Detectable Warnings:

Synthesis of U.S. and

International Practice
Work performed under contract by:
Billie Louise Bentzen, Ph.D.
Janet M. Barlow, COMS
Lee S. Tabor, architect
Accessible Design for the Blind
P.O. Box 1212
Berlin, Massachusetts 01503 USA
978-838-2307 voice / fax
[email protected]

12 May 2000

U.S. Access Board • 1331 F Street, NW • Suite 1000 • Washington, DC 20004-1111

(800) 872-2253 (Voice) • (800) 993-2822 (TTY) • (202) 272-5447 (Fax)
[email protected] (E-mail) • http://www.access-board.gov (Website)
Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their appreciation to all who generously contributed their
time and efforts in providing information, specifications, and photographs, to those who
participated in interviews, and to those who gave permission for us to list their names in
this publication as contacts for more information.
The authors are thankful to Lois Thibault of the U.S. Access Board for the provision
of difficult to obtain resources, and for her careful editing and suggestions on content
organization.
We also wish to acknowledge the dedicated research assistance of Abigail Tabor and
Rebekah Barlow.

Illustration Credits

All drawings by Lee Tabor except as noted.

All photos by the authors except as noted.
Photos by Martin Miller: cover, 8-15 through 8-30.
Photos by Lois Thibault: 1-3, 1-4, 2-5, 3-7, 4-4, 4-13, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-5, 5-11.
Photos by Murray Mountain: 3-5, 4-6, 4-13, 4-14.
Photos by Douglas Barlow: 2-4, 3-6, 5-8.
Photos by Lukas Franck: 5-6, 5-14.
Photos by Ken Zimmerman: 5-7, 6-2.
Photo by Barry Eager: 3-1.
Photo by Robert Laurie: 5-4.
Photos courtesy of Beneficial Designs: 4-5, 4-7.
Photo courtesy of Rick McCarter: 5-10.
Photo courtesy of Maryvonne Dejeammes: 4-10
Photos reproduced, with permission, from König, 1996: unnumbered, p. 64, 4-11, 4-12.
Photo reprinted from Ketola & Chia, 1994: 3-3
Drawing by Joanne Bergen reproduced from Bentzen et al., 1994: 2-6.
Drawing reproduced, with permission, from Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces,
1998: 3-4.
Drawings reproduced, with permission, from ÖNORM V 2102: 4-1, 4-2.
Drawing reproduced, with modification, by permission, from Sawai et al., 1998: 4-3.
Photos and drawings from manufacturer’s brochures: Engineered Plastics, 1-7; Disability
Devices: 1-8; Architectural Tile & Granite: unnumbered, p. 26; Summitville, 5-12;
Carsonite; 5-15; Strongwall Industries: 7-8, 7-9; Increte: 7-10; Cote-L: 7-11, 7-13, 7-14;
Vanguard ADA Products: 7-12.

2 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Contents  Detectable Warnings:
Synthesis of US and International Practice

Introduction Content of synthesis / 11

Purpose of synthesis / 11
Sources of information / 11

Chapter 1. Background
How people who are Curbs are a definitive cue / 14
blind detect streets How curbs are detected / 14
Elimination of curbs / 15
The need to rely on multiple clues / 15
The difficulty of finding and using multiple clues / 15

Detecting transit Techniques for detecting transit platform edges having a drop-off / 16
platform edges Blind people at risk at transit platform edges / 16

Early solutions Japan / 17

United Kingdom / 17

U.S. research to Extensive research program on detectability / 18

identify detectable Importance of under foot detectability / 18
warning surfaces Early projects / 19
Surfaces for transit platforms / 19
Surfaces with low detectability / 20

History of ANSI A117.1-1980Tactile warnings / 21

U.S. standards Specification of texture / 21
ANSI A117.1-1986Detectable warnings / 21
Implementation of ANSI A117.1-1980 & 1986 / 22
ADAAG (1991)Truncated dome detectable warnings / 23
Controversy in the U.S. / 23
ANSI A117.1-1992Deleted detectable warning specifications / 23
Some ADAAG requirements for detectable warnings suspended / 24
Research on detectable warnings recommended / 24
Rights-of-way guidelines / 24
Local and state guidelines / 25
Variety of recommendations / 25
ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998Equivalent detectability / 25

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 3

Contents  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis, continued

Other textured Other surfaces / 26

walking surfaces Raised design flooring / 26
Directional tactile paving / 26

Truncated dome Focus on truncated dome detectable warnings / 27

detectable warnings ADAAG-compliant detectable warning at curb-ramps / 27

Chapter 2. Detectable Warnings in ADAAG

Definition & Definition of detectable warnings / 30
specification Specification for detectable warnings / 30
Visual contrast / 30

Geometry of Dome alignment & pattern / 31

detectable warnings Dome profile / 31

Detectable Requirement for transit platform edges (ADAAG 1991) / 32

warnings at transit Why the warning is placed at the platform edge / 32
platform edges Why the warning is 24 inches wide / 33
Width & placement decision also based on positive experience / 33

Detectable
warnings at curb- Requirement at curb-ramps / 34
ramps, hazardous Requirement at hazardous vehicular ways / 34
vehicular ways & Requirement at reflecting pools / 34
reflecting pools

Chapter 3. Recent Research on Detectable Warnings

Effect of curb- Effect on street detection / 36
ramps on blind Effects of slope and placement / 36
pedestrians

Effects of detect- Detectable warnings are helpful at curb-ramps / 37

able warnings on Detectable warnings reduce falls at transit platform edges / 37
blind pedestrians

4 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Contents  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis, continued

Effects of detect- Effects on transit platforms / 38

able warnings on Effects at slopes or curb-ramps / 38
people with mobility Benefits at curb-ramps / 39
impairments Effects at hazardous vehicular ways / 39

Evaluation of Laboratory testing / 40

detectable warning Field testing / 41
materials

Research on A test of difference in sound / 42

sound on cane-
contact differences
Research on Contrast of detectable warnings / 43
visual contrast Research shows value of safety yellow / 43
Standards for safety yellow / 43

Research on Many truncated dome surfaces / 44

detectability Many truncated dome surfaces found to be highly detectable / 44
Factors which have little effect on detectability / 44
Factor which decreases detectability / 44

Research on Japanese research / 45

dome dimensions & Dome height tests / 45
spacing Dome diameter and spacing tests / 45
Optimal dome diameter & spacing combinations / 45

Chapter 4. International Use of Warning Surfaces

Different Tactile ground surface indicators / 48
approaches TGSIs as a wayfinding system / 48
TGSIs to indicate a variety of features / 48
TGSIs for warnings & directional information / 49
U.S. approach to warning surfaces / 49
U.S. approach to directional surfaces / 49

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 5

Contents  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis, continued

Usage by country Japan / 50

United Kingdom / 52
Australia / 55
New Zealand / 58
Italy / 60
France / 62
Germany / 64
Austria / 66
Netherlands / 68

International International Organization for Standardization (ISO) / 69

standardization Technical Committee 173 (ISO/TC173) / 69
ISO draft on TGSIs / 69
Applications / 70
Installation of warning surfaces / 70

Chapter 5. U.S. Use of Detectable Warning Surfaces: Case Studies

Locating U.S. Developing a list of locations / 72
installations of Mail survey / 72
detectable warning Other information sources / 72
surfaces

Responses to Responses to survey / 73

mail survey State & local requirements / 73

Interviews Interview / 74
regarding Locating appropriate persons / 74
detectable warning Types of locations for detectable warnings / 74
installations

Interview locations City interviews / 75

Transit system interviews / 75
Other interviews / 75

Interview questions Interview questions / 76

Snow removal / 76

6 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Contents  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis, continued

Interview results  Materials / 77

general Color of detectable warnings / 77
Installation dates / 77
Installation costs / 77
Installation method / 77

Interview results 
installation Installation problems or difficulties / 78
problems

Interview results  General maintenance / 79

maintenance Snow & ice removal / 79

Interview results  Durability / 80

durability

Interview results  Public reaction, problems or concerns / 81

public reaction No record of any lawsuits / 81
Lawsuits, but no details / 81

Case studies Austin, Texas / 82

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) / 84
Roseville, California / 86
Metro North Railroad / 88
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania / 90
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) / 92
Cleveland, Ohio / 94
Baltimore County, Maryland / 96
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) / 98
Claremont, California / 100

