• 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

67" accessibility turning circle - exact code location?

Arch_teach

Registered User
Joined
Jan 4, 2022
Messages
13
Location
Louisiana
I have just become aware of the transition to a larger turning circle for mobility devices. I see general diagram and reference to ICC A117.1, but that does not seem to be an actual code designation. Can someone point e to the exact code area in the IBC 2021 or the NFPA 101 that details this turning circle. I am interested also in opinions on impact on accessible restroom stalls and ramp landings as well.
 
IBC tells you when it has to be accessible....ANSI tells you how...
How does that help my question? I am looking for the specific code reference. ANSI, IBC, NFPA, ADA, whatever is governing with this new expansion to 67"
 
Well....you said you already had this:

1672945059348.png

So then 1103 or 1104ish IBC will give you some general exceptions to not be accessible.....To lay out everywhere a turning circle is required is not going to happen in short order....
 
IBC Section 1102.1 requires compliance with ANSI A117.1 (the 2017 edition).

ANSI A117.1, Section 304.3.1 has the requirements for circular turning spaces, and Section 304.3.1.1 states that it must be 67 inches in diameter. Section 304.3.1.1.1 covers acceptable overlaps. Section 304.3.1.2 allows the 60-inch diameter turning space in existing buildings.
 
IBC Section 1102.1 requires compliance with ANSI A117.1 (the 2017 edition).

ANSI A117.1, Section 304.3.1 has the requirements for circular turning spaces, and Section 304.3.1.1 states that it must be 67 inches in diameter. Section 304.3.1.1.1 covers acceptable overlaps. Section 304.3.1.2 allows the 60-inch diameter turning space in existing buildings.
It's not often that I'm happy to be practicing this profession in California, but I'm so glad our state never adopted IBC 1102.1, and we are sticking with the 60" turning circle / 60" T-turn, which is perfectly acceptable in 2010 ADAS.
67" is ridiculous, as it is based on outmoded mobility devices. (Yes, I know we've beat this horse to death in previous threads.)
 
(Yes, I know we've beat this horse to death in previous threads.)
I've not seen the previous threads on this but am on the A117.1 committee (actually in a meeting at this moment) and accept the reasoning that powered chairs and scooters have larger turning radius than the typical manual wheelchair. Your experience says that powered chairs and scooters are outmoded?
 
I've not seen the previous threads on this but am on the A117.1 committee (actually in a meeting at this moment) and accept the reasoning that powered chairs and scooters have larger turning radius than the typical manual wheelchair. Your experience says that powered chairs and scooters are outmoded?

The steering technology is outmoded and steering could and should be done much more efficiently. See the commentary starting on MS-Word page 6 from ICC on this subject at:
http://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/asc_a117/C03.doc

Excerpts:
"In examining what design features were driving the space to be so large it became apparent that lack of differential steering in scooters and some power chairs was a major factor. Differential steering, as found in manual wheelchairs and center wheel power wheelchairs, is the ability to drive one drive wheel forward while the other goes backward. Where both wheels are driven by a common motor or direct drive transmission both wheels must go in the same direction, hence the turning radia are much larger.​
...This observation raises the question – should the built environment be changed to accommodate poorly designed wmds [wheelchair mobility devices] or ought those choosing poorly designed wmds be informed that their vehicle may not be well accommodated? The analogy is the parking lot at the grocery store. If you choose to drive a stretch limo, RV, bus, or other vehicle that is bigger than a typical parking space you are welcome to shop, but don't expect a parking space near the entry. Ultimately this is a political and not a technical question.
...The Committee recognized that increasing the base dimensions of the circular turning space and the clear floor space have space and therefore cost implications throughout a building design and the design of site features, Specifically mentioned during the debate were dwelling units, kitchens and single occupant toilet/bathrooms."​

Since it's a political and not technical question, then my political opinion is that scooters, etc. without differential steering are outmoded and we should not be designing the built environment around inefficient technology, any more that we should provide turning space for a golf cart or a horse inside a restroom.
 
