Toilet compartment door clearance vs handrail

[Yikes]

Fig 11B-604.8.1.1.12 shows a compartment clear width as 60" minim clear (I make it 60.5" for tolerance). But it shows this same clear width regardless of whether the door swings out or in.

On an in-swinging door as shown below, wouldn't the compartment need to be more like 63 or 63.5" in order for the door to have a full 60" clear from the wall-mounted grab bar where the 18" strike side clearance is required?

 

[tbz]

Yikes,

I have been working along with the A117 editorial committee on chapter 5, but sent this over and received a response from Brad G. over at TMG.

The answer to the question posed in the code forum in my opinion is no. 60” is only required for a forward approach to the door. The doors from this layout is a pull latch approach so only requires 48” for a standard stall door and 54” if the door has a closer perpendicular to the door as well as 24” strike side clearance. A compliant stall would never have an issue with the 48/54” perpendicular requirement but the 24” dimension is a possible issue depending on the door side wall location.



The CBC requirement is different than the ADAS/A117.1 requirements in that the doors cannot swing over the WC required clear floor space. As such, in CA the 24” should never be an issue with the minimum dimension from the end wall being 56” for a wall mounted WC. This would allow the front edge of the WC to be 32” from the rear wall which is either a very misplaced WC or a very long WC. We have never encountered these conditions in the field.



One other real issue, however, is an ADAS/A117.1 minimum size compartment at 56” with an in or out swinging door. The WC is always in the clear maneuvering space. See the following sketches. The question is… does the WC overlapping the required maneuvering space violate ADAS 604.8.1.2/A117.1 604.9.3 which requires the doors to comply with 404? If the WC cannot overlap the required maneuvering space this would require the compartment to always be bigger than the minimum.

 

[Yikes]

Yikes,

I have been working along with the A117 editorial committee on chapter 5, but sent this over and received a response from Brad G. over at TMG.


View attachment 15942View attachment 15941

Thanks, but I'm not sure that Brad at TMG addressed the specific question I asked. My question is NOT: Can the WC space overlap the door manuvering space?

My question is: for a compartment door that swings into an accessible compartment, can a grab bar intrude into the required 60" clear floor space for the compartment DOOR?

 

[JPohling]

First off I do not believe that is the correct diagram for the required maneuvering clearances. It should be latch approach pull side, but that does not factor into my answer. In both cases the grab bar complies with 11b-307.2 protrusion limits. less than 4" from +27" - +80". I say fully compliant

 

[arwat23]

My question is: for a compartment door that swings into an accessible compartment, can a grab bar intrude into the required 60" clear floor space for the compartment DOOR?

View attachment 15944

Imo, no.

 

[arwat23]

Imo, no.

To elaborate...
From the Access Board:
"The door maneuvering clearance can be offset up to 8″ from the face of the door. Elements, such as grab bars, that can fit within this offset are permitted so long as they do not protrude into the minimum maneuvering clearance."

 

[Yikes]

First off I do not believe that is the correct diagram for the required maneuvering clearances. It should be latch approach pull side, but that does not factor into my answer. In both cases the grab bar complies with 11b-307.2 protrusion limits. less than 4" from +27" - +80". I say fully compliant
View attachment 15945

The 11B-307.2 protrusion limits relate to the general path of travel. I was not aware that protrusions are allowed in door maneuvering clearances.

To elaborate...
From the Access Board:
"The door maneuvering clearance can be offset up to 8″ from the face of the door. Elements, such as grab bars, that can fit within this offset are permitted so long as they do not protrude into the minimum maneuvering clearance."

In my illustration in post #3 the grab bar is not creating a recess for the face of the door. It is on the opposite wall.

 

[arwat23]

In my illustration in post #3 the grab bar is not creating a recess for the face of the door. It is on the opposite wall.

Yes. A grab bar cannot "protrude into the minimum maneuvering clearance." The example access board provides isn't a one-to-one to your situation unfortunately. Imo, nothing can be within the door maneuvering clearance, other than, of course, the door.

 

[MtnArch]

To skew this slightly off-topic, we've had reviewers calling this out for appliances and equipment that may protrude into the door manuevering space as well.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

To skew this slightly off-topic, we've had reviewers calling this out for appliances and equipment that may protrude into the door manuevering space as well.

As they should.

Only an architect would design appliances and equipment within required approach clearances and think that might be acceptable. (And I say that as a licensed architect. What I see on a daily basis makes me ashamed to admit that I'm an architect.)

 

[Yikes]

Yes. A grab bar cannot "protrude into the minimum maneuvering clearance." The example access board provides isn't a one-to-one to your situation unfortunately. Imo, nothing can be within the door maneuvering clearance, other than, of course, the door.

Right, and it bugs me that the graphics of Fig. 11B-604.8.1.1.2 seems to imply that grab bar encroachment on the BACK wall into the 60" door space is acceptable. Yes, it says the 60" is "min.", and yes, the purpose of that illustration is only to describe WC clearances, not door clearances, but still...