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 7

Contents  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis, continued

Chapter 6. U.S. Use of Detectable Warning Surfaces: Applications

Sources of Purpose of this chapter / 102
recommendations ADAAG / 102
California Title 24 / 102
Project ACTION panel of experts / 103
Accessible Rights-of-Way: A Design Guide / 103
Designing Sidewalks & Trails for Access: Part II. A Best Practices
Guidebook / 103
ACB Street Design Guidelines / 103
Roseville, CA / 104
Cambridge, MA / 104
Austin, TX / 104
Towson, MD / 104
AER resolutions / 104
ACB resolutions / 104
NFB resolutions / 104

Recommendations Whole surface of ramp  ADAAG / 105

for detectable Whole surface of ramp  California Title 24 / 106
warnings at Bottom 3 feet  Roseville, CA / 106
curb-ramps Bottom 2 feet  Multiple sources / 107
Parallel curb ramp / 108

Detectable warn-
ings at hazardous California Title 24 / 109
vehicular ways

Detectable Cut-through medians / 110

warnings at Cut-through splitter islands / 111
medians & islands

Detectable
warnings at raised Raised crosswalks & raised intersections / 112
crosswalks & raised Fitting to a blended curb at a raised intersection / 112
intersections

8 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Contents  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis, continued

Chapter 7. U.S. Detectable Warning Products

Manufacturing standards / 114
Spacing of
ADAAG technical specification / 114
truncated domes
Brick pavers / 114
Pattern repetition / 115
Complementary tile pairs / 115
Working with irregular shapes / 115

Shape of Truncated dome diameter / 116

truncated domes Manufacturers’ response / 116

Types of detectable Summary / 117

warning products Use of term “detectable warning” / 117
Rely on current specifications / 117
Details should be verified / 117

Dimensional pavers Definition / 118

Natural stone, stone composites, & ceramic tile / 118
Brick pavers / 118
Large precast units / 118

Thin tiles & Definition / 119

sheet goods Rigid and flexible composition / 119
Tile size / 119
Installation / 119

On-site fabrication Definition / 120

of truncated dome On-site production of domed surface / 120
surfaces Stamped concrete / 121
Detectable warnings that are not on grade / 121
Surface-applied dome products / 122

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 9

Contents  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis, continued

Characteristics of Slip resistance / 123

detectable warning Color / 123
products Contrast / 123
Sound on cane-contact & resiliency / 124
Durability / 124

Detectable warning Matrix / 125

product matrix

Photographs of Sample photography / 126

detectable warning 16 photographs of product samples / 126
products

Detectable warning List of manufacturer names and contact information / 132

manufacturers

Appendix
References and Annotated Bibliography / 136
Glossary / 147
Questionnaire for interviews regarding
detectable warning installations / 148

10 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Introduction

Content of This synthesis summarizes the state-of-the-art regarding the design,

synthesis installation and effectiveness of detectable warning surfaces used in
the U.S. and abroad.
• The need for a warning surface is documented.
• U.S. and international research on detectable warnings is
reviewed.
• U.S. and international standards and guidelines for detectable
warnings are presented.
• Use of detectable warnings in the U.S. and abroad is described,
with illustrative case studies.
• Information is provided on U.S. detectable warning products
and manufacturers.
• Jurisdictional recommendations for the use of truncated dome
detectable warnings are summarized and illustrated.

Purpose of The synthesis was developed under contract to the U.S. Access Board.
synthesis It will be helpful to transportation engineers, planners, and other
interested persons working to make public rights-of-way more
accessible to people who have visual impairments.

Sources of Information about detectable warning products and installations

information comes from these sources:
• Information from the U.S. is based on input from individuals
representing public and private agencies or businesses that have
installed truncated dome detectable warnings.
• International information is based on input from individuals who
are familiar with the development and regulatory history of
warning surfaces in each country.
• Information on detectable warning products is based on interviews
with company representatives and on company literature.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 11

FIG. 0-2. CURB RAMP COMPLYING WITH ADAAG 4.7.7
(TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED), CLEVELAND, OH.

12 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

 Chapter 1

Background

Summary This chapter includes information on travel clues and cues used by
persons with visual impairments at curb-ramps and transit platform
edges. Early approaches to providing additional cues in Japan and the
United Kingdom are described. The results of U.S. programs of
research to identify detectable warning surfaces are summarized, and
U.S. standards are discussed.

Chapter contents This chapter covers the following topics.

Topic Page
How people who are blind detect streets 14
Detecting transit platform edges 16
Early solutions 17
U.S. research to identify detectable warning 18
surfaces
History of U.S. standards 21
Other textured walking surfaces 26
Truncated dome detectable warnings 27

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 13

How people who are blind detect streets

Curbs are a The development of sidewalks and streets, with their identifying
definitive cue curbs—the network of vehicular and pedestrian circulation—gave
pedestrians who were blind predictable environmental features that
could be used to maintain orientation and safety when traveling
independently.
Curbs designed to separate pedestrian from vehicular flow and to
provide a gutter edge to contain and direct water flow, provided a
reliable cue to pedestrians who were blind that they had arrived at an
intersecting street. Detection of a down curb unmistakably informed
blind pedestrians that they had come to the end of the sidewalk and
that their next step would be into the street.

How curbs are Detection techniques depend on the travel aids used by people who
detected are blind, such as long canes or dog guides, and their amount of
vision.
• People who are blind and use a long cane for a travel aid detect
a curb, or any other drop-off such as stairs or a platform edge,
by a change in the angle of the wrist and the failure of the cane to
contact the sidewalk at the expected level.
• People who use dog guides are alerted to the presence of a curb
or other drop-off when their dogs stop. They then confirm the
presence of the drop-off with a foot.
• People who have low vision, and do not use either a long cane or
dog guide, rely on differences in color or shading of the walking
surface. The sidewalk and street may have visual contrast, or the
curb material may contrast with the sidewalk or street.
There are a number of other sources of information about the location
of the curb indicating the end of the sidewalk (and the beginning of
the street) which may be used by any person having a visual
impairment, regardless of their travel aid or amount of low vision.
These include traffic sounds, the slope of the sidewalk, the end of a
building line, and changes in sun or wind. These are all simply clues
to the sidewalk/street boundary. None is a definitive cue.

Continued on next page

14 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

How people who are blind detect streets, continued

Elimination of curbs Accessibility requirements that were developed in the 1960s resulted
in the disappearance of curbs at many intersections. Curb-ramps,
blended curbs and depressed corners became common features.
Recently, raised crosswalks and intersections have been introduced
from Europe. Hotel, retail, airport, and other building entrances have
been designed without a curb separating them from street grade, for
easy access for pedestrians using wheeled luggage or carts, as well as
for persons with disabilities.

The need to rely on In the absence of a definitive cue—the curbed sidewalk—at the
multiple clues sidewalk/street boundary, it has become much more difficult for
pedestrians who are blind to detect streets. When blind pedestrians do
not detect a curb at the end of a block, they must rely on multiple
clues which, taken together, indicate the high probability that they
have come to a street.
They may detect a change in slope, which could be a curb ramp, a
change in terrain, or a broken sidewalk. The end of a building line or
grass line may suggest that there is a street directly ahead. Changes in
sun and wind are also clues. However, none of these clues, by itself,
confirms the presence of an intersecting street.
One of the most reliable clues, when it is present, is the sound of
traffic on the intersecting street. But in many locations, and at
different times of the day or days of the week, there may be little or no
traffic.

The difficulty of Complex traffic operations, including actuated signals and right turn
finding and using on red, have made it increasingly difficult to analyze the environment
clues using vehicular sound. Large traffic volume and high ambient sound
often mask traffic flow and the sounds of vehicles starting and
stopping.
Blind pedestrians have become increasingly at risk in urban
environments where traffic flow information is complex, unclear,
masked by other sounds, or absent. The trend toward aggressive
driving has decreased the likelihood that drivers will stop for
pedestrians in crosswalks at unsignalized intersections, and the
general decline in pedestrian traffic has made it increasingly difficult
for blind travelers to obtain assistance for street crossings where
needed.

