# Ramp Handrail - California Building Code



## MtnArch (Apr 10, 2013)

All -There's an issue going on with a project I am peripherally involved in having to do with a ramp handrail/guardrail supplied by a modular building manufacturer.  I've been asked to research the issue to try and resolve it.The attached JPG shows the typical installation by the supplier; the upper rail is a square tube (1.25" per face), the pickets below are 5/8"thk and have clear spacing of 3-7/8".  The inspector has brought up that there are multiple problems with this (including required extensions) but one of them that is being contested is that the handrail/guardrail installation does not comply with CBC 1012.4 or with CBC 1135B.5.5.1 (for continuity and obstructions).I can see both sides of this - the supplier claiming that they install these up and down the state year-in and year-out without any problems, and the inspector doing his best to ensure compliance with the code as he reads it.  Both appear to be reasonable in wanting to resolve the issue but this one seems to be a sticking point.What say you?  Does this comply or is this another one of those "It can't be wrong because this is the way we've ALWAYS done it"?

View attachment 1772


View attachment 1772


/monthly_2013_04/572953e854a5d_ModularRampHandrail.jpg.61fcbd33f8d998000602f08e385dcc90.jpg


----------



## mark handler (Apr 10, 2013)

It does not comply with the code.

Add a second rail


----------



## mark handler (Apr 10, 2013)

Just because they have been violating the code for years does not mean you should let them to continue to violate the code


----------



## MtnArch (Apr 10, 2013)

This is in line with my thinking as well - that it does not comply and that simply because you've done it before (or been allowed to do it before) does not make it okay.

Thanks Mark.


----------



## ICE (Apr 11, 2013)

MtnArch said:
			
		

> What say you?


Nice temporary fence


----------



## Yikes (Apr 17, 2013)

One more thought: are you sure it is actually a "ramp"?  Is the slope 5% or more?

I've had some projects where it looked just like a non-compliant ramp, but when we measured the slope it was less than 5% and therefore didn't need handrails at all... just guardrails.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 18, 2013)

Yikes said:
			
		

> One more thought: are you sure it is actually a "ramp"?  Is the slope 5% or more?I've had some projects where it looked just like a non-compliant ramp, but when we measured the slope it was less than 5% and therefore didn't need handrails at all... just guardrails.


Picture to close framed to tell


----------



## MtnArch (Apr 18, 2013)

The section where I took this photo is a ramp with the slope +/-7%.

The ramp supplier sent out an installer on Monday to put real handrails in - and had been at it +/-3 hours when I was informed he was on-site.  I made the trip to the site and found that he had no clue about the required handrail extensions, how they were to terminate, and had hex head screw protrusions all over - and a non-compliant intermediate landing as well.

Yesterday the modular building supplier informed the owner that they are removing the ramp and that it's up to the owner now to supply it, either from another manufacturer (like Mark's posting above) or as a custom site-built unit.  They continue to question why they've been allowed to install their ramps up and down California throughout the years without anyone else questioning the installations.  I replied that these are not new requirements and have been in the CBC since at least the 1998 edition.  Truly sad that they STILL don't get it - and have no intention to EVER get it.

Thanks for the comments.


----------



## JPohling (Apr 18, 2013)

The owner should have them remove their trailer too and get a supplier that knows how to comply with the code.  Who was this modular supplier?


----------



## MtnArch (Apr 18, 2013)

ModSpace is the trailer supplier, QuickDeck was the ramp/stair/railings supplier.


----------

