SCHEMATIC DESIGN PLAN REVIEW REPORT for Compliance with Batas Pambansa Bilang 344 (Accessibility Law) for the Proposed UP SOM BUILDING UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES MINDANAO, MINTAL, TUGBOK DISTRICT, DAVAO CITY

Prepared by:

ARMAND MICHAEL R. EUSTAQUIO, UAP Architect, Accessibility Consultant

Schematic Design Plan Review Report of the Proposed UP SOM Building

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I.

Introduction

Page 2

II. Findings and Recommendations A. Proposed Floor and Site Development Plan 1. Ramp at Rear Entrance

2

2. Toilet for Persons with Disabilities

4

3. Male Public Toilet

7

4. Toilet at Dean’s Office

8

5. Ramp from Multi-Purpose Area to Hallway

8

6. Sidewalks

8

7. Main Entrance

9

8. Case Rooms

10

9. Doors in General

10

III. References

Prepared by: Armand Michael R. Eustaquio, Architect, Accessibility Consultant

11

Page 1 of 11

Schematic Design Plan Review Report of the Proposed UP SOM Building

I.

INTRODUCTION In January 1983, the United Nations declared 1983 to 1992 the International Decade of Disabled Persons. Less than two months after this declaration, Batas Pambansa Bilang 344 (BP344), otherwise known as An Act to Enhance the Mobility of Disabled Persons [Persons with Disabilities] by Requiring Certain Buildings, Institutions, Establishments, and Public Utilities to Install Facilities and Other Devices, or the accessibility Law was passed into law on February 25, 1983. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of BP 344 were amended in 1994 and is the current version in use and being implemented by all Local Government Units, the DPWH, the DOTC, and all other concerned government agencies. The contents of this Plan Review Report for Compliance with Batas Pambansa Bilang 344 (BP344) or the Accessibility Law were based primarily on the current version of BP344 or the Accessibility Law and the Draft Amendments to the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of BP344. Reference to the Draft Amendments of BP344 were made to cover provisions not yet incorporated in the current version of BP344 like enhancements to grab bar configurations and other provisions that need updating or in the current version of BP344. Recommendations that are based on the Draft BP 344 IRR Amendments are noted in this Plan Review Report.

II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Proposed Floor and Site Development Plan 1. Ramp at Rear Entrance 1.1 Findings a. The level area at the top and bottom of the ramp is less than the 1.80 meters required by BP344. b. The landing between the two spans of the ramp is less than the 1.50 meters required by BP344. c.

With a difference in elevation of 820 mm between the Finish Grade at the Rear and the Finish Ground Floor Line an accessible ramp will require a total length of 9.84 meters (say 10.0 meters) with a 1.50 meter landing at mid height.

However if the difference in elevation between the Finish Grade at the Rear and the Finish Ground Floor Line is 1.64 meters (as vaguely shown in the Rear Elevation and Cross Section drawings) an accessible ramp will require a total length of 19.68 meters (say 20.0 meters) with 3 - 1.50 meter landings after every 6.0 meter span. 1.2 Recommendations a. Increase the length of the level area at the top and bottom of the ramp to 1.80 meters. (Please see Fig.A.1.1) b. Increase the length of the landing at mid-height to 1.50 meters. (Please see Fig.A.1.1) c.

Divide the ramp into 2 - 5.0 meter spans.

d. Provide handrails on both sides of the ramp with 300mm extensions at the top and bottom of the ramp. (Please see Fig.A.1.1) e. Provide continuous curbs with a minimum height of 100mm on the outer edges of the ramps. (Please see Fig.A.1.1 and Fig.A.1.2.) f.