Continued on next page

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 15

Detecting transit platform edges

Techniques for Detection techniques depend on the travel aids used by people who
detecting transit are blind, and their amount of vision.
platform edges
• People who are blind and use a long cane for a travel aid detect the
having a drop-off
edge of a transit platform having a drop-off by a change in the
angle of the wrist and the failure of the cane to contact the
platform at the expected level. They must normally come to a stop
after taking no more than one step following the cane information.
• People who use dog guides are alerted to the presence of the
platform edge when their dogs stop. They then confirm the exact
location of the platform edge drop-off with a foot.
• People who have low vision, and do not use either a long cane or
dog guide, rely on differences in color or shading between the
platform and the track bed. Usually the platform is a lighter color
than the track bed, although the reverse may also be true.
Sometimes people having low vision are able to see a colored
safety line defining the end of the safe waiting area, and
sometimes illumination patterns may be helpful in determining the
location of the platform edge.
There are a number of other sources of information about the general
location of the platform edge, such as other riders waiting a safe
distance from the drop-off, and changes in air currents.

Blind people at risk Falling and fear of falling at high-level transit platform edges have
at transit platform been found to be a major problem and cause of anxiety in blind transit
edges riders (Bentzen, Jackson & Peck, 1981).
In Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in San Francisco, during the ten
years before the installation of detectable warnings along platform
edges, approximately one fourth of all accidents along the edges of
raised platforms involved persons who were visually impaired
(McGean, 1991).

16 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Early solutions

Japan Japan was the first country to make up for the information lost by
removal of curbs at intersections. Beginning in the 1960s the
Japanese installed a warning surface on curb-ramps that was
detectable both underfoot and by use of the long cane.
Warning surfaces at curb-ramps and blended curbs are now
commonplace throughout Japan. Warning surfaces are also used on
nearly all high-level transit platforms.
Surface texture
Most of the early Japanese surfaces intended to be warnings had a
surface configuration of domes about 5 mm high, which might be
somewhat flattened or truncated on top, arranged in a square pattern,
and having domes about 65 mm apart on center.
Placement, size, and material
Warning surfaces typically were placed on the lower end of curb-
ramps, or along the former curb line where there were blended curbs.
Warning widths varied from about 30 mm to about 900 mm.
Materials used included rubber, stainless steel, cast pavers, and tiles.
On transit platforms, warning surfaces were commonly 300 mm wide
and placed about 900 mm back from platform edges. Warning
surfaces were used in conjunction with directional surfaces to form
networks of travel paths for persons who are visually impaired.
FIG 1-1. JAPANESE
TRANSIT PLATFORM
SHOWING DETECTABLE
WARNING AT THE TOP OF
STAIRS AND PARALLEL
TO THE PLATFORM EDGE,
AND A TACTILE PATH
LEADING FROM THE
STAIRS TO THE WAITING
AREA ALONG THE
PLATFORM.

United Kingdom In the United Kingdom, a warning surface having a standardized

pattern of truncated domesreferred to as modified blister paving
has been recommended for use in specified locations and dimensions
since 1983 (Department of Transport, 1991; Gallon, Oxley & Simms,
1991; Textured pavements to help blind pedestrians, 1983).
These warnings can now be found throughout the United Kingdom on
curb-ramps and blended curbs. Most are cast pavers.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 17

U.S. research to identify detectable warning surfaces

Extensive research An extensive program of research in the United States to identify

program on walking surfaces that could be used to alert people with visual
detectability impairments to the presence of hazards such as streets and platform
edges began in 1980.
This research has been conducted by a number of researchers and
sponsored by
• the Federal Highway Administration,
• the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (now known as the
Federal Transit Administration),
• the Federal Transit Administration, and
• the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (Access Board).

Importance of Many tested surfaces have been found to be non-detectable or

under foot minimally detectable; these are not appropriately considered to be
detectability detectable warnings.
• It is essential that warnings be highly detectable under foot as well
as by use of the long cane.
• A minority of people who are legally blind regularly use a long
cane for obtaining surface information as they travel. Other people
who are visually impaired use dog guides or their low vision. To
detect changes in walking surfaces, they rely on visual contrast
and/or under foot information.
• Low vision is quite variable; a person who often can see streets,
platform edges and stairs may sometimes be unable to see them
because of glare, poor illumination, poor visual contrast, or fatigue.
• Many surfaces that seem likely to be highly detectable are only
somewhat detectable, especially under foot. Figure 1-2 shows a
number of surfaces that have been found to be minimally
detectable.

Continued on next page

18 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

U.S. research to identify detectable warning surfaces, continued

Early projects The earliest projects in the U.S. emphasized detection by blind
persons who were using a long cane, of a warning surface adjoining
brushed concrete.
• A ribbed rubber mat was found highly detectable to blind persons
using a long cane because it varied from concrete in texture,
resiliency and sound (Aiello & Steinfeld, 1980).
• A resilient tennis court surface was found to be highly detectable
to blind long cane users (Templer & Wineman, 1980).
• Various steel surfaces were found to be highly detectable on the
basis of differences in sound between steel and concrete when
contacted by a long cane used in a tapping technique (Templer,
Wineman & Zimring, 1982).

Surfaces for A warning surface was needed for use on transit platforms, which was
transit platforms highly detectable when it adjoined a variety of surfaces in common
use on platforms. The next series of projects addressed this need, and
identified two surfaces suitable for transit platform use, which were
both highly detectable when used in association with brushed
concrete, exposed aggregate concrete, rubber (Pirelli) tile, and heavy
wooden decking (Peck & Bentzen, 1987).
• A prototype “corduroy” surface having raised ribs which were
dome-shaped in cross section, 3/16 in high, ¾ in wide, and 2 in
apart on center
• A resilient rubber tile having a truncated dome pattern (the pattern
that was the basis for the technical specification in the Americans
with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)

Both of these surfaces were more highly detectable in a noisy

environment than a rough textured steel surface or a resilient tennis
court surface. Both of these surfaces were highly detectable to blind
persons both under foot and with the use of a long cane.

The truncated dome surface was recommended for a standard warning

surface because similar surfaces were being used for warnings in
Japan and England. Linear surfaces were being used in Japan as
directional surfaces.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 19

Surfaces with low detectability
2" 1/16"

1/4"

2" 1/16"

1/4"

2" 2" 1/16"

1/4" 1/4"
2"

1/4" 1/4"
2"

1/4" 1/16"

1/4"

1/4" 1/4"

1/4"

1/4"
2" 2"

FIG. 1-2. CROSS-SECTIONS OF SURFACES FOUND

TO BE LOW IN DETECTABILITY. DRAWN AT FULL SCALE.

20 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

History of U.S. standards

ANSI A117.1-1980— In the 1980 ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Standard,
A117.1-1980 American National Standard: Specifications for Making
Tactile warnings
Buildings and Facilities Accessible to and Usable by Physically
Handicapped People, what were then referred to as tactile warnings
were specified for the entire walking surface of curb-ramps. A 36 in
(915 mm) wide strip was specified along the full edge of blended
curbs, and a tactile warning surface was also specified for tops of stair
runs except those in dwelling units, in enclosed stair towers, or to the
side of the path of travel. Further, tactile warnings were specified for
edges of reflecting pools that did not have railings, walls or curbs.
Tactile warnings were to be standardized within a building, facility,
site, or complex of buildings.
ANSI standards are voluntary consensus standards. ANSI A117.1-
1980 includes specifications for curb-ramps as well as tactile
warnings.

Specification of ANSI A117.1-1980 4.29.2

texture Tactile Warnings on Walking Surfaces. Tactile warning
textures on walking surfaces shall consist of exposed aggregate
concrete, rubber, or plastic cushioned surfaces, raised strips,
or grooves. Textures shall contrast with that of the
surrounding surface…. Grooves may be used indoors only.

ANSI A117.1-1986— ANSI A117.1-1986 American National Standard for Buildings and
Facilities—Providing Accessibility and Usability for Physically
Detectable
Handicapped People, continued to specify the same warning textures,
warnings
by then called detectable warnings, on the full width and depth of
curb-ramps, at uncurbed intersections, at tops of stair runs, and at
reflecting pools.

Continued on next page

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 21

History of U.S. standards, continued

Implementation of Early implementations of the ANSI A117.1-1980 and ANSI

ANSI A117.1-1980 A117.1-1986 standard for tactile warnings included a number of
& 1986 surface treatments such as grooved concrete, which were subsequently
found not to be highly detectable to pedestrians who are blind.
Grooved concrete is still used in some jurisdictions today, and it is
sometimes called a detectable warning although it has not been found
to be highly detectable and has not been recommended in any U.S.
standard for outdoor use.
The photos below illustrate a variety of curb ramp treatments that are
not now considered to be detectable warnings because they have not
been found to be highly detectable and are not standardized, or
because they are easily mistaken for other common features in the
pedestrian environment.

