# City Sidewalk/Ramp Project



## Chad Pasquini (Apr 22, 2016)

All, we are in the process of completing a sidwalk/ramp project (City Engineering Department) designed stairs with 11 inch run, contractor built at 14.5 inches, with the added 3.5 inches the handrail protrudes that much more in the direction of travel. California Building Code Section 11B505.10.3 Bottom Extension is 12 inches plus width of tread = 26.5 inches. With the added 3.5 inches, the handrail extends almost 8 inches past corner. Question, with the minimum requirement for tread depth being 11 inches, could i use that instead of 14.5 inches?, i know the code does not have an exception for stairs for extension to turn 90 degrees. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks

View attachment 2205


View attachment 2205


/monthly_2016_04/JACOBY_STOREHOUSE_FEBRUARY_2016_2.png.6b6fd63317a0aac6d1bd29812ca1cb36.png


----------



## RLGA (Apr 22, 2016)

My opinion: have the contractor redo the steps at the designed tread depth. The contractor was given the drawings and failed to follow them.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 23, 2016)

No exception based on your post for CBC 11B=505.10.3

Bottom Extension is 12 inches plus width of tread = 26.5 inches. No exception

CBC 11B-505.10 does have an exception for stairs for extension to turn 90 degrees IF this is an Alteration Not new construction


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Apr 24, 2016)

Why did the contractor make them 14.5? Does the math not work for 11"?

Brent


----------



## Chad Pasquini (Apr 25, 2016)

Brent, i think mostly for comfortability, yea Mark i informed our engineering department right after posting. It is going to work fine, i just am not a fan of rails sticking out like that.


----------



## ADAguy (Apr 25, 2016)

Chad, what is your departments construction observation/inspection procedure?

Who inspected the forms prior to pour? Was an authorization to pour required?


----------



## mark handler (Apr 25, 2016)

> Brent' date=' i think mostly for comfortability, yea Mark i informed our engineering department right after posting. It is going to work fine, i just am not a fan of rails sticking out like that. [/quote']They must have cane detection so people don't walk into the return loop.


----------



## ICE (Apr 25, 2016)

They should hire the homeless to warn impaired pedestrians of the danger.  If they make it through the maze around the corner a little handrail extension should be easy.  The guy in the wheelchair looks menacing...to the guy with the cane.





Am I missing something here or shouldn't that be a ramp.





The only way to always achieve the correct height above the walking surface is to extend the distance of the tread depth following the same plane as the handrail.


----------



## ICE (Apr 25, 2016)

> *Brent' date=' i think mostly for comfortability[/b'], yea Mark i informed our engineering department right after posting. It is going to work fine, i just am not a fan of rails sticking out like that. *


*14.5" treads are as uncomfortable as it gets. What is the riser?*

*But hey now....I seldom do commercial or right of way....so don't pay any attention to me.*


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Apr 25, 2016)

Chad, can you please post the correct rendition?

I'm pretty sure that's a Navy SEALs obstacle course.

Brent.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 26, 2016)

The picture ICE posted is not consistent with the code language. The italicized portion has 3 options that do not include a horizontal extension


----------



## ICE (Apr 26, 2016)

> The picture ICE posted is not consistent with the code language. The italicized portion has 3 options that do not include a horizontal extension


It came from my digital copy of the CBC.  I will check it against the office copy.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 26, 2016)

> The picture ICE posted is not consistent with the code language. The italicized portion has 3 options that do not include a horizontal extension


It is consistent with the CALIFORNIA building code.

California has it's own aaccessibility codes, not IBC OR ANSI 117


----------



## Chad Pasquini (Apr 26, 2016)

Thanks all, Ice, the ramp is towards the street, the three steps or closest to the building. Compared to what was existing, this is totally awesome. The large building on the corner is constructed of stone, yes stone. It went through a seismic upgrade in the late 80's or early 90's. ADA, our engineering teck missed it, funny because i helped him with all code provisions and he was on it, but so used to the project as he designed it, did not even think about checking tread depth.


----------



## Chad Pasquini (Apr 26, 2016)

Massdriver, that is the correct rendetion(lol), our engineering department can get carried away sometimes, hey the public likes pictures


----------



## Chad Pasquini (Apr 26, 2016)

Mark, in front of bicycle racks there is cane detection the full width of sidewalk.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 26, 2016)

I see  now

Ice posted a stair section

Chad is referencing a ramp which handrail extensions are required at the top and bottom

Stairs do not require horizontal hand rail extensions at the bottom under what ICE posted if they are continuous to an adjacent handrail *or * shall return to the wall, guard or walking surface.

Similar language in the IBC.


----------



## Chad Pasquini (Apr 27, 2016)

mtlogcabin, i was actually talking about the bottom extension at stairs 12 inches plus width of tread, it is hard to see but the stairs are next to the building, you cannot turn the handrail unless it is a swithback so it has to go in the direction of travel, the top and bottom extensions at the ramp are not as invasive as the picture depicts. Now the bottom rail at stairs against the wall will stick out about 8.5 inches because of the 14.5 tread width, would have been 5 inches had they treads been built to plans @ 11 inches.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 27, 2016)

> mtlogcabin, i was actually talking about the bottom extension at stairs 12 inches plus width of tread


The code that ICE provided does not say the tread width plus 12 inch horizontal extensions it says

"handrails shall extend at the slope of the stair flight for a horizontal distance equal to one tread depth beyond the last riser nosing"

That is the extension requirement in your case it is 14.5 inches. Now you have 3 options

Return it to the adjacent wall or

Return it to the walking surface or

Add a 12 horizontal extension

The 12" horizontal extension is an option for not returning to a wall or walking surface. It is not a requirement unless a return is not possible or desired


----------



## Chad Pasquini (Apr 27, 2016)

Great mtlogcabin, just what i need, to research so more, i had it, but after reading your post i did not have it, i still think i have it but now i dont know what i dont know, but that section does say after you get past the sloping part of the horizontal extension for a tread width, it states at the bottom of a stair flight the horizontal extension Shall be 12 inches long minimum and a height equal to that of the sloping portion of the handrail as measured above stair nosing. Now my head hurts.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 27, 2016)

View attachment 2207


This is the correct language from the CBC 2015 edition. Mark Handler was correct. There are no exceptions or alternatives.Make the contractor tear it out and do it as designed 
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 2207


/monthly_2016_04/CBC11b.JPG.6331432a6397efdf9d02f10be954cf19.JPG


----------

