• 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

Drinking Fountain protruding?

darcar

darcar

Silver Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
129
Attached is a portion of a plan submitted. The drinking fountain is between 2 bathrooms and projects >4".ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 307.1, Protruding Objects reads "protruding objects on CIRCULAR PATHS shall comply with section 307". The IBC defines circular path as "An exterior or intwerior way of passage from one place to another for pedestrians". Our plan reviewer does not see this area as part of the circulation path, thus allowing the drinking fountain to protrude as it does.What are your opinions of this?I think it IS part of the path and the fountains should be sunk into the wall or walls built around them.

View attachment 1448

View attachment 1448

/monthly_2010_11/572953df7b818_drinkingfountain.jpg.cc443c0d2f0ab010eceaf97ca1bdabdc.jpg
 
I used to see this all the time in Georgia. BUT, Georgia has it's own accessibility code. Didn't have anything to do with a current ANSI A117.1.

As long as both toilet rooms have the required approaches, etc, etc. Maybe??

I'll have to check my ANSI copy tomorrow.
 
If this were in California, you'd need 5' clear in front of each door. Assuming you have this 5', then the remaining issues have to do with general wall protrusions >4". For the safety of those with visual impairments who utilize a cane to detect obstructions, you would have to either:

1. Install wing walls on either side of the pair of fountains, or

2. Install protective railing on either side of the pair of fountains.

As a fix, move the closest urinal rightward, and carve some space out of that plumbing chase to make a drinking fountain recess.
 
If the required clear floor area is provided at each door for the approach, then there is no protrusion.

On the other hand, if the Men's room has mirrors over the sinks, the sight lines are so lousy that you should make them reconfigure the doors for their own good.

Finally, I would verify the configuration on the architectural floor plan not the electrical plan because the background may be out of date.
 
How do they provide the maneuvering clearances at the doors? Looks to me like the drinking fountains obstruct the clearances. See ICC/ANSI Figure 404.2.3.1
 
The fountain does not get into the 60" req'd clearance for the door but thats not what the code reads. It addresses "circulation path". AGAIN...The IBC defines circulation path as "An exterior or interior way of passage from one place to another for pedestrians".

My question is: how is a blind person to know that fountain is there if they get off path to the restrooms? The answer is: some type of barrier or wall < 27" from floor for the cane.

This seems very clear to me.
 
We have that exact configuration in the office building where I work. It's ok though. The Georgia Accessibility Code allows protrusions to exceed 4" if the leading edge of the object is at or below 27" above the finished floor. I'm pretty sure other codes are similar. Most drinking fountains I have seen would qualify.

GPE
 
Thats correct gpe... we are going to mandate they install some type of indicator along side the fountains that are above the 27" mark
 
While were on the topic of drinking fountains, does everyone require a high and low fountain or can they get by with a low fountain with a cup dispenser as an alternate for the high fountain?
 
To address your specific question relative to the IBC:

- assuming the floor area under the drinking fountains is not required exit width / path-of-travel, and

- assuming the floor area is also not required for "clear landing" space in front of the doors,

then it is not REQUIRED circulation space.

The question then becomes, how do you remove it from consideration as part of an adjacent circulation path?

Answer: shrouds, walls, etc. per darcar's post #6 above.

bldginsp: Once you have provided a drinking fountain, I don't think you have any option except to do high/low (2 fountains).

The only alternative is if/when the plumbing code allows you you do a water station in lieu of any drinking fountain at all.

(Brudgers will disagree that this is allowed - you can read about that on other forum threads. I won't re-hash that question here.)
 
Off hand I say it's ok. Try a side approach to the doors and one only needs 48 inch if one goes by the ADA Fig. 25 Maneuvering Clearances at Doors.
 
They make a cane detection apron (shroud) for that style of drinking fountain that can be installed on the higher unit. I tell our Mech Engineer to spec the apron on all higher drinking fountains of that style we use when they are not in an alcove. However, even in an alcove we have been using the cane detection apron for possible front approach by the blind.

ADA I have been told does not like the use of cups. No one keeps the cup holder full and when there is no cup for those who have trouble bending and stooping then you have issues. It is best to just put two drinking fountains in, one low and one high.
 
bldginsp: sorry, my previous comment was too California-centric. I suppose the IBC does allow that exception.

Having said that - ADA is about equivalent facilitation. When the cups run out, you risk exposure to claims.

when the cups don't run out, there is still a potential perception of inequity between those who can vs. can't bend down to use the fountain.

If you had water station only (no fountain) and the cups ran out, you would be in a code violation, but you would still have equal (non)facilitation.
 
The drinking fountain is not in a circulation path. Although the idea of installing a skirt on the bottom of the high fountain is a good idea. It brings the lower edge to 27 inches AFF.

A cup dispenser is OK for retrofit in facilities built prior to 1992. After that, there should be two drinking fountains. However, the single low fountain with a dispenser could be acceptable if it was maintained properly. After March 2012, the new ADAAG will mandate the second DF. So plan on it.

Happy Holidays everyone!
 
for those of us who would leave the mens room and go straight to the womens room it could be an issue I suppose

If manuvering clearance to doors complies with (fig) 404.2.3.1 and the beyond 4" projection protection of 307 are met it could be OK
 
again... you gguys are approching this situation as a sighted person. Come out or go to each restroom with limited sight and lets hope your cane hits the fountain before you knee does.

The contractor has agreed to install an indicator
 
darcar said:
again... you gguys are approching this situation as a sighted person. Come out or go to each restroom with limited sight and lets hope your cane hits the fountain before you knee does.The contractor has agreed to install an indicator
Click to expand...
Sighted or not, I'm basing my opinion on the language in the code not a hypothetical.

'The contractor has agreed to...' is evidence that the code official is bullying the contractor into kissing the ring.
 
Back in my college days, the largest bar in town had a restroom entry alcove similar to this, except no drinking fountain. On his twenty-first birthday, my drunk roommate staggered out the men's room door, tripped and fell through the (in-swinging) women's room door, sliding on his back across the tile floor and underneath the nearest toilet stall partition. His head came to a stop at the feet of the woman using said toilet, and he apparently had the presence of mind to look up and wave hello to her.

Looking back, I can't help but think that running his into a strategically placed drinking fountain would've been a preferable outcome for all involved...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, what is the indicator to be. If it goes to the floor do you have the clearance for forward approach? The cane detection apron works on front and side approach.
 
brudgers said:
Sighted or not, I'm basing my opinion on the language in the code not a hypothetical.'The contractor has agreed to...' is evidence that the code official is bullying the contractor into kissing the ring.
Click to expand...
once again your opinion is wrong...

There is no bullying going on here... there has been discussion with contractor, designer, and inspectors and we ALL agreed this was necessary.

You dont know me so lump me in with some authority flexing inspector that youve had issue with in the past. I thought this was a forum of discussion and interpretation...

issues!!!

Also, the indicator will not protrude into the req'd clearance space.
 
brudgers said:
On the other hand, if the Men's room has mirrors over the sinks, the sight lines are so lousy that you should make them reconfigure the doors for their own good.
Click to expand...
This coming from the guy acussing ME of bullying?!? Now you suggest I should MAKE them reconfigure the doors because they don't meet your standard of design eh?...

I'll make sure I call the Chef and let him know the meal tastes like dog food...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top