their bodies. Their hips can ride along a projecting handrail while their shoulders can overhang the handrail by a few inches. Doors were sized in units of egress width, too -- 1-1/2 or 2 units for most single-leaf egress doors, and (of course) more for double leaf pairs of doors.

I don't recall which code cycle made the transition from units of egress width to straight inches. There is some carry-over even today. Ever wonder why the minimum required width for most corridors and most stairs is 44 inches? That's not a round number -- 3-1/2 feet would be 42 inches, and 4 feet would be 48 inches. But we still use 44 inches -- because it's a carry-over from when the codes used "units of egress width" as the measure. Theoretically, 44 inches is supposed to allow two adult males to proceed side-by-side.

And this is why I am of the opinion that, taken together, the code allows handrails to project into the required width of ramps, as long as accessible ramps aren't reduced to less than 36 inches clear between handrails.

 

[tbz]

YC,

I would love it if plan reviewers and inspectors all across the country called it the way you are representing, however, that is not the way it is being enforced by the major majority of AHJ that the fabricators I talk with run into everyday on projects.

Additionally, that is not the interpretation I received on a phone call to the access-board's tech line a good number of years ago I made to see how they called it.

I tend to lean towards not allowed, only because of the over whelming number of red stickers I received calls about over the years from fabricators and the tech line interp I received personally back in 2017.

 

[walker.t]

The architect didn't "let that slip by" -- the architect designed it that way. The plan reviewer missed it, so he/she let it slip by.

Handrail extensions have been in the codes, and essentially unchanged. for something like 40 or 50 years. The oldest version of A117.1 I have in PDF format and readily available to me shows the same handrail extension diagrams that are still shown, and are essentially the same as the figures in the 2010 ADAAG. As an architect, I find it incomprehensible that architects still get this wrong, but they do -- more often than they get it right. I'm convinced that at least some of them know better, but they do it to try to squeeze a tad bit more usable space out of a floor plan and they hope the nasty old plan reviewer won't pick up on it. The favorite trick is turning the rail 90 degrees and wrapping the "extension" around a corner at the top or bottom of a stair or ramp -- disregarding that the requirement is for the extension to be in the direction of stair or ramp travel.

This is exactly the sort of thing I saw on the drawings. One of the stairs also had a 90° followed by another 90° at the bottom landing of a stair. The requirement for the extension being in the direction of travel is covered by IBC 1014.6, A117.1 505.10, and ADA 505.10 so wherever you look you’re going to find the same thing.

I guess I had higher expectations for architects. For a licensed professional to intentionally put something in their drawings that is a code violation just doesn’t seem like a good idea, I’d be afraid of liability if someone got hurt in an emergency evacuation.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

This is exactly the sort of thing I saw on the drawings. One of the stairs also had a 90° followed by another 90° at the bottom landing of a stair. The requirement for the extension being in the direction of travel is covered by IBC 1014.6, A117.1 505.10, and ADA 505.10 so wherever you look you’re going to find the same thing.

I guess I had higher expectations for architects. For a licensed professional to intentionally put something in their drawings that is a code violation just doesn’t seem like a good idea, I’d be afraid of liability if someone got hurt in an emergency evacuation.

While I believe some do it even knowing it's non-compliant, and they hope the plan reviewer will miss it or overlook it, I think the sad truth is that even after 30 years of the ADA (an entire generation-plus), far too many architects don't pay any attention to the accessibility stuff. I blame the architecture schools. They don't teach accessibility as an integrated element of design. The result is that architects design buildings with no regard for accessibility, and THEN they go back and ask, "Now what do I need to tack onto my beautiful design to satisfy that silly accessibility code?" They don't view accessible design as something to be incorporated as a fundamental part of the design, they view it as an unnecessary add-on that the codes require just to ruin their designs, and therefore their knee-jerk reaction is to ignore it, pay lip service to it, and try as hard as possible to pretend that it doesn't exist.

 

[walker.t]

Thirty-six replies on a thread about the minimum width of a ramp and the question has not been answered. Lawyers must have the final say on what gets published as code.

Though a definitive clarification of the apparent discrepancy between 1012.5.3 and 1014.8 would be nice, for me the “answer” is to provide the required width between handrails and work from the inside out as tbz noted in Post #4.

 

[steveray]

1012.5.1 Width and Capacity​

Thirty-six replies on a thread about the minimum width of a ramp and the question has not been answered. Lawyers must have the final say on what gets published as code.

Your welcome....

The minimum width and required capacity of a means of egress ramp shall be not less than that required for corridors by Section 1020.3. The clear width of a ramp between handrails, if provided, or other permissible projections shall be 36 inches (914 mm) minimum.

 

[walker.t]

My original question was more than just asking about the minimum width, I was trying to reconcile how 1012.5.3 says projections are not allowed into the required ramp width when other provisions say that projections are allowed. 1012.5.1 makes reference to “other permissible projections,” any idea why this provision allows for projections when 1012.5.3 says “projections into the the required ramp and landing width are prohibited”?

 

[ICE]

My original question was more than just asking about the minimum width, I was trying to reconcile how 1012.5.3 says projections are not allowed into the required ramp width when other provisions say that projections are allowed. 1012.5.1 makes reference to “other permissible projections,” any idea why this provision allows for projections when 1012.5.3 says “projections into the the required ramp and landing width are prohibited”?

Ask steveray.

 

[walker.t]

Ask steveray.

My bad, it was my intention to direct my response to steveray, I forgot to quote him, I’ll try to remember to include quotes in future posts.

 

[ICE]

My bad, it was my intention to direct my response to steveray, I forgot to quote him, I’ll try to remember to include quotes in future posts.

Oh I was just poking fun at steveray. He can't answer that question... Oh he'll try. It's now 46 replies into this and nobody has answered that question.

 

[walker.t]

Oh I was just poking fun at steveray. He can't answer that question... Oh he'll try. It's now 46 replies into this and nobody has answered that question.

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.