Top of Ramp compliance

[tbz]

Okay,

Just for the record we are being asked to install handrails on this recently constructed ramp and stairs, we did not do any of the work currently shown in the picture below, we were called in and this is what I was presented with.

So here is my question: Were I am standing and taking the picture is were the 60" diameter circle is for turning a wheel chair, the turning area is not at the top of the ramp as you can see. Also the required handrail extensions will stick out in to the walking surface and for reasons unknown to me not wrapped and are being requested to project the full 12 inches, thus just over 7" more past the end baluster from the stair riser.

By the way the curbing is exactly 36" between them on the ramp and exactly 42" between the guard.

IS this top of ramp compliant IYO?

Please explain

Thanks for all input

 

[mark handler]

What code/standard?

ADA?

ANSI 117?

IBC?

 

[tbz]

MArk,

Sorry should have noted.

This is a three year long project, so previous ADA not 2010, it is in NYC, thus I believe they have a 2008 ADA based on 2003 ANSI A117.1 and lets say 2006 IBC.

 

[JBI]

NYC? Let's NOT say 2006 IBC. NYC didn't adopt the 2006 IBC (certainly not unmodified if at all). What does NYC Code say about it? Three year project, but what is the age of the building? The slope of the ramp looks a bit steep as well (although I do see the level area about mid-way down). If this was an existing building some concessions may have been made with regard to the ramp, and may have addressed the issues you are asking about. What does the AHJ say about it? The DPR?

Or, in the words of Gunny Highway... "It's a cluster f#ck, Sir!"

 

[mark handler]

It does not meet the ADAAG 2002, The landing length shall be a minimum of 60 in clear. Top and Bottom

But it could meet the 2003 ANSI A117.1

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

And

2003 ANSI A117.1

505.10 Handrail Extensions. Handrails shall extend beyond and in the same direction of stair flights and ramp runs in accordance with Section 505.10.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. Continuous handrails at the inside turn of stairs and ramps.

You might define this condition as an inside turn.

So yes it can comply with2003 ANSI A117.1.

Side note:

you only need a 12" extention at the top of stairs, and I think you have that, without the blue extention.....

 

[Francis Vineyard]

It appears the route continues straight beyond the 60 inches before there is a need for the change of direction, this looks okay. But the handrails at the top and bottom of the ramp should extend 12 inches.

Mark H that is a keen observation about the ramp landing overlaps the stair landing for the handrail exception.

Try to catch Gunny Highway when he’s reading the Women’s mag and ask him nicely if this is NYC code.

.

405.5 Clear Width. The clear width of a ramp run shall be 36 inches (915 mm) minimum. Where handrails are provided on the ramp run, the clear width shall be measured between the handrails.

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

leading to the landing.

405.7.3 Length. Landings shall have a clear length of 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum.

505.10.1 Top and Bottom Extension at Ramps. Ramp handrails shall extend horizontally above the landing 12 inches (305 mm) minimum beyond the top and bottom of ramp runs. Extensions shall return to a wall, guard, or floor, or shall be continuous to the handrail of an adjacent ramp run.

 

[tbz]

JBI and others,

This is a totally new ramp installation and stair set, I wont even go in to the major CF's on this project, but upper ramp is spot on max pitch and the lower run is to steep, but that is another issue.

The handrails once installed wont be 36" clear width because they are lighted and with 1-1/2" clear leave 35-1/2" between guards.

The top of stair turn I suggested is not liked, and Mark, the back of the steel guard is currently at 7" to get the additional 5, plus material adds 6-5/8" in to the landing. My sketch might be over kill but a projection over 4.5"

Thanks for the input

 

[High Desert]

Can you get a "T-turn" to work in lieu of the 60" diameter?

 

[tbz]

Next question:

On the mid level landing between ramps the project has a gate cut in for access to the area between the building and the ramp.

The current design and location of the gate does not allow the handrail extension to terminate and thus extends in front of the gate for the lower ramp.

The RDP has the handrail being mounted on the gate and swinging open with the gate thus leaving gap when open and compromising the lower ramp handrail for compliance.

My first direction was to return the handrail on the gate midway so as to only have one extension with a blunt end when the gate was open, but the RDP is requesting it continue along the landing per a 2008ADA, requirement which must be a city requirement and open with the gate.

with further thought since it is only access to this small area I was going to request it not be cut and they could just shimmy under the handrail to go through the gate opening, what are your thoughts here?

Thanks

Tom

 

[mark handler]

505.3 Continuity. Handrails shall be continuous within the full length of each stair flight or ramp run. Inside handrails on switchback or dogleg stairs and ramps shall be continuous between flights or runs.

 

[tbz]

505.3 Continuity. Handrails shall be continuous within the full length of each stair flight or ramp run. Inside handrails on switchback or dogleg stairs and ramps shall be continuous between flights or runs.

Mark,

This is what the RDP wrote me,

We are using 2008 ADA. As for comment no. 2 below in addition to 505.3, 505.10.1 for Top and Bottom Extensions at Ramps states in the last sentence that, “Extensions shall be continuous with the handrail of an adjacent ramp run”. We interpret this as the intermediate landing between the two ramp runs as requiring a continuous handrail.A continuous rail is to be provided at the landing. You may leave a space that is required at each end for the section mounted on the gate to allow for proper closing.

I wrote back,

The conflict with your interpretation is that per the ADA requirements the gate access is not allowed to interfere with the required 12” extensions at the top and bottom of the ramp runs, your situation here is in non-compliance because the gate is the same as an intersecting hallway or door on the intermediate landing, thus the handrails are required to be in full compliance and terminate before the gate. They are not required to run across a walkway, door or gate nor are they allowed to. The mid landing should have continued level past the gate opening to allow for compliant handrail extensions before the start of the second descending ramp run. The mounting of a removable handrail is not allowed, thus if it is required to run across the gate opening it is also required to not be removable or separate with the swing of the gate, this is considered the removal and not allowed.

Am I wrong with my interp of the handrail conflict with the gate?

Tom