Use “J-type” handrail supports. (Please see Fig.A.1.2 and Fig.A.1.3)

Prepared by: Armand Michael R. Eustaquio, Architect, Accessibility Consultant

Page 2 of 11

Schematic Design Plan Review Report of the Proposed UP SOM Building

Fig. A.1.1

Image above shows details of an accessible ramp (“Fig. A.1.4 RAMP DIMENSIONS” in the Draft BP 344 IRR Amendments, page 2)

Fig. A.1.2

Image above shows a cross section of an accessible ramp showing handrails with “J-Type” handrail supports and continuous curbs. (“Fig.A.1.5 CURB HEIGHT AT RAMP” in the Draft BP 344 IRR Amendments, page 4)

Prepared by: Armand Michael R. Eustaquio, Architect, Accessibility Consultant

Page 3 of 11

Schematic Design Plan Review Report of the Proposed UP SOM Building

Fig. A.1.3 Image at left shows handrails of an accessible ramp using “J-Type” handrail supports. (“Fig.A.3.2” in the Draft BP 344 IRR Amendments, page 5)

2. Toilet for Persons with Disabilities 2.1 Findings a. The door swings inward into the toilet. b. The lavatory seems to be mounted too close to the adjacent wall. 2.2 Recommendations a. Make the door swing out of the toilet. (Doors that swing out make rescue safer in case the occupant falls and injures him/herself. Doors that swing inward run the risk adding further injury by hitting the occupant with the door when there is a need to break down the door.) b. Use the enhanced grab bar configuration as shown in Fig.A.2.1, Fig.A.2.2, Fig.A.2.3, and Fig.A.2.4. c.

Provide a door pull on the hinge side of the door to make it easier for a person with disabilities who uses a wheelchair to close the door as shown below.

Prepared by: Armand Michael R. Eustaquio, Architect, Accessibility Consultant

Page 4 of 11

Schematic Design Plan Review Report of the Proposed UP SOM Building

Fig. A.2.1

Fig. A.2.2

Image above shows the minimum dimensions of an accessible toilet. (“Fig. C.6.1 PLAN OF ACCESSIBLE TOILET FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES” in the Draft BP 344 IRR Amendments, page 33)

Image above shows a 3D view of an Accessible Toilet (“Fig. C.6.2 3D VIEW OF ACCESSIBLE TOILET FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES” in the Draft BP 344 IRR Amendments, page 33)

Prepared by: Armand Michael R. Eustaquio, Architect, Accessibility Consultant

Page 5 of 11

Schematic Design Plan Review Report of the Proposed UP SOM Building

Fig. A.2.3 Image above shows the detailed dimensions of an Accessible Toilet (“Fig C.6.3 BLOW UP FLOOR PLAN OF ACCESSIBLE TOILET FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES” in the Draft BP 344 IRR Amendments, page 34)

Fig. A.2.4 Image above shows detailed dimensions and details of L-type grab bar. (“Fig.C.6.4 L-TYPE GRAB BAR” in the Draft BP 344 IRR Amendments, page 34)

Prepared by: Armand Michael R. Eustaquio, Architect, Accessibility Consultant

Page 6 of 11

Schematic Design Plan Review Report of the Proposed UP SOM Building

3. Male Public Toilet 3.1 Recommendations a. Provide at least one (1) accessible urinal and provide grab bars as shown in Fig.A.3.1 and Fig.A.3.2.

Fig.A.3.1

Image above shows the front elevation of an accessible urinal. [“Fig. C.6.6: ACCESSIBLE URINAL (FRONT ELEVATION)” in the Draft BP 344 IRR Amendments, page 36]

Fig.A.3.2 Image at left shows the side elevation of an accessible urinal. [“Fig.C.6.7: ACCESSIBLE URINAL (SIDE ELEVATION)” in the Draft BP 344 IRR Amendments, page 36]