FIG. 1-3. A BLENDED CURB IN COLUMBUS, OH, WHICH USES DIFFICULT-

TO-DETECT ROWS OF RAISED BRICK.

FIG. 1-4. (LEFT) CURB RAMP WITH A MINIMALLY DETECTABLE GROOVED

SURFACE IN PHOENIX. FIG. 1-5 (RIGHT) A CURB RAMP WITH A NARROW
BORDER OF DETECTABLE WARNING PAVERS AT THE SIDES AND SMOOTH
PAVERS IN THE MIDDLE. BLIND PEDESTRIANS COULD EASILY MISS THE
NARROW BORDER OF DETECTABLE WARNING PAVERS.

Continued on next page

22 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

History of U.S. standards, continued

ADAAG (1991)— In 1991, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance

Truncated dome Board (Access Board) published the Americans with Disabilities Act
detectable warnings Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which included scoping and
technical specifications for truncated dome detectable warnings at
curb-ramps, hazardous vehicular ways, reflecting pools, and edges of
transit platforms having drop-offs. The ADAAG specifications are
provided in Chapter 2. The specifications were based on the extensive
program of research described above.

Controversy in the Both specifications and scoping for detectable warnings quickly
U.S. became one of the most controversial issues in ADAAG.
• Truncated dome detectable warnings were strongly advocated by
some individuals and organizations of blind travelers and the
orientation and mobility profession.
• They were strongly opposed by other individuals and
organizations of blind travelers and by some individuals and
organizations representing people concerned with safety of persons
with mobility impairments.
• Blind persons opposing detectable warnings at intersections and
hazardous vehicular ways claimed that other cues were available
and that detectable warnings were an unnecessary and costly
feature.
• Additionally, concerns were expressed regarding the use of
truncated dome detectable warnings on sloped curb-ramps and the
possibility of trips and falls for sighted pedestrians, particularly
women wearing high heels, as well as difficulty for wheelchair
users in traversing ramps with additional “bumps.”

CABO/ANSI By 1992, some members of the ANSI A117.1 committee were no

A117.1-1992— longer certain that detectable warnings were needed in any location,
Deleted detectable and all specifications for the texture and for its use in various locations
warning were dropped. There remained only the mention of standardization
specifications within a building, facility, site, or complex of buildings.

Continued on next page

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 23

History of U.S. standards continued

Some ADAAG Since April 1994, ADAAG requirements for truncated dome
requirements for detectable warnings at curb-ramps, hazardous vehicular ways and
detectable warnings reflecting pools have been temporarily suspended while the Access
suspended Board has sought additional research on whether detectable warnings
are needed at curb-ramps and hazardous vehicular ways, whether
detectable warnings help people with visual impairments, and whether
detectable warnings have adverse impacts on people with mobility
impairments.
The requirement for truncated dome detectable warnings at transit
platform edges remains in effect.

Research on The requirement for detectable warnings at curb-ramps, hazardous

detectable warnings vehicular ways, and reflecting pools was suspended pending research
recommended to determine
• Whether curb-ramps resulted in problems for pedestrians who are
blind,
• Whether detectable warning surfaces helped blind pedestrians, and
• Whether detectable warnings on curb-ramps had adverse impacts
on persons with mobility impairments.
See Chapter 3 for a summary of this research.

Rights-of-way In 1994 the Access Board proposed rights-of-way guidelines, Section

guidelines 14, adapting the basic ADAAG 1-10 provisions for application to
public rights-of-way. However, Section 14 was not adopted as part of
the Department of Justice Standard for Accessible Design.
Accessible Rights of Way: A Design Guide published by the Access
Board in 1999, states: “Although no Federal scoping or technical
requirements have been established that apply specifically to public
rights-of-way, both ADAAG and UFAS [Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards] contain technical requirements for the
construction of accessible exterior pedestrian routes that may be
applied to the construction of public rights-of-way. In the absence of
a specific Federal standard, public entities may also satisfy their
obligation by complying with any applicable State or local law that
establishes accessibility requirements for public rights-of-way that are
equivalent to the level of access that would be achieved by complying
with ADAAG or UFAS.”

Continued on next page

24 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

History of U.S. standards, continued

Local and state Many state and local government agencies have adopted standards
guidelines that include specific recommendations intended to meet pedestrian
accessibility requirements. The following pedestrian guidelines were
reviewed to determine recommendations regarding the installation of
detectable warnings surfaces.
• Washington Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook
• Portland [Oregon] Pedestrian Design Guide
• Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
• Florida Pedestrian Planning and Design Handbook
• Massachusetts Pedestrian Transportation Plan
• California Local Assistance Procedures Manual

Variety of All of these guidelines recommended some type of tactile warning

recommendations surface on curb-ramps. In addition, traffic-engineering professionals
from Arizona, Minnesota, Georgia, New Jersey and South Carolina
stated, in interviews, that there were state or local recommendations
for a surface change on the curb ramp.
• Portland, Oregon, and the States of Oregon, Washington, and
Florida guidelines all suggest a texture change on the curb ramp to
define the street edge for pedestrians who are visually impaired or
blind. However, a truncated dome surface is not required.
• The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan recommends that a
diamond grid pattern be stamped on curb-ramps, and the Portland
Pedestrian Design Guide recommends that curb-ramps be finished
with heavy brooming parallel to the curb.
• California requires grooves around the top of the curb ramp,
truncated dome detectable warnings on the ramp surface where the
slope is lower than 1:15, and a ½ in beveled lip at the curb line.
• Other guidelines stated that a tactile warning was needed on the
curb ramp but gave no guidelines for surface type.

ICC/ANSI A117.1- By 1998, based on recommendations of the ADAAG Review

Equivalent
1998 Advisory Committee which had recently been submitted to the Access
detectability Board for the revision of ADAAG, specifications for truncated dome
detectable warnings at platform edges were included in the ANSI
A117.1-1998 standard on accessibility. In this edition of ANSI
A117.1, the texture and visual contrast specifications were the same as
those in ADAAG.
Alternatively, equivalent detectability could be provided by other
means (ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998 705.3.2 and 705.3.3).

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 25

Other textured walking surfaces

Other surfaces A number of other textured surfaces are used on curb-ramps, but they
have not been demonstrated to be highly detectable to pedestrians who
are blind, both under foot and by the use of a long cane.
• Grooved cement has been found to be minimally detectable to
people using a long cane as a travel aid, and it is even less
detectable under foot.
• Other decorative surfaces that may be assumed to be detectable
have not been tested for detectability. Many surfaces that look
like they should be highly detectable have been found to be low in
detectability.
• Consistency in a warning surface is essential if it is to reliably be
understood as a warning by pedestrians with visual impairments.
• The truncated dome texture specified in ADAAG 4.29.2 is the
only surface that should be considered a detectable warning.

Raised design Raised design flooring sold as sheet goods or resilient tile may have a
flooring pattern of slightly raised circles. This product, sometimes known as
Pirelli tile, is not highly detectable and should not be considered a
detectable warning.

Directional tactile
paving

FIG. 1-6. DIRECTIONAL TACTILE FIG. 1-7. DIRECTIONAL TACTILE

TILE (ARMOR-TILE) TILE (DETECTABLE W ARNING
SYSTEMS)

Some countries have specifications for a raised, directional texture to

guide people who are visually impaired. This texture is similar in
height and width to truncated domes, but is a linear element. Such a
directional texture should not be used as a warning.

26 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Truncated dome detectable warnings

Focus on truncated This publication uses the term “detectable warning” to mean the
dome detectable walking surface consisting of truncated domes as specified in
warnings ADAAG.
• The technical specification for detectable warnings in ADAAG is a
truncated dome surface.
• Truncated domes are the only texture that has repeatedly been
demonstrated to have excellent detectability to pedestrians who are
bind, both under foot and through the use of a long cane.
• Therefore, the primary focus of this synthesis is on truncated dome
detectable warnings. When the term “detectable warning” is used
in this synthesis, it always refers to a truncated dome surface.

