• 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

Handrail compliance with ramp run outs

tbz

tbz

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
1,250
Location
PA/NJ - Borderlands
Ok,

Have a client being asked to fabricated handrails for a bridge ramp between 2 buildings.

Project is in northern Florida

The building on the right side has the higher floor level, so the ramp descends down to the building on the left.

The blue lines are the top and bottom points of the ramp where it breaks.

So as you can see I circled in red the two points we believe is non-compliant.

If we are wrong please explain how

Our belief of compliance is that you need to be able to hold on to the handrails and then continue to walk straight for the minimum top and bottom landings, even though the handrails ended at the minimum required handrail extension requirement in that direction.

At both the top right side as ascending once at the landing you can't walk the minimum landing distance when using the handrail without running in to the wall at the top.

And you have the same issue at the bottom of the ramp you run into the wall before meeting the minimum landing requirement.

Thus the Fabricator refused to build the handrails as drawn, because they believe each of the handrails needs to be moved inward enough to allow the walk off on the landing to be at the minimum landing distance in the direction of travel without walking in to a wall.

I concur with the fabricator, but both of us are looking for information to either support our position of non-compliance or please explain how and why walking into a wall before meeting the minimum landing size for were the handrail tracks you when in use.

So What say you all? ;>) - Thank you in advance Regards Tom

RJCMF-13.jpg
 
What you have here as a couple of gore points to resolve; both require the user to make tight turns to transition to the level areas.
 
Landings are supposed to extend 60 inches in the direction of travel for the full width of the ramp (ANSI A117.1, Section 405.7.2 and 2010 ADA Standards Section 405.7.2).

I agree with you...not compliant.
 
why is the bridge as wide as it is? can it be made narrower, so the rails do not die into wall sections?
 
RECONFIGURE HANDRAILS
RELOCATE DOORS OUT OF LEVEL LANDING AREA
OR
ALTER RAMP SO THAT IT IS STEEPER (STILL COMPLIANT) BUT SHORTER, INCLUDING THE LANDINGS IN THE SPACE

IS THE SLOPING WALK A RAMP? OR A SLOPED WALK?


1603458135272.png
 
mark handler said:
RECONFIGURE HANDRAILS
RELOCATE DOORS OUT OF LEVEL LANDING AREA
OR
ALTER RAMP SO THAT IT IS STEEPER (STILL COMPLIANT) BUT SHORTER, INCLUDING THE LANDINGS IN THE SPACE

IS THE SLOPING WALK A RAMP? OR A SLOPED WALK?


View attachment 7090
Click to expand...
Mark:

That would be ideal, but since tbz mentioned a handrail fabricator, I would assume the project is in construction and that the majority of the structural work is complete; thus, slope and width probably cannot be modified at this stage of completeness.

Your landing areas appear to be a bit longer than 5 feet (I'm using the 2-foot dimension in the drawing as a reference), but the doors at the lower-left do appear to encroach into the landing area by around one foot at the upper area. The handrails will need to be pulled in on both sides. It will be a waste of space, obviously, but this should have been caught no later than plan review.
 
LOL.....I just like busting the designers.... they get 2 years with the plans and we get 30 days max by law....(from submission to review in CT)
 
RLGA said:
Mark:

That would be ideal, but since tbz mentioned a handrail fabricator, I would assume the project is in construction and that the majority of the structural work is complete; thus, slope and width probably cannot be modified at this stage of completeness.

Your landing areas appear to be a bit longer than 5 feet (I'm using the 2-foot dimension in the drawing as a reference), but the doors at the lower-left do appear to encroach into the landing area by around one foot at the upper area. The handrails will need to be pulled in on both sides. It will be a waste of space, obviously, but this should have been caught no later than plan review.
Click to expand...
Drawing not to scale
60 " , unless door swings into it....
 
Thanks everyone, the fabricator's position was to move the handrails inward to have the landings comply with the walkout. Obviously, on Monday mornings we can all pick a part the projects design, but this thing is sitting in the air waiting on handrails. Thus no redesign, option for the structure, just the handrail locations.

Just needed confirmation on our position that installing the handrails without the 60" direct walkout inline with the walking path of the handrail use would be an issue with compliance.

Enjoy the week.
 
steveray said:
LOL.....I just like busting the designers.... they get 2 years with the plans and we get 30 days max by law....(from submission to review in CT)
Click to expand...
Oftentimes, that's precisely WHY you are able to bust the designers: you are the "fresh set of eyes" that are not yet enamored with the plan.
At our architecture office, we are large enough that we can have someone in the office who was not involved in the project do a quality control in about 3-7 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top