Prepared by: Armand Michael R. Eustaquio, Architect, Accessibility Consultant

Page 7 of 11

Schematic Design Plan Review Report of the Proposed UP SOM Building

4. Toilet at Dean’s Office 4.1 Findings a. The toilet at the Dean’s Office is not accessible for a person with disabilities. 4.2 Recommendations a. BP344 does not require individual toilets for executive offices to be made accessible if there is an accessible toilet that is close by. It would however be very awkward when the time comes that the UP SOM will have a Dean with disabilities who may not to be able to use the private toilet in his/her office and would have to go out to use the common accessible toilet. Should UP SOM decide to provide an accessible toilet in the Dean’s office please refer to the recommendations made in item 2.0 for the toilet for persons with disabilities. 5. Ramp from Multi-Purpose Area to Hallway 5.1 Findings a. The handrails are not continuous on one side of the ramp. b. There are no 300mm extensions at the start and end of the handrails of the ramp. c.

There is a potential bottleneck for pedestrian traffic at the top of the ramp at the hallway.

5.2 Recommendations a. Make the handrails continuous throughout the length of the ramp and on both sides of the ramp. b. Provide 300mm extensions on the handrails on both sides of the ramp at the start and end of the ramp as shown in Fig.A.1.1. c.

Provide continuous curbs with a minimum height of 100mm on the outer edges of the ramp. (Please see Fig.A.1.2.)

d. Use “J-type” handrail supports. (Please see Fig.A.1.2 and Fig.A.1.3) e. If possible move the ramp back further towards the Multi-Purpose Area to eliminate possible pedestrian traffic congestion. 6. Sidewalks 6.1 Findings a. There are no dropped sidewalks or curb ramps shown or indicated on the drawings. 6.2 Recommendations a. Provide dropped sidewalks or curb ramps as shown in Fig.A.6.1 and Fig.A.6.2. Dropped sidewalks are preferred over curb ramps. From the Draft BP344 IRR Amendments: “Curb ramps shall only be allowed when it will not obstruct a sidewalk/walkway or in any way lessen the width of a sidewalk/walkway or lessen the level/turning area of 1.50 m x 1.50 m. Curb ramps shall only be allowed if the width of sidewalks/walkways are more than 3.30 m with a corresponding

Prepared by: Armand Michael R. Eustaquio, Architect, Accessibility Consultant

Page 8 of 11

Schematic Design Plan Review Report of the Proposed UP SOM Building

curb height of 150 mm, otherwise dropped sidewalks shall be used.”

Fig. A.6.1

Image above shows a dropped sidewalk. (“Fig. B.1.1 Perspective of Dropped Sidewalk” in the Draft BP 344 IRR Amendments, page 15)

Fig. A.6.2

Image above shows a curb ramp. (“Fig.B.2.1” in the Draft BP 344 IRR Amendments, page 18)

7. Main Entrance 7.1 Findings a. There seems to be no accessible ramp indicated. 7.2 Recommendations a. Provide an accessible ramp similar to recommendations on the ramp at the rear entrance in item 1.0.

Prepared by: Armand Michael R. Eustaquio, Architect, Accessibility Consultant

Page 9 of 11

Schematic Design Plan Review Report of the Proposed UP SOM Building

8. Case Rooms 8.1 Recommendations a. If the seats in the Case Rooms will be fixed or floor mounted, provide a minimum of two (2) wheelchair parking slots or in accordance with the following guidelines in Table A.8.1 from the Draft BP344 Amendments:

Table A.8.1

Table above shows required wheelchair parking slots for Auditoriums, Arenas, Theaters, and other Assembly Areas (“Table E.4.1” in the Draft BP 344 IRR Amendments, page 51)

b. Provide the appropriate number of wheelchair parking slots in accordance with the Table A.8.1 above and the following guidelines found on page 51 of the Draft BP344 Amendments: “4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

4.6 4.7

c.

Accessible routes shall not overlap wheelchair seating/ block any waiting spaces Access to any wheelchair space shall not be through another wheelchair space Wheelchair viewing areas shall adjoin accessible circulation. Each wheelchair viewing position shall be clear, firm and level. Minimum footprint for a single wheelchair seating space (front or rear entry) shall be 900 mm x 1.2 m. It recommended that assistive listening devices be provided. Accessible seating shall be provided with handrails 750 mm high at the front and sides.”