FIG. 1-8. CURB-RAMPS

WITH TRUNCATED DOME
DETECTABLE WARNINGS
ON OPPOSITE SIDES
OF AN ALLEY,
CLEVELAND, OH.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 27

28 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis
 Chapter 2

Detectable Warnings
in ADAAG

Summary This chapter presents specifications for detectable warning surfaces

as specified in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG). It includes information on ADAAG technical
provisions for detectable warnings at transit platform edges, on curb-
ramps, preceding hazardous vehicular ways, and surrounding
reflecting pools.

Chapter contents This chapter covers the following topics.

Topic Page
Definition & specification 30
Geometry of detectable warnings 31
Detectable warnings at transit platform edges 32
Detectable warnings at curb-ramps, at hazardous 34
vehicular ways, and reflecting pools

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 29

Definition & specification

Definition of A detectable warning is:

detectable warnings A standardized surface feature built in or applied to walking
surfaces or other elements to warn visually impaired people of
hazards on a circulation path. ADAAG 3.5
Detectable warnings are unique and standardized features, intended to
function much like a stop sign. They alert pedestrians who are
visually impaired to the presence of hazards in the line of travel,
indicating that they should stop and determine the nature of the hazard
before proceeding further.

Specification for ADAAG specifies:

detectable warnings Detectable warnings shall consist of raised truncated domes
with a diameter of nominal 0.9 in (23 mm), a height of
nominal 0.2 in (5 mm) and a center-to-center spacing of
nominal 2.35 in (60 mm) and shall contrast visually with
adjoining surfaces, either light-on-dark or dark-on-light.
The material used to provide contrast shall be an integral
part of the walking surface. Detectable warnings used on
interior surfaces shall differ from adjoining walking surfaces
in resiliency or sound-on-cane contact. ADAAG 4.29.2

Visual contrast The appendix to ADAAG recommends that detectable warnings

contrast visually with adjoining surfaces.
The material used to provide contrast should contrast
by at least 70%. Contrast in percent is determined by:
Contrast = [(B1 – B2)/B1] x 100
where B1 = light reflectance value (LRV) of the lighter area
and B2 = light reflectance value (LRV) of the darker area.
Note that in any application both white and black are never
absolute: thus, B1 never equals 100 and B2, is always greater
than 0. ADAAG A4.29

30 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Geometry of detectable warnings

Dome alignment The detectable warning surface 2.35

& pattern consists of truncated domes on a 60
square pattern which are typically
arranged in either of two

2.35
60
configurations:
• Diagonal alignment
• Parallel alignment
Figure 2-1 illustrates how both 0.9
configurations can comply with 23
the ADAAG specification for Square pattern,
diagonal alignment
detectable warning.

Direction of travel
Depending on which configur-

60 35

2. 60
35
2.
ation is used, the rows of domes
will be aligned with, or at a 45°
angle to:
• the curb or platform edge
• the direction of travel
Pedestrians encountering either 0.9
configuration will find the surface 23
pattern equally detectable. Square pattern,
parallel alignment
Another acceptable and plausible
arrangement of truncated domes 5
uses an equilateral triangular grid. 2.3 0
6
Only one U.S. manufacturer has

2.35
60
ever chosen to produce a detect-
able warning surface using this
pattern.

FIG. 2-1. PATTERNS AND

ALIGNMENTS OF TRUNCATED
0.9
23
DOMES COMPRISING THE ADAAG Triangular pattern
DETECTABLE WARNING.

Dome profile
FIG. 2-2. HEIGHT AND DIAMETER
OF TRUNCATED DOMES USED IN
0.9
0.2

ADAAG DETECTABLE WARNING.

5

23

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 31

Detectable warnings at transit platform edges

Requirement Platform edges bordering a drop-off and not protected by

for transit platform screens or guardrails shall have a detectable
platform edges warning. Such detectable warnings shall comply with
(ADAAG 1991) [ADAAG] 4.29.2 and shall be 24 inches wide running the full
length of the platform drop-off ` ADAAG 10.3.1(8)
This requirement is applicable to new construction, alteration, and in
key stations in existing transit facilities.

platform level
Railway or transit platform

High
24
610
Detectable warning

trackbed level
FIG. 2-3. DETECTABLE

Low
WARNING USED AT
PLATFORM EDGE
BORDERING A
DROP-OFF.

Why the warning The rationale for placement of detectable warnings as required by
is placed at the ADAAG was as follows.
platform edge
• Advocates wanted the warning to be at or very near the platform
edge so that there would be no possibility that a traveler could
interpret a width of platform between the warning and the edge as
a safe place to stand.
• Transit managers wanted the warning to be at the edge so that on
platforms that were retrofitted with detectable warnings, there
would be sufficient platform width on the side away from the edge
to accommodate a typical rush hour number of riders without the
necessity for riders to stand on the warning due to crowded
conditions.

Continued on next page

32 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Detectable warnings at transit platform edges, continued

Why the warning The rationale for the width of detectable warnings required by
is 24 inches wide ADAAG was the following.
• 24 in (610 mm) had been repeatedly demonstrated to be a
sufficient width of a surface highly detectable both under foot and
by use of a long cane, to enable detection and stopping on that
surface by most blind travelers (Peck & Bentzen, 1987; Templer
& Wineman, 1980; Templer, Wineman & Zimring, 1982).
• Transit managers wanted the warning to be as narrow as possible.
They did not want riders to either stand and wait on the warning,
or travel on it while no train was at a platform. Therefore a
warning surface needed to:
G reduce the effective standing capacity of platforms
as little as possible;
G enable blind passengers to stop a safe distance from
the platform edge without having to contact the edge
to determine where it was; and
G demarcate the limit of the safe waiting area for all passengers.

Transit managers reasoned that while most passengers would wait

behind the warning most of the time, there would nonetheless be a
small minority of passengers who would choose to walk along the
warning, between the edge and waiting passengers, if the warning was
wider than 24 in (R. Weule, BART Safety Manager, personal
communication, 1986).

Width & placement

decision also Also contributing to the rationale
based on positive for ADAAG specifications
experience regarding both width and
placement of detectable warnings
on transit platform edges was a
decrease in accidents for all riders
on BART (McGean, 1991) and
Metro Dade (A. Hartkorn, Metro
Dade Safety Manager, personal
communication, 1994) in the
years following installation of
FIG. 2-4. DETECTABLE 24 in wide detectable warnings at
WARNING SURFACE AT platform edges in those systems.
MARTA STATION,
ATLANTA, GA.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 33

Detectable warnings at curb-ramps,
hazardous vehicular ways and reflecting pools

Requirement A curb ramp shall

at curb-ramps have a detectable
warning complying
with [ADAAG] 4.29.2.
The detectable warn-
ing shall extend the full
FIG. 2-5. FLORIDA width and depth of the
CURB RAMP COMPLYING curb ramp.
WITH ADAAG 4.7.7.
ADAAG 4.7.7.
(Temporarily suspended
April 12, 1994, July 29,
1996, and November 23,
1998)

Requirement If a walk crosses or adjoins a vehicular way, and the walking

at hazardous surfaces are not separated by curbs, railings or other elements
vehicular ways between the pedestrian areas and vehicular areas, the boundary
between the areas shall be defined by a continuous detectable
warning which is 36 in (915 mm) wide, complying with 4.29.2
ADAAG 4.29.5 (Temporarily suspended April 12, 1994, July 29,
1996, and November 23, 1998)

FIG. 2-6. EXAMPLE

OF DETECTABLE
WARNING AT A LEVEL
RAIL CROSSING
(A TYPE OF HAZARDOUS
VEHICULAR WAY).

Requirement at The edges of reflecting pools shall be protected by railings,

reflecting pools walls, curbs, or detectable warnings complying with
[ADAAG] 4.29.2.
ADAAG 4.29.6 (Temporarily suspended April 12, 1994, July 29,
1996, and November 23, 1998).

34 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

 Chapter 3

Recent Research on
Detectable Warnings

Summary This chapter summarizes research to answer questions about the need
for and effectiveness of detectable warnings for people who are blind
or visually impaired and the effects of detectable warnings on
pedestrians with mobility impairments. The chapter then describes
research on visual contrast and sound contact. It concludes with
further research on detectability and discriminability conducted in
Japan and the United Kingdom.

Chapter contents This chapter covers the following topics.

