# Drinking Fountain protruding?



## darcar (Nov 30, 2010)

Attached is a portion of a plan submitted. The drinking fountain is between 2 bathrooms and projects >4".ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 307.1, Protruding Objects reads  "protruding objects on CIRCULAR PATHS shall comply with section 307". The IBC defines circular path as "An exterior or intwerior way of passage from one place to another for pedestrians". Our plan reviewer does not see this area as part of the circulation path, thus allowing the drinking fountain to protrude as it does.What are your opinions of this?I think it IS part of the path and the fountains should be sunk into the wall or walls built around them.

View attachment 1448


View attachment 1448


/monthly_2010_11/572953df7b818_drinkingfountain.jpg.cc443c0d2f0ab010eceaf97ca1bdabdc.jpg


----------



## pyrguy (Nov 30, 2010)

I used to see this all the time in Georgia. BUT, Georgia has it's own accessibility code. Didn't have anything to do with a current ANSI A117.1.

As long as both toilet rooms have the required approaches, etc, etc.  Maybe??

I'll have to check my ANSI copy tomorrow.


----------



## Yikes (Nov 30, 2010)

If this were in California, you'd need 5' clear in front of each door.  Assuming you have this 5', then the remaining issues have to do with general wall protrusions >4".  For the safety of those with visual impairments who utilize a cane to detect obstructions, you would have to either:

1.  Install wing walls on either side of the pair of fountains, or

2.  Install protective railing on either side of the pair of fountains.

As a fix, move the closest urinal rightward, and carve some space out of that plumbing chase to make a drinking fountain recess.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 30, 2010)

If the required clear floor area is provided at each door for the approach, then there is no protrusion.

On the other hand, if the Men's room has mirrors over the sinks, the sight lines are so lousy that you should make them reconfigure the doors for their own good.

Finally, I would verify the configuration on the architectural floor plan not the electrical plan because the background may be out of date.


----------



## High Desert (Nov 30, 2010)

How do they provide the maneuvering clearances at the doors? Looks to me like the drinking fountains obstruct the clearances. See ICC/ANSI Figure 404.2.3.1


----------



## darcar (Dec 1, 2010)

The fountain does not get into the 60" req'd clearance for the door but thats not what the code reads. It addresses "circulation path". AGAIN...The IBC defines circulation path as "An exterior or interior way of passage from one place to another for pedestrians".

My question is: how is a blind person to know that fountain is there if they get off path to the restrooms? The answer is: some type of barrier or wall < 27" from floor for the cane.

This seems very clear to me.


----------



## georgia plans exam (Dec 1, 2010)

We have that exact configuration in the office building where I work. It's ok though. The Georgia Accessibility Code allows protrusions to exceed 4" if the leading edge of the object is at or below 27" above the finished floor. I'm pretty sure other codes are similar. Most drinking fountains I have seen would qualify.

GPE


----------



## darcar (Dec 1, 2010)

Thats correct gpe... we are going to mandate they install some type of indicator along side the fountains that are above the 27" mark


----------



## TJacobs (Dec 1, 2010)

You can add a shroud to the high side for cane detection.


----------



## bldginsp (Dec 1, 2010)

While were on the topic of drinking fountains, does everyone require a high and low fountain or can they get by with a low fountain with a cup dispenser as an alternate for the high fountain?


----------



## Yikes (Dec 1, 2010)

To address your specific question relative to the IBC:

 - assuming the floor area under the drinking fountains is not required exit width / path-of-travel, and

 - assuming the floor area is also not required for "clear landing" space in front of the doors,

then it is not REQUIRED circulation space.

The question then becomes, how do you remove it from consideration as part of an adjacent circulation path?

Answer: shrouds, walls, etc. per darcar's post #6 above.

bldginsp: Once you have provided a drinking fountain, I don't think you have any option except to do high/low (2 fountains).

The only alternative is if/when the plumbing code allows you you do a water station in lieu of _any_ drinking fountain at all.

(Brudgers will disagree that this is allowed - you can read about that on other forum threads.  I won't re-hash that question here.)


----------



## bldginsp (Dec 1, 2010)

Yikes, IBC 1109.5.1 Exception?


