Stainless Steel Truncated Domes

[jar546]

I found these in Lithuania last week while on vacation. Most of the domes were built into the pavers that made up most sidewalks. Have you seen any like these in the US?

 

[Yikes]

I might’ e seen them at a transit station in the IS, u tcan’t put my finger on exactly which one.

 

[Jean Tessmer-HI]

I found these in Lithuania last week while on vacation. Most of the domes were built into the pavers that made up most sidewalks. Have you seen any like these in the US?
View attachment 14353

In the USA the truncated domes were never tested for safety. Someone tripped on one, pitched forward face first and crushed their skull in causing permanent disability. Doctor said it was as if she were hit with a ball peen hammer.

 

[jar546]

In the USA the truncated domes were never tested for safety. Someone tripped on one, pitched forward face first and crushed their skull in causing permanent disability. Doctor said it was as if she were hit with a ball peen hammer.

I am pretty confident the concrete her head hit would have done the same thing vs a plastic truncated dome.

 

[mark handler]

Detectable warning surfaces shall contrast visually with adjacent gutter, street or highway, or walkway surfaces, either light-on-dark or dark-on-light.

THE PHOTO ABOVE DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT

 

[steveray]

Detectable warning surfaces shall contrast visually with adjacent gutter, street or highway, or walkway surfaces, either light-on-dark or dark-on-light.

THE PHOTO ABOVE DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT

That is debatable....

 

[steveray]

Tough to tell if it meets this too:

406.5.7​

Curb ramps and the flared sides of curb ramps shall be located so they do not project into vehicular traffic lanes, parking spaces, or parking access aisles. Curb ramps at marked crossings shall be wholly contained within the markings, excluding any flared sides.

Looking at the far side it might...

 

[mark handler]

That is debatable....

Not by a person with neuropathy and visually impaired

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I'm sure everyone will be shocked to learn that the Access Board and the D.O.J. have changed their tune on this. The language of the original ADAAG (1994) was as follows:

4.29.2* Detectable Warnings on Walking Surfaces. Detectable warnings shall consist of raised
truncated domes with a diameter of nominal 0.9 in (23 mm), a height of nominal 0.2 in (5 mm) and a
center-to-center spacing of nominal 2.35 in (60 mm) and shall contrast visually with adjoining surfaces,
either light-on-dark, or dark-on-light.

As a native speaker of English, a published writer and a semi-professional editor, the language of this is crystal clear: the domes must contrast with the surrounding material. Of course, that was difficult for manufacturers to comply with, so they sold products in which the domes and the background were the same color, and the manufacturers universally claimed that their products complied with the ADA -- which they didn't. So the gummint, in its infinite wisdom, simply ignored the clear language of the regulation and allowed these non-conforming products to proliferate.

Fast forward to 2010, when the ADAAG was replaced by the ADAS, and they changed the language:

705 Detectable Warnings

705.1 General. Detectable warnings shall consist of a surface of truncated domes and shall comply with
705.

705.1.1 Dome Size. Truncated domes in a detectable warning surface shall have a base diameter
of 0.9 inch (23 mm) minimum and 1.4 inches (36 mm) maximum, a top diameter of 50 percent of the
base diameter minimum to 65 percent of the base diameter maximum, and a height of 0.2 inch (5.1
mm).

705.1.2 Dome Spacing. Truncated domes in a detectable warning surface shall have a center-tocenter
spacing of 1.6 inches (41 mm) minimum and 2.4 inches (61 mm) maximum, and a base-tobase
spacing of 0.65 inch (17 mm) minimum, measured between the most adjacent domes on a
square grid.

705.1.3 Contrast. Detectable warning surfaces shall contrast visually with adjacent walking
surfaces either light-on-dark, or dark-on-light.

What is now the regulation was not the original intent. What we have now is the result of the regulation caving in to accommodate the products that everyone was selling and installing.

 

[Paul Sweet]

I can't recall ever seeing detectable walking surfaces where the domes were a different color than the substrate. A 2003 Access Board publication on ADAAG Requirements for Detectable Warnings shows a detectable walking surface where the substrate & domes are the same color. I believe that the revised wording is in keeping with the original intent.

 

[Joe.B]

The latest code updates in CA specify yellow now. They still have the contrasting requirements, so it could put the onerous on the concrete mix to provide the contrast, but they provide an exception that you can add a boarder around the warnings.

11B-705.1.1.3.1 Detectable warning surfaces shall be yellow and approximate 33538 of SAE AMS-STD-595A.
11B-705.1.1.3.2 Detectable warning surfaces shall provide a 70 percent minimum visual contrast with adjacent walking surfaces. Contrast in percent shall be determined by:
Contrast percent = [(B1-B2)/B1] × 100 where
B1 = light reflectance value (LRV) of the lighter
area and
B2 = light reflectance value (LRV) of the darker area.
Exception: Where the detectable warning surface does not provide a 70 percent minimum contrast with adjacent walking surfaces, a 1-inch (25 mm wide minimum visually contrasting surface shall separate the detectable warning from adjacent walking surfaces. The visually contrasting surface shall contrast with both the detectable warning and adjacent walking surfaces, either light-on-dark or dark-on-light.