Topic Page
Effects of curb-ramps on blind pedestrians 36
Effects of detectable warnings on travel by blind 37
pedestrians
Effects of detectable warnings on people with 38
mobility impairments
Evaluation of detectable warning materials 40
Research on sound on cane-contact differences 42
Research on visual contrast 43
Research on detectability 44
Research on dome dimensions and spacing 45

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 35

Effects of curb-ramps on blind pedestrians

Effect on street Two research projects (Barlow & Bentzen, 1994; Bentzen & Barlow,
detection 1995; Hauger, Safewright, Rigby & McAuley, 1994) confirmed that
removal of the single reliable cue to the presence of an intersecting
street, that is, the down curb, did result in the inability of even skilled,
frequent blind travelers to detect some streets.
Barlow and Bentzen found that on 35% of approaches to unfamiliar
streets, blind travelers using a long cane failed to detect the presence
of an intersecting street before stepping into it. Hauger et al. found
failure to detect streets on a somewhat smaller percentage of trials.

Effect of slope & Both projects (Barlow & Bentzen, 1994; Hauger et al., 1994) found
placement that failure to detect streets was highly correlated with slope of the
curb ramp. Barlow and Bentzen also found that street detection was
correlated with the abruptness of change in angle between the
approaching sidewalk and the curb ramp.
Both projects found that street detection was more likely when curb-
ramps were at the apex of a corner than when they were in the line of
travel. Hauger et al. also found that apex curb-ramps were more
likely to lead to unsuccessful street crossings than perpendicular curb-
ramps.

FIG. 3-1. W HERE THERE

IS NO DIFFERENCE IN
SLOPE OR ELEVATION
BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK
AND STREET, IT IS PARTI-
CULARLY DIFFICULT FOR
PEDESTRIANS WHO ARE
BLIND TO DETERMINE
WHEN THEY HAVE
REACHED AN INTER-
SECTING STREET.
BLENDED CURB IN
SACRAMENTO, CA.

36 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Effects of detectable warnings
on travel by blind pedestrians

Detectable Hauger et al. (1994) obtained subjective data from 70 research

warnings are participants who were blind or who had low vision, indicating that
helpful at curb- detectable warnings were judged to be helpful.
ramps In the same project, raters viewing videotapes of the 70 participants as
they crossed intersections with and without detectable warnings on
curb-ramps, found that a higher proportion of unsuccessful crossings
occurred where there were no detectable warnings than where there
were detectable warnings.
They also found that the visual contrast of detectable warnings helped
participants with low vision establish and maintain a heading toward
the opposite corner. Participants using dog guides may also have been
aided by the visual contrast that the dog guides appeared to head for.
Hughes (1995) conducted research in which 17 participants who were
totally blind or who had low vision traveled up and down laboratory
ramps having eight different tactile surfaces, of which five were
truncated domes. Ten of the participants then responded to structured
interviews including questions about their perception of the tactile
surfaces. Nine said use of tactile surfaces on curb-ramps would
increase their safety. Six said that use of the tactile surfaces would
make them more likely to travel by foot.

Detectable During the seven years following the installation of detectable

warnings reduce warnings on all platform edges in the BART system, platform edge
falls at transit accidents decreased for all riders, but especially for riders having
platform edges visual impairments (McGean, 1991).
• In San Francisco, riders in stations having different platforms
serving both BART and Muni (San Francisco Municipal Railway)
were observed to stand at different distances from the platform
edge.
• On BART platforms, which had 24 in detectable warnings along
the edges, passengers tended to wait behind the warning, that is, at
least two ft from the edge.
• On MUNI platforms, which did not have detectable warnings,
passengers waited closer to the edge (McGean, 1991).

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 37

Effects of detectable warnings on
people with mobility impairments

Effects on transit Objective and subjective research confirm that truncated dome
platforms detectable warnings at transit platform edges do not adversely affect
people having a variety of mobility impairments.
• None of the 24 participants in research by Peck and Bentzen
(1987) in BART had any difficulty maneuvering across or along
truncated domes or turning on truncated domes.
• Participants in this Peck and Bentzen research reported that
truncated domes would have minimal effects on their travel in
BART. A few people who used canes or crutches said they felt
their aids would be less likely to slip as they exited trains onto the
truncated dome surface than onto smoother surfaces.

Effects Objective and subjective research confirm that truncated dome

at slopes or detectable warnings on slopes or curb-ramps have minimal adverse
curb-ramps effects on people with mobility impairments.
• Bentzen, Nolin, Easton, Desmaris and Mitchell (1993, 1994b)
videotaped 40 participants having those mobility impairments
which made them most likely to have difficulty on bumpy, sloping
surfaces, travel up and down, stopping, starting, and turning on
seven ramps (slope 1:12) having nine different truncated dome
surfaces and one ramp surfaced with brushed concrete. Video
raters observed minimal evidence of increased effort, slipping, loss
of stability, or wheel or tip entrapment on this challenging task.
• Participants in this Bentzen et al. (1993, 1994b) research reported
minimal effects of truncated domes relative to the brushed
concrete surface.
• Hughes (1995) had nine people with mobility impairments travel
up and down eight ramps with different tactile surfaces. No
individuals reported or were observed to have problems with
directional control, stability, effort or discomfort that would have
altered their ability to travel safely.

38 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Effects of detectable warnings on
people with mobility impairments, continued

Benefits at Hauger et al. (1994) had 30 participants with mobility impairments

curb-ramps travel up and down curb-ramps with and without truncated domes.
• A majority felt that they were safer, had better traction, and were
more stable on ramps having truncated domes than on concrete
ramps.
• Forty four percent of participants said it required less effort to
negotiate up and down the ramps with detectable warnings than
the concrete curb-ramps; 23% said the reverse.
• Some wheelchair users said it was easier to find and steer toward
the up-ramp on the opposite corner when it had the contrasting
detectable warning surface.

FIG. 3-2. STAMPED

CONCRETE DETECTABLE
WARNING ON CURB
RAMP, AUSTIN, TX.

Effects at Hauger et al. (1994) observed pedestrians at three commercial sites

hazardous where shopping carts were used and where detectable warnings were
vehicular ways installed to separate the pedestrian and vehicular ways. In 12 hours of
observation, more than 1,500 pedestrians crossed the detectable
warnings. No significant incidents or problems were observed for the
general public, which included persons with mobility impairments,
shopping carts, shopping carts with children, large gurneys, and baby
carriages.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 39

Evaluation of detectable warning materials

Laboratory testing Eighteen truncated dome materials were submitted to laboratory

testing under a project sponsored by the Federal Transit
Administration (Ketola, N. & Chia, D., 1994). Standard tests were
performed for impact resistance, wet and dry slip resistance, wear
resistance, high-pressure hot water resistance, and adhesion/bond
strength after 55 hours soaking in water.
• Impact tests under room temperature, hot and cold conditions
found that, in general, rubber-based and polymer composite
materials performed quite well; more rigid products
(cementitious or ceramic tile) performed poorly.
• All materials exceeded the minimum value for slip resistance
recommended by the Access Board under both wet and dry
conditions.
• Wear resistance tested by 30 seconds of sandblasting revealed
a wide variety in performance of materials.
• High pressure hot water testing revealed little difference among
products.
• Seven materials were found to have poor adhesion/bond strength.
Detailed results of laboratory testing are in Ketola and Chia, 1993.

Continued on next page

40 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Evaluation of detectable warning materials, continued

Field testing Eight of the surfaces subjected to laboratory testing were field tested
in high pedestrian traffic indoor and outdoor areas in stations of three
rail transit systems, the MBTA (Boston), GCRTA (Cleveland), and
SEPTA (Philadelphia) (Ketola & Chia, 1994). Evaluations included
installation and maintenance, wear resistance, maintenance of bond,
resistance to cracking and chipping, and maintenance of color.
• Proper installation was found to be crucial to good performance.
Factors affecting adequacy of installation included installer skill,
ambient conditions, surface preparation, application of material
and setting period.
• No transit system reported maintenance problems with any
material.
• No transit system reported any difficulty removing snow and ice
from any materials using the same tools and chemicals used on the
rest of the platform surface.
• Although materials differed in wear resistance, all were estimated
to have a relatively long useful life.