The steering technology is outmoded and steering could and should be done much more efficiently. See the commentary starting on MS-Word page 6 from ICC on this subject at:
http://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/asc_a117/C03.doc

Excerpts:
"In examining what design features were driving the space to be so large it became apparent that lack of differential steering in scooters and some power chairs was a major factor. Differential steering, as found in manual wheelchairs and center wheel power wheelchairs, is the ability to drive one drive wheel forward while the other goes backward. Where both wheels are driven by a common motor or direct drive transmission both wheels must go in the same direction, hence the turning radia are much larger.​
...This observation raises the question – should the built environment be changed to accommodate poorly designed wmds [wheelchair mobility devices] or ought those choosing poorly designed wmds be informed that their vehicle may not be well accommodated? The analogy is the parking lot at the grocery store. If you choose to drive a stretch limo, RV, bus, or other vehicle that is bigger than a typical parking space you are welcome to shop, but don't expect a parking space near the entry. Ultimately this is a political and not a technical question.
...The Committee recognized that increasing the base dimensions of the circular turning space and the clear floor space have space and therefore cost implications throughout a building design and the design of site features, Specifically mentioned during the debate were dwelling units, kitchens and single occupant toilet/bathrooms."​

Since it's a political and not technical question, then my political opinion is that scooters, etc. without differential steering are outmoded and we should not be designing the built environment around inefficient technology, any more that we should provide turning space for a golf cart or a horse inside a restroom.
I don't believe it was the committees opinion that it was "political and not technical", and in any case passed it. I suspect disenfranchising people who have those devices was a factor. I have not driven either so don't know pros and cons, but people on the committee have. In any case, I was not active on the committee in that cycle.

I suggest joining the committee and/or participate as a guest, submitting proposals, and/or submitting comments.
 
I suggest joining the committee and/or participate as a guest, submitting proposals, and/or submitting comments.
Thanks. At this point, with most of my practice based in California, I will probably stick to our own CBC 11B rather than ANSI 117.1 development.

Also, I've previously made proposals with IBC on stuff that I consider reasonable (for example, removing asbestos as an allowable material in IBC Table 721.1.(3) footnote m(a)), and got no response whatsoever, so perhaps I'm becoming a bit jaded at this point.
 
Thanks. At this point, with most of my practice based in California, I will probably stick to our own CBC 11B rather than ANSI 117.1 development.

Also, I've previously made proposals with IBC on stuff that I consider reasonable (for example, removing asbestos as an allowable material in IBC Table 721.1.(3) footnote m(a)), and got no response whatsoever, so perhaps I'm becoming a bit jaded at this point.
If you put in a proposal there should be an official committee response if they didn't say yes.
 
Just thinking about this.....did they increase ramp landings or for some reason the 60" there is not an issue to navigate?
I haven't seen anything about ramp landings changing. I think the 60" there is not about turning, as the width is based on ramp size, so I assume it stays same. But I am fumbling a bit on the ramifications as well.
 
I have just become aware of the transition to a larger turning circle for mobility devices. I see general diagram and reference to ICC A117.1, but that does not seem to be an actual code designation. Can someone point e to the exact code area in the IBC 2021 or the NFPA 101 that details this turning circle. I am interested also in opinions on impact on accessible restroom stalls and ramp landings as well.
The newer ANSI A117 IBC code now has the 67-inch turning space which is supposed to address the power chair - scooter turning space. please go to this like or see file attached. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/icca117-12017/chapter-3-building-blocks#ICCA117.12017_Ch03_Sec304. Currently, the ADA nor FHAG do not require this size turning space.
 
The 67" is just one of the more enhanced maneuvering clearances required in the 2017 ANSI A117. Door and fixture maneuvering clearances have also changed. I would suggest my colleague's take the time to read the entire 2017 ANSI A117 to become familiar with all the changes. Having worked under all the Editions since the 1986 Edition, I would just file away in my mind the few changes with each Edition, this is not the case with the 2017 Edition and hence my recommendation to bring us all up to date.
Ken
 
Top