# Handrails and edge protection at walking surfaces not defined as a ramp



## Lynn (Aug 23, 2012)

I need a little help with this one.

Did a plans review on a small office building requireing a ramp (or so I thought) for accessibility into the buiding.

The architect provides a plan showing access being provided by a wood walkway with a slope not exceeding 1:20 and points out that walkways not exceeding a slope of 1:20 are not defined as ramps.

I had called for handrails and edge protection on his ramp, but section 405.8 and 405.9 are only applicable to ramps.

As a result, I have the top of the ramp and the landing at the entry door beng approximately 18" above grade.

I can't say I am comfortable with an 18" drop off without edge protection.

Concievably you could end up with a 30" drop off before the building code kicks in with a guardrail requirement.

Am I reading the code correctly to say that a handrail and edge protection is not required in this situation, or is there another section I have not found that addresses this concern?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 23, 2012)

It's not a ramp but still has to compy with the reqiurement for (A117.1 302) floor surfaces. Check the slope with a smart level.

Francis


----------



## mark handler (Aug 23, 2012)

What code or standard is it under?


----------



## Lynn (Aug 23, 2012)

Thanks Francis

I looked at section 302 but do not see any edge protection requirements.

Mark

We are governed under the 2003 ANSI A117.1 standards.


----------



## Inspector 102 (Aug 23, 2012)

As I read the ANSI standard, this would not meet the definition of a ramp and therefore would not need edge protection. The elevated surface of 18" would not require any guardrail. It sounds to me that poor design is being used here and opening someone up to litigation. Whether they would win or loss, I don't know. I don't know how far I would go to suggest edge protection for their own protection of liability because that might put you in the middle if there was an incident. Definitely makes you wonder. good Luck


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 23, 2012)

Lynn said:
			
		

> Thanks FrancisI looked at section 302 but do not see any edge protection requirements.


I should of explained not to assume the direction and gap of the space between the wood sections (planks, decking, panels, etc.).

Too many times it's perfect on paper but too steep when it's done.

Francis


----------



## Lynn (Aug 27, 2012)

Thank you all for the thoughts and comments.


----------



## Yankee (Aug 27, 2012)

No edge protection or guard rail required. Been there too.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 27, 2012)

It's a cost effective design solution that provides accessibility.

  Keep in mind the intent of the code, not your petty preferences, people.


----------



## steveray (Aug 28, 2012)

Just dealt with this on a Men's Wearhouse.......not a great idea.....but code compliant.....mine was rear egress, so should not really be an issue and gets accessible egress without costing a ton...


----------



## David Henderson (Aug 28, 2012)

If a drop off of more than 4" exists between ramp surface and grade, a 6"warning curb or rail must be utilized.

ADA 4.13, 4.26, 4.8; CA T24 1133B


----------



## High Desert (Aug 28, 2012)

It's not a ramp until it exceeds 1:20


----------



## Lynn (Aug 28, 2012)

This raises another issue I hadn't recognized in the past.

Even if the slope exceeds 1:20 and it becomes a ramp, the handrails and edge protection are only required along the ramp.

Once you reach the landing at the entry door, there is no requirement for the handrail or edge protection unless the landing is more than 30" above grade and building code kicks in.

Seems to me like the edge protection would be even more critical at the landing where the manuverability of a wheelchair is required to open and pass thru the door.

I don't enforce things because I think they should be required, and if I can't find code language to require handrails and edge protection on this one, I won't require what the code doesn't call for, but this one sure looks like edge protection should be required.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 28, 2012)

My understanding is landings are provided for better control, maneuverability and rest. Similarly no requirements for handrails around landings.

Francis


----------



## mark handler (Aug 29, 2012)

Remember, the codes are only a minimum requirement.  If you have a sidewalk with a drop-off that you believe could be a hazard, some sort of barrier may be advised.  Just be sure that you don’t create a trip hazard.


----------



## ICE (Aug 29, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Remember, the codes are only a minimum requirement.  If you have a sidewalk with a drop-off that you believe could be a hazard, some sort of barrier may be advised.  Just be sure that you don’t create a trip hazard.


And if you put in a curb, you had better put up a guard rail.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 29, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> And if you put in a curb, you had better put up a guard rail.


Not always

What mabe a hazard for a person using a mobility device may not be a hazard for a non-mobility device user

and visa versa


----------



## ICE (Aug 29, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Not alwaysWhat may be a hazard for a person using a mobility device may not be a hazard for a non-mobility device user
> 
> and visa versa


I'm thinking hazard for anyone.

If a curb is installed because of the drop-off, that indicates that the drop-off has been identified as a hazard.

Now a drunk teenager falls off the landing and breaks his skinny neck....but dammit, he lives....and sues.

He wins because a hazard was recognized and not properly dealt with.

If there were no curb, that tattooed, pink haired reprobate would lose because the owner could point to the building code and rightfully claim that there is no hazard.


----------



## Darren Emery (Aug 30, 2012)

Having concern about an 18" drop along a walking route, with no edge protection, does not seem petty to me.  Seems prudent.



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> It's a cost effective design solution that provides accessibility.   Keep in mind the intent of the code, not your petty preferences, people.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 30, 2012)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Having concern about an 18" drop along a walking route, with no edge protection, does not seem petty to me.  Seems prudent.


  When it's under your seal, then how it seems to you is relevant.


----------



## Darren Emery (Aug 30, 2012)

But if it's part of a project that I have reviewed, permitted, inspected, and will sign the C.O. for, it's NOT relevant?  Come on brudgers, is it only those who have a seal that are allowed to have a vested interest in a quality project?



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> When it's under your seal, then how it seems to you is relevant.


----------



## Yankee (Aug 31, 2012)

High Desert said:
			
		

> It's not a ramp until it exceeds 1:20


It's not a ramp until it exceeds 1:12


----------



## brudgers (Aug 31, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> It's not a ramp until it exceeds 1:12


  When it exceeds 1:12 it ceases to meet accessibility requirements...and probably the building code.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 31, 2012)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> But if it's part of a project that I have reviewed, permitted, inspected, and will sign the C.O. for, it's NOT relevant?  Come on brudgers, is it only those who have a seal that are allowed to have a vested interest in a quality project?


  Of course not.   Unlike a code official's, he Owner's opinion of quality construction is also relevant.


----------



## High Desert (Aug 31, 2012)

It's either required or not requuired. In this case it's not required.


----------