• Materials differed widely in

maintenance of bond; four
materials had some bond
failure.
• Materials differed greatly in
resistance to cracking and
chipping; two materials had
no instances of cracking and
chipping, and two had
repeated instances.
• Three materials showed no
color change indoors or
outdoors; one material
showed major color change.
FIG. 3-3. INSTALLATION
OF DETECTABLE WARN-
ING TEST SURFACES
AT MBTA’S SOUTH
STATION, BOSTON, MA.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 41

Research on sound on cane-contact differences

A test of difference Although ADAAG 4.29.2 requires that detectable warning surfaces
in sound used indoors differ in sound on cane-contact, there has been no
attempt to quantify the amount of difference in sound. Bentzen and
Myers (1997) did, however, test four truncated dome products
installed on an outdoor light rail platform in Sacramento for
differences in sound on cane-contact.
• Surfaces differed from one another in both objective and
subjective measures of differences in sound on cane-contact
between the adjoining platform of pavers and the detectable
warnings.
• Difference in sound between the warning surface and the
adjoining platform surface appears to be related to both the
detectable warning material and the way in which it is installed.
• The detectable warning material installed with a slight gap
between the warning and the substrate was most detectable on
both objective and subjective measures.

42 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Research on visual contrast

Contrast of ADAAG 4.29.2 requires that detectable warnings contrast visually

detectable warnings with adjoining surfaces, either dark on light, or light on dark.
A 70% contrast in light reflectance between a detectable warning and
an adjoining surface is recommended in the Appendix (A4.29.2).

Research Recent research indicates that the color safety yellow is so salient-
shows value of even to persons having very low vision-that it is highly visible even
safety yellow when used in association with surfaces having light reflectance values
differing by as little as 40% (new, gray-white concrete) (Bentzen,
Nolin, and Easton, 1994a).
• A safety yellow detectable warning surface having a 40%
reflectance difference from new concrete was subjectively judged
more detectable than a darker warning surface which contrasted
with new concrete by 86% (Bentzen et al., 1994a).
• Hughes (1995) found that yellow or yellow-orange warning
surfaces were preferred over black warning surfaces.

Standards for Safety yellow is a color that is standardized for use as a warning
safety yellow in the pedestrian/highway environment.
• U.S. ANSI Z535.1-1991, 6.3
• Internationally—ISO 3864-1984(E)

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 43

Research on detectability

Many truncated Following publication of ADAAG in 1991, numerous manufacturers

dome surfaces entered the market. The products differed slightly in execution of the
truncated dome dimensions and spacing as well as materials (see
Chapter 7).
Truncated dome products soon included resilient sheet material,
dimensional pavers, tiles, polymer composites, bricks, pre-cast
concrete, stamped concrete and applied surfaces.

Many truncated In 1994 the Federal Transit Administration sponsored laboratory

dome surfaces research (Bentzen, Nolin, Easton, Desmarais & Mitchell, 1994) to
found to be highly evaluate the detectability of truncated dome surfaces that differed in
detectable material, dome dimensions, and dome spacing.
• 13 surfaces representing the extremes as well as the midpoints of
dome dimensions and dome spacing were tested by 24 blind
participants for under foot detectability in association with four
transit platform surfaces varying in roughness and resiliency.
• Each detectable warning surface was paired with brushed concrete,
coarse exposed aggregate concrete, Pirelli tile, and wooden
decking.
• Detection rate was greater than 95% for all but one warning
surface (a prototype that was not offered for sale).

Factors which have A number of factors were found to have little or no effect on
little effect on detectability.
detectability
• Parallel vs. diagonal alignment of domes
• Differences in resiliency
• Additional small elements added to increase slip resistance
• Irregularities in spacing where domes in adjoining tiles or pavers
were somewhat closer together or farther apart than within the tiles
or pavers
• A gradual increase in dome height within the first several inches

Factor which Detectability of truncated dome warning surfaces was less when the
decreases warning was installed in association with coarse exposed aggregate
detectability concrete.

44 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Research on dome dimensions and spacing

Japanese research Dome (raised dot) height, diameter and spacing were investigated to
determine optimal dome dimensions and spacing. (Report of
fundamental research on standardization relating to tactile tiles for
guiding the visually impaired, 1998).
• For testing dome height, 60 participants walked from smooth tiles,
across domed tiles of different heights, and were asked to report
whether they detected a domed tile under foot.
• For testing dome diameter and spacing, 60 blind participants
walked from smooth tiles, across either domed tiles or directional
(bar) tiles having different dimensions, and reported whether tiles
had domes or a directional (bar) pattern. (See Fig. 4-3 for the
nine diameters and spacings tested.)
• Participants also rated tiles for ease of identifying them as either
dome or directional tiles.

Dome height tests Dome heights tested were 0 mm, 2.5 mm, 5.0 mm, 7.5 mm and
10 mm.
• All participants detected tiles having 5.0 mm high domes.
• 15% of participants could not detect tiles having 2.5 mm high
domes.
• Some participants stumbled when traversing tiles having 10 mm
high domes.
• 5.0 mm high domes were recommended.

Dome diameter and Dome base diameters tested were (22 mm, 28 mm, and 35 mm), and
spacing tests dome spacings were (42.9 mm, 50 mm, and 60 mm). Top diameter of
domes was always 10 mm less than bottom diameter. Dome spacing
was measured on centers parallel to one side of a square pattern.

Optimal dome Three tiles had identification rates greater than 90% and were also
diameter and rated easy to identify:
spacing
• 22 mm base diameter with 50 mm spacing;
combinations
• 22 mm base diameter with 60 mm spacing; and
• 28 mm base diameter with 60 mm spacing.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 45

Illustrations of international tactile ground surface indicators

3-4. W ARNING PAVERS

AT A RAISED
CROSSWALK. UNITED
KINGDOM.

FIG.3-5. DETECTABLE
WARNING AT TOP &
BOTTOM OF STAIRS,
EXTERIOR USE IN
AUSTRALIA.

FIG. 3-6. (LEFT)

DETECTABLE WARNINGS
(BLISTER SURFACE) ON
THE THREE CURB-RAMPS
AT A SPLITTER ISLAND,
IRELAND

FIG. 3-7. (RIGHT)

TACTILE GROUND
SURFACE INDICATORS
LEADING AWAY FROM
STAIRS, LOUVAIN,
BELGIUM.

46 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

 Chapter 4

International Use of Warning Surfaces

Summary This chapter includes information on approaches to use of tactile

ground surface indicators, including warning surfaces. Information on
selected countries having significant experience in the application of
warning surfaces is presented. Each entry includes the history,
specifications or guidelines for textures and locations, maintenance
and durability, and acceptance.

Chapter contents This chapter covers the following topics.

Topic Page
Different approaches 48
Japan 50
United Kingdom 52
Australia 55
New Zealand 58
Italy 60
France 62
Germany 64
Austria 66
Netherlands 68
International standardization 69

Common 5 mm = 0.2 in 100 mm = 4 in 600 mm = 24 in

conversions 25 mm = 1 in 200 mm = 8 in 1200 mm = 47 in
(inches are 50 mm = 2 in 300 mm = 12 in 1800 mm = 71 in
rounded figures) 60 mm = 2.35 in 500 mm = 20 in 2m = 79 in

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 47

Different approaches

Tactile ground Worldwide, a number of ground or floor surfaces have been used to
surface indicators provide different types of information to people who have visual
impairments. In the work of the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), these surfaces are referred to as tactile
ground/floor surface indicators or TGSIs.

TGSIs as a In many countries, TGSIs are conceptualized as providing a

wayfinding system comprehensive wayfinding system for people with visual
impairments. In implementing this approach, extensive use is made of
linear surfaces that provide guidance from one place to another such
as between the stairs and the platform edge in a transit station.
Surfaces that are similar to the detectable warning surface in the U.S.
are designated as “attention fields,” and are typically used at path
intersections, at curb-ramps(especially mid-block), or at turns, as well
as at platform edges and curb-ramps. Japan, Austria, Switzerland,
France and Italy take this approach.
FIG 4-1. “ATTENTION
FIELD” SURFACE SHOWN
CIRCLED HERE, AND IN
FIG. 4-2.

FIG. 4-2. W AYFINDING

SYSTEM OF LINEAR
SURFACES AND
ATTENTION FIELDS IN
AUSTRIAN SUBWAY
SYSTEM.

TGSIs to indicate a In the United Kingdom, seven different tactile ground or floor
variety of features surfaces are used to help people who are visually impaired recognize
different types of features in the environment. Different surfaces are
used to indicate crossing points (curb-ramps), hazards (steps, ramps,
entrances to transit platforms), indoor transit platform edges, outdoor
transit platform edges, segregated shared bicycle/pedestrian surfaces,
and amenities such as public telephones and ticket offices. A linear
surface is also used as a guidance path.