----------



## FredK (Dec 1, 2010)

Off hand I say it's ok.  Try a side approach to the doors and one only needs 48 inch if one goes by the ADA Fig. 25 Maneuvering Clearances at Doors.


----------



## Examiner (Dec 2, 2010)

They make a cane detection apron (shroud) for that style of drinking fountain that can be installed on the higher unit.  I tell our Mech Engineer to spec the apron on all higher drinking fountains of that style we use when they are not in an alcove.  However, even in an alcove we have been using the cane detection apron for possible front approach by the blind.

ADA I have been told does not like the use of cups.  No one keeps the cup holder full and when there is no cup for those who have trouble bending and stooping then you have issues.  It is best to just put two drinking fountains in, one low and one high.


----------



## Yikes (Dec 2, 2010)

bldginsp:  sorry, my previous comment was too California-centric.  I suppose the IBC does allow that exception.

Having said that - ADA is about equivalent facilitation.  When the cups run out, you risk exposure to claims.

when the cups don't run out, there is still a potential perception of inequity between those who can  vs. can't bend down to use the fountain.

If you had water station only (no fountain) and the cups ran out, you would be in a code violation, but you would still have equal (non)facilitation.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Dec 2, 2010)

The drinking fountain is not in a circulation path.  Although the idea of installing a skirt on the bottom of the high fountain is a good idea.  It  brings the lower edge to 27 inches AFF.

A cup dispenser is OK for retrofit in facilities built prior to 1992.  After that, there should be two drinking fountains.  However, the single low fountain with a dispenser could be acceptable if it was maintained properly.  After March 2012, the new ADAAG will mandate the second DF.  So plan on it.

Happy Holidays everyone!


----------



## Architect1281 (Dec 3, 2010)

for those of us who would leave the mens room and go straight to the womens room it could be an issue I suppose

If manuvering clearance to doors complies with (fig) 404.2.3.1 and the beyond 4" projection protection of 307 are met it could be OK


----------



## darcar (Dec 6, 2010)

again... you gguys are approching this situation as a sighted person. Come out or go to each restroom with limited sight and lets hope your cane hits the fountain before you knee does.

The contractor has agreed to install an indicator


----------



## brudgers (Dec 6, 2010)

darcar said:
			
		

> again... you gguys are approching this situation as a sighted person. Come out or go to each restroom with limited sight and lets hope your cane hits the fountain before you knee does.The contractor has agreed to install an indicator


Sighted or not, I'm basing my opinion on the language in the code not a hypothetical.

'The contractor has agreed to...' is evidence that the code official is bullying the contractor into kissing the ring.


----------



## Yikes (Dec 6, 2010)

Back in my college days, the largest bar in town had a restroom entry alcove similar to this, except no drinking fountain.  On his twenty-first birthday, my drunk roommate staggered out the men's room door, tripped and fell through the (in-swinging) women's room door, sliding on his back across the tile floor and underneath the nearest toilet stall partition. His head came to a stop at the feet of the woman using said toilet, and he apparently had the presence of mind to look up and wave hello to her.

Looking back, I can't help but think that running his into a strategically placed drinking fountain would've been a preferable outcome for all involved...


----------



## Examiner (Dec 6, 2010)

So, what is the indicator to be.  If it goes to the floor do you have the clearance for forward approach?  The cane detection apron works on front and side approach.


----------



## darcar (Dec 6, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Sighted or not, I'm basing my opinion on the language in the code not a hypothetical.'The contractor has agreed to...' is evidence that the code official is bullying the contractor into kissing the ring.


once again your opinion is wrong...

There is no bullying going on here... there has been discussion with contractor, designer, and inspectors and we ALL agreed this was necessary.

You dont know me so lump me in with some authority flexing inspector that youve had issue with in the past.  I thought this was a forum of discussion and interpretation...

issues!!!

Also, the indicator will not protrude into the req'd clearance space.


----------



## darcar (Dec 6, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if the Men's room has mirrors over the sinks, the sight lines are so lousy that you should make them reconfigure the doors for their own good.


This coming from the guy acussing ME of bullying?!? Now you suggest I should MAKE them reconfigure the doors because they don't meet your standard of design eh?...

