A117.1 & ADA Sections 405.7.3 & 405.7.4

[tbz]

So, I have a few questions that have come up in discussions and some say one thing and others say another, but I am looking for how you all read into this.

• All questions about are 2017 A117.1 & the 2010 ADA
  • Context 1.) Sec. 405.7.3 Length
    • 2017 A117.1 reads: "Landings shall have a clear length of 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum.
    • 2010 ADA reads: " The landing clear length shall be 60 inches (1525) long minimum.
    • Both say roughly the same thing 60" landing length
  • Context 2.) Sec. 405.7.4 Change in Direction.
    • 2017 A117.1 reads: " Ramps that change direction between runs at landings shall have a clear landing 60 inches (1525 mm) by 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum. "
    • 2010 ADA reads: " Ramps that change direction between runs at landings shall have a clear landing 60 inches (1525 mm) by 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum. "
    • They both have the exact same text.
• Layout on the location:
  • Upper Ramp is 48-inches between the walls and descends down to a mid-landing that is 60-inches square, you then turn 90 degrees to the right at the mid landing, then descend down the Lower Ramp Which is also 48-inches between the walls.
  • 1st question: Compliant handrails are mounted to the walls and wrap around and are continuous over the mid-landing.
    • The handrail projects into the landing length & is exempt per protruding objects (yes/no)?
  • 2nd question: Now the ramps and landing are not flanked by walls, total rise less than 30 inches, but are open air in a room at the change in elevation, no guards required. The handrails are mounted with posts, have a curb stop on the lower portion and wrap around and are continuous over the mid-landing.
    • The post mounted handrail & curb stop is on the landing and is it now considered reducing the "CLEAR LANDING" length (yes/no)?
  • The 3rd question: Link question 2 the ramps and landing are not flanked by walls, however the upper ramp and outer back edge of the mid-landing are over 30 inches and require guards. again the room is open air. The handrails are mounted to the inside the guard system to the posts, the outer edge guard wraps around and is continuous over the mid-landing.
    • The post mounted guard system is on the landing and is it now considered reducing the "CLEAR LANDING" length (yes/no)?
• The simple question is what affects the term "Clear" to not being clear?

 

[Sifu]

2017 ANSI commentary identifies that the width of the ramp must be measured between the handrails, and that the landing must be the same size, but this is width. It gives no such explanatory language for length. In the absence of the language I would consider the protruding objects exception, however in the commentary it specifically states that the exception is for the run of the ramp only. Functionally, I think the 55 1/2" net width with the handrails still offers the required turning space under the handrails. Interesting.

405.7.2 Width. Clear width of landings shall be at least as
wide as the widest ramp run leading to the landing.

This provision simply assures that the landing is at
least as wide as any ramp that it serves and therefore
does not narrow or reduce the available route of
travel. If the ramp is wider than the minimum width
required by Section 405.5, the landing width must
also be increased even though the ramp is in excess
of the minimum required width. This provision does
not deal with the “required” width but is instead tied to
the actual width of the ramp that the landing serves.
The size of the overall landing may need to be
increased from that specified by this section if the
landing is being used for a change in the direction of
travel or where there is a door on the landing. See
Sections 405.7.4 and 405.7.5.

307.2
The exception for handrails is based on the fact
that handrails are typically installed on stairs and
ramps, and the level changes would help to provide
the user with an awareness of the handrail. The 41/2-
inch (115 mm) dimension coordinates with the projection
depth for handrails in the International Building
Code® (IBC®). Although this exceeds the normal
depth permitted for a protruding object, the limited
location and the fact that handrails must be mounted
within a height of 34 to 38 inches (864 to 965 mm)
above the walking surfaces make this situation
acceptable (see Section 505.4). This exception is limited
to the run of the stair or ramp. Handrail end projections
must be detectable.

 

[ADAguy]

nice response

 

[tbz]

Sifu, thanks for the reply,

Here is what the Access-Board.gov has published on their website under the technical guide. And from the reading of their guide on "clear Length", it covers that the 60-inch minimum area is not allowed any protruding objects over this stipulated minimum area on a turning mid-landing, including handrails. Yet many inspectors and plan reviewers don't flag it.
And I understand that the Local AHJ does not enforce ADA, but those that adopt A117.1 should be calling it, as it is the same wording, but how is it seen differently.

Quoted Text below linked and quoted from the ACCESS-Board.gov website.

"Intermediate landings between runs must be at least 60″ wide clear and 60″ long clear where ramps change direction (any change from linear). Handrails, edge protection, vertical posts and other elements cannot obstruct or overlap the minimum 60″ by 60″ clearance. The 12″ minimum handrail extensions required at the top and bottom of ramp runs must be in the same direction of the run, but they can turn or wrap where handrails are continuous at the inside turn of dogleg or switchback ramps."

Quick link to Webpage

 

[rktect 1]

Is there something in A117.1 that is not in the 2010 ADA?

 

[tbz]

Is there something in A117.1 that is not in the 2010 ADA?

Not really,

So, reason for my long-winded question is guess, why are the landings not being picked up in plan review for being under sized, or at least questioned with a note during plan review?

I don't work within a AHJ but I am the one that gets the calls when issues arise from the manufacturing end, so I am a little bias in that I never hear or see all the correctly done projects, I only get called when problems occur on the Fed/ADA/ABA side and they want to know why this was not picked up by the local AHJ during construction.

My simple answer is always, the local AHJ has no jurisdiction over ADA/ABA and as thus, they will never flag ADA compliance unless the state or local AHJ has adopted their own accessibility standard or code to enforce and or if the adopted building code has text that equals the requirements within the 2010 ADA.

But back to the main point of the question, with the same wording in section 405.7.4 of A117.1-xx also being in 2010 ADA, how does one interpret "clear length" differently, per say?

 

[rktect 1]

Well, clear length for the landing would be from the slope edge to the inside of the railing. But, then someone would have needed to pay attention to the details on the plans. As an architect, I was very heavily detail involved. I had issues when it came to making sure the carpet color matched the furniture being picked out.

 

[Blazer]

If the AHJ has adopted the IBC then they have to check/review for accessibility standards as it is clearly mentioned under Chapter 11. Section 1102 Compliance. (Using '18 as reference). The ICC codes are intended to meet or exceed the requirements in the federal accessibility requirement found in the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.