Continued on next page

48 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Different approaches, continued

TGSIs for warnings Some countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada use
& directional warning surfaces (truncated domes) only where there are vehicular
information hazards or drop-offs.
They also use linear directional surfaces where directional cues such
as grasslines, curbs, hedges, fences, or walls are not present.

U.S. approach to In the U.S., (although opinions vary), the prevailing attitude as
warning surfaces articulated in standards and guidelines, is that warning surfaces are
needed
• primarily at highly hazardous locations where there is no
definitive cue denoting the boundary between pedestrian and
vehicular ways (curb-ramps and hazardous vehicular ways), or
• where there is a drop-off (platform edges, reflecting pools and
stairs).
It is recognized that people who are blind are usually able to negotiate
these hazards safely, using their normal travel aids-such as long canes
or dog guides-especially when they are in familiar areas.
Detectable warnings can provide information about the presence,
location and direction of hazards that is useful to blind pedestrians
traveling in unfamiliar places. Detectable warnings can also provide
confirming cues about the environment for pedestrians who may not
have highly developed travel skills.

U.S. approach to There has been limited use of directional surfaces in the U.S. for such
directional surfaces purposes as guidance across wide or skewed intersections, or guidance
to a curb ramp. Most of this experience has been in San Francisco,
Sacramento and San Diego, CA. No standards or guidelines have ever
been established in the U.S. for the use of directional surfaces.
In the U.S. it is not considered necessary to provide a comprehensive
tactile wayfinding system for people who have visual impairments.
Blind pedestrians are instead taught to extract clues from the
environment, using natural guidelines provided by such features as
grasslines, fences, hedges, building lines and traffic.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 49

Japan

History of use Tactile warning and guidance surfaces have been used in Japan
since 1967.
• Use began in Okayama Prefecture and is now widespread
throughout Japan
• Used on platforms and top and bottom of stairs in almost
100% of transit station in metropolitan areas
• Also used at curb-ramps and on sidewalks
• There is on-going research to determine optimal dimensions for
truncated dome warning and linear directional surfaces
(Murakami, Aoki, Taniai, & Muranaka, 1982; Murakami, Ohkura,
Tauchi, Shimizu, & Ikegami, 1991; Report of fundamental
research on standardization…, 1998)..

Most common Texture not standardized; dome shape, diameter and spacing varies.
texture This is the most common texture.
• Dome height—5 mm (all warning surfaces)
• Dome base diameter—35 mm
• Inter-dome spacing—50 mm with parallel or diagonal alignment

Guidelines for From Guidelines for Installation of Tactile Guide Blocks for the
location of warning Visually Impaired and Commentary (1985). These are guidelines
surfaces only; dimensions are given in only a few instances, but there are
numerous illustrations.
• Curb-ramps—600 mm deep, about 300 mm from the street, the
full width of the associated crosswalk
• Islands—on islands wherever a crosswalk contacts an island, 600
mm deep, about 300 mm from the street, the full width of the
associated crosswalk

Products Products used for warning surfaces are:

• Stone
• Concrete
• Synthetic rubber
• Plastic resin
• Vinyl chloride

Continued on next page

50 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Japan, continued

Durability and Durability and maintenance of warning surfaces are not considered
maintenance problems in Japan.
• Heavily traveled warning surfaces wear out regardless of the
material.
• Color changes, splitting of tiles, falling off of tiles, and
deterioration of domes sometimes occur.
• Snow and ice area not normally removed.
• Synthetic rubber and vinyl chloride are very slippery when wet.

Acceptance Warning and guidance surfaces are well accepted in Japan.

• Many Japanese persons with visual impairments depend on
warning and guidance surfaces.
• Persons with mobility impairments accept them.
• There are few complaints from persons who are elderly.
• There are few complaints from bicyclists.

Information Masaki Tauchi, Ph.D.

provided by Okayama Prefectural University
111 Kuboki, Soja-shi
Okayama 719-11, Japan
Tel: +81 866-94-2188
Fax: +81 866-94-2206
E-mail: [email protected]

Japanese research
on detectable FIG. 4-3. JAPANESE RESEARCH
warnings VARIED THE SIZE OF TRUNCATED
DOMES (DOT DIAMETER) AND THE
SPACING INTERVAL BETWEEN
DOMES (DOTS).

OF THE NINE DETECTABLE

WARNING TEST SURFACES, THREE
(SHOWN ENCLOSED BY THE LINE)
WERE IDENTIFIED AS DOT (VERSUS
BAR) TILES ON AT LEAST 90% OF
TRIALS.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 51

United Kingdom

History of use Domed warning (blister) surfaces have been used on curb-ramps and
at at-grade crossings in the UK since 1986.
• Domed surface for warning changed to truncated dome surface
because it was more comfortable, particularly for persons with
mobility impairments associated with arthritis
• Extensive research program conducted on detectability,
discriminability and memory for seven different tactile paving
surfaces to provide a warning at curb-ramps, at stairs and ramps, at
off-street transit platform edges, and at on-street transit platform
edges, to provide guidance along a route, to provide information
about a segregated cycle/pedestrian way, and to provide
information about the location of amenities such as public
telephones (Gallon, 1992; Gallon, Oxley & Simms, 1991; Savill,
Davies, Fowkes, Gallon & Simms, 1996; Savill, Stone & Whitney,
1998).

Texture Specifications for the blister surface and its use first were adopted in
1986. They were revised in 1991 (Disability Unit Circular 1/91).
• Dome height—5 mm ± .5 mm
• Dome base diameter—25 mm
• Domes 64-67 mm apart with parallel alignment.

Locations of tactile Extensive guidance on the location and installation of six different
paving surfaces tactile paving surfaces is contained in Guidance on the use of tactile
paving surfaces (1998), which supercedes Disabilitiy Unit Circular
1/91). Each surface is to be used for a different purpose.
• Pedestrian crossing points where the sidewalk is flush with the
street
• Hazards including stairs, level crossings and the approach to light
rapid transit platforms
• The edge of off-street rail platforms
• The edge of on-street rail platforms
• A shared cycle track/footway surface and central delineator strip
• Guidance along a route where traditional cues such as property
lines or curbs are not available

Continued on next page

52 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

United Kingdom, continued

Warning surface at Guidance on the installation of truncated domes (blister surface) on

curb-ramps, curb-ramps, medians, and raised crosswalks is as follows.
medians, and raised
• Depth of installation varies with nature of crossing, 400-1200 mm
crosswalks
across curb ramp, with stem (1200 mm wide) to the building line
“It is vitally important at signalized crossings
that the removal of any • On medians >2 m wide, warning surface required for depth of 800
existing kerb upstand mm at each side
at a recognized
• On medians <2 m wide, warning surface required for entire depth
crossing point, is
accompanied by the of median
installation of the blister • On the sidewalk at both ends of raised crosswalks.
surface.” Guidance on • Red normally used at signalized crossings
the Use of Tactile • Buff (or any color other than red, which contrasts with
Paving Surfaces (1998) surrounding pavement) normally used at unsignalized crossings

Warning surface at Specifications for truncated domes and guidance on their installation
off-street transit on off-street transit platform edges are as follows.
platform edges
• Dome height—5 mm ± 0.5 mm
• Dome base diameter—22.5 mm
• Installation—400 mm deep, installed 500-700 mm from platform
edge

Other warning Two additional warning surfaces are recommended for other purposes.
surfaces
• At on-street platform edges: a surface comprised of small raised
lozenge shapes running in the direction of the platform edge is
installed at a depth of 400 mm, 500-700 mm from the platform
edge.
• At stairs, level crossings and the approach to light rapid transit
platforms: an 800 mm deep “corduroy” surface is required.

Products for curb- The following materials are typically used for warnings at curb-ramps
ramps and transit and transit platforms.
platforms
• Pre-cast concrete pavers
• Natural stone
Other materials are currently being investigated.

Continued on next page

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 53

United Kingdom, continued

Products for other Typical products

applications
• Rubber tile
• Vinyl
Occasionally used
for special purposes
• Hardwood
• Aluminum
• Stainless steel
• Brass nails
FIG. 4-4. BRASS NAILS INSTALLED IN
PAVEMENT AS DETECTABLE WARNINGS.

Durability In heavily trafficked areas, modules need occasional replacement to

maintain the detectable texture.

Slip Resistance There is no evidence that surfaces are slippery under