I'll make sure I call the Chef and let him know the meal tastes like dog food...


----------



## brudgers (Dec 6, 2010)

darcar said:
			
		

> . there has been discussion with contractor, designer, and inspectors and we ALL agreed this was necessary


...in order to get a CO.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 6, 2010)

darcar said:
			
		

> This coming from the guy acussing ME of bullying?!? Now you suggest I should MAKE them reconfigure the doors because they don't meet your standard of design eh?...I'll make sure I call the Chef and let him know the meal tastes like dog food...


Knowing where this was going to wind up [since the CO was being held hostage] I hoped that just maybe your bullying could at least achieve something productive.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 7, 2010)

yikes,

Your roomie should have asked if she had any TP (toilet paper), that would be an acceptable request!

Better than that "Did you see that game last night, man Brady sure can chuck it!"

or your tables ready!

Wave Hello?

pc1


----------



## darcar (Dec 7, 2010)

they are still at the rough in stage...

give opinions after you have more facts JA !!!

got off subject but I guess it just shows that code is not strictly black and white...

Its nice to be able to hide behind your keyboard and fabricate acusations isnt it?...


----------



## brudgers (Dec 7, 2010)

darcar said:
			
		

> they are still at the rough in stage...give opinions after you have more facts JA !!!
> 
> got off subject but I guess it just shows that code is not strictly black and white...
> 
> Its nice to be able to hide behind your keyboard and fabricate acusations isnt it?...


Experienced contractors have seen kiss the ring before...what do you think the odds are that they would have agreed to do it after the CO was issued?

Here's an experiment to see the effect of holding the permit hostage, walk around your jurisdiction and ask occupied businesses to erect screens around their drinking fountains where similar conditions occur.


----------



## darcar (Dec 7, 2010)

we're not in the business of enforcing issues on businesses where work is not being performed... unless you give me the adress to your place of work


----------



## brudgers (Dec 7, 2010)

darcar said:
			
		

> we're not in the business of enforcing issues on businesses where work is not being performed... unless you give me the adress to your place of work


Kissing of the ring is always a case of "enforcing issues" rather than codes.


----------



## Architect1281 (Dec 7, 2010)

but this figure shows the man with the cane

and the beyond 4" projection protection of 307 are met it could be OK


----------



## darcar (Dec 7, 2010)

Yes sir, you are exactly right... what was I thinking?...


----------



## Jim B (Dec 28, 2010)

As per the IBC 2009, 1003.3.3: protrusions of greater than 4" above ANY WALKING SURFACE, between 27" to 80" AFF are not permitted

As per ANSI A117.1-2003; 602.2 and 306 there is a required a front approach with knee and toe clearance to a water foutain.

The knee clearance for an accessible water foutain shall be 27" AFF or greater

A prtoutsion hazrad is greater than or equal to 27" AFF

If the water foutain was less than 27" (26.99999999999"), it would not comply for a front approach

If the water foutain was greater than 27" (27.0000000001"), it would be a protrusion hazard

There is no margin of error. Water foutains need wing walls or need to be recessed into an alcove


----------



## Gene Boecker (Dec 28, 2010)

Jim B said:
			
		

> There is no margin of error. Water foutains need wing walls or need to be recessed into an alcove


No so.  Construction tolerances are accepted in both the ADA and the A117.1.  According to the explanatory text for the new standards:

*Dimensions. *Section 104.1 of the 2010 Standards notes that dimensions not stated as a "maximum" or "minimum" are absolute. Section 104.1.1 of the 2010 Standards provides that all dimensions are subject to conventional industry tolerances except where the requirement is stated as a range with specific minimum and maximum end points. 



The absolute dimensions are only applicable when there are two numbers in a range.  Where the term "maximum" or "minimum" is used alone, there are construction tolerances allowed.  What becomes reasonable is subjective.  There have been papers written by some of the people on the Access Board relative to their opinion on what is reasonable and it depends on what's being measured.  A maximum 1/2 inch vertical rise on a threshold could be a 1/16 higher and be within construction tolerances.  That would be acceptable.  a larger tolerance is acceptable when measuring the width of a parking space or access aisle.  It is often seen that one parking space may be a bit smaller than the magic number but the next one is larger.  That's construction tolerance.  This isn't my opinion.  I've spoken with a number of folks at the Access Board as well and its fully supported.