If there will be a need for students to approach the front of the Case Room provide an accessible ramp to allow access to students with disabilities.

9. Doors in General 9.1 Specify doors with a minimum sash width of 850MM (minimum) or 950MM (preferred) to achieve a minimum clear door opening of 800MM (minimum) or 900MM (preferred) respectively. 9.2 Use lever type locksets.

Prepared by: Armand Michael R. Eustaquio, Architect, Accessibility Consultant

Page 10 of 11

Schematic Design Plan Review Report of the Proposed UP SOM Building

III. REFERENCES 1. National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP) Batas Pambansa Bilang 344 (Accessibility Law) and it’s Implementing Rules and Regulations, NCWDP, 1995. 2. Draft Amendments to Batas Pambansa Bilang 344 July 10, 2013. 3. Avila-Kono, Adela: Universal Barrier Free Design

Prepared by: Armand Michael R. Eustaquio, Architect, Accessibility Consultant

Page 11 of 11

UPMin_Schematic Design Plan Review Report of the SOM Building ...

UPMin_Schematic Design Plan Review Report of the SOM Building.pdf. UPMin_Schematic Design Plan Review Report of the SOM Building.pdf. Open. Extract.

499KB Sizes 5 Downloads 179 Views

Recommend Documents

UPMin_Schematic Design Plan Review Report of Carim Bldg Ph 1.pdf ...
There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download ... or edit this item. UPMin_Schematic Design Plan Review Report of Carim Bldg Ph 1.pdf.

UPMin_Schematic Design Plan Review Report of Carim Bldg Ph 1.pdf ...
There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. UPMin_Schematic Design Plan Review Report of Carim Bldg Ph 1.pdf. UPMin_Schematic Design Plan Review Report

UPD Swimming Stadium Building Plan Review Report.pdf ...
There was a problem loading more pages. Retrying... Whoops! There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. UPD Swimming Stadium Building Plan Review Report

Business Plan Report
job seekers, job providers and the training institutions are affected by lack of ..... Government of India, Industry and Academia will form part of the Board of Directors. .... Software. Development. -300000. Financing Cash. Flow. Owners Capital.

WWC Review of the Report "Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher ...
Sep 1, 2013 - The study examined the effects of a comprehensive teacher induction program for beginning teachers. (i.e., teachers new to the profession) on teacher and student outcomes in 17 school districts across. 13 states. The program includes me

UPManila_Plan Review Report of the UP PALO SHS Admin Bldg.pdf ...
Page 3 of 10. UPManila_Plan Review Report of the UP PALO SHS Admin Bldg.pdf. UPManila_Plan Review Report of the UP PALO SHS Admin Bldg.pdf. Open.

COMP meeting report on the review of applications for orphan ...
Jun 27, 2017 - 62 (24%). 2 (1%). 187. 15. 16. 2013 ... 0 (0%). 14. 0. 0. Total. 2820. 2664. 1897 (71%). 743 (28%). 24 (1%). 1876. 135. 149 ... Active substance.

UPManila_Plan Review Report of the UP Manila Student Dormitory ...
UPManila_Plan Review Report of the UP Manila Student Dormitory.pdf. UPManila_Plan Review Report of the UP Manila Student Dormitory.pdf. Open. Extract.

COMP meeting report on the review of applications for orphan ...
Jun 27, 2017 - Public summaries of opinions will be available on the EMA website following adoption of the .... where two identical synthetic peptide domains.

UPManila_Plan Review Report of the UP Manila Sports & Wellness ...
UPManila_Plan Review Report of the UP Manila Sports & Wellness Center.pdf. UPManila_Plan Review Report of the UP Manila Sports & Wellness Center.pdf.