Therefore, setting the bottom at 27 inches and having it be within construction tolerances is acceptable and supported by the federal commentary text noted above.


----------



## Jim B (Dec 29, 2010)

Here in PA, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry feels that construction tolerance is not defined in ANSI A117.1-2003 or in the IBC 2009. Without definition there is no allowance according to PA L&I

Also, construction tolerance is for installation, not design. The design is absolute, and with absolute, water fountains are a protrusion hazard.

The enforcement in PA is to these standards and not the American with Disabilities Act. The feeling is also that commentary is not code.

Also, in unofficial interpretation from the ICC, water fountains should be can propose a protrusion hazard without barriers.

This is not to say, on my part, that common sense should apply, BUT PA L&I is ultimately my boss.


----------



## Jim B (Dec 29, 2010)

I retraced a portion of my previous post:

Design IS absolute, so 27” in design to the bottom apron of the fountain would NOT require barriers


----------



## Big Mac (Jan 13, 2011)

What if they had the same configuration without the doors?  Would that change anyones take on this?


----------



## jar546 (Jan 13, 2011)

Would not matter to me if the doors were not there or not, still a protrusion and still needs to be in an alcove.  Easy fix, had this done several times last year after plan review.


----------



## Codegeek (Sep 6, 2011)

So, in the photo posted here, what are the dimensions required to keep this drinking fountain from being a protruding object?  The code says a minimum of 27 inches for knee clearance.  So if the bottom of the leading edge is greater than 27 inches, now is the fountain a protruding object?

View attachment 477


View attachment 477


/monthly_2011_09/dimensions.jpg.0f8ec74d67b4359c2bec6cf472490e8f.jpg


----------



## mark handler (Sep 6, 2011)

People who are blind or who have low vision can be seriously injured when they are unable to detect an object in their path by using the sweep of their cane.


----------



## Codegeek (Sep 6, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> People who are blind or who have low vision can be seriously injured when they are unable to detect an object in their path by using the sweep of their cane.


Mark, that's my concern.  I'm beginning to understand now why some statewide codes require drinking fountains to be in alcoves.  We're having a discussion internally with some seeing the drinking fountain itself as a protruding object regardless of the height with others seeing that it is not if the leading edge is at the 27 inch height.

Your thoughts?


----------



## mark handler (Sep 6, 2011)

People who are blind or who have low vision can be seriously injured when they are unable to detect an object in their path by using the sweep of their cane.






ICC/ANSI A117.1

http://publicecodes.citation.com/icc/ansi/2003cc/a117p1/icc_ansi_2003cc_a117p1_3_sec007.htm






CA building code


----------



## Codegeek (Sep 6, 2011)

Perfect, thank you Mark!


----------



## mark handler (Sep 6, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> Mark, that's my concern.  I'm beginning to understand now why some statewide codes require drinking fountains to be in alcoves.  We're having a discussion internally with some seeing the drinking fountain itself as a protruding object regardless of the height with others seeing that it is not if the leading edge is at the 27 inch height.  Your thoughts?


It is a protruding object per ADA, ANSI-117, the Fair housing design manual,, and many state codes


----------



## steveray (Sep 6, 2011)

Mark....I have been wrestling with cantilevered countertops recently......any input?  Same requirements? Hate to be the only one looking at and enforcing this stuff....


----------



## mark handler (Sep 6, 2011)

Same requirements!

Unless there are permanate seats or step, detectable by a cane.


----------



## darcar (Sep 7, 2011)

Great illustrations! These are handy...Mark!

Thanks again


----------



## Codegeek (Sep 27, 2011)

If you put the drinking fountains in an alcove or provide a wing wall, would the skirt still be required for the "hi" unit?  I'm inclined to say no as the fountain is no longer a protruding object with the wing wall protection, but I'm curious as to what others think.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 27, 2011)

Yes, the fountain is no longer a protruding object with a wing wall.

If the fountain does not protrude more than 4" beyond the wing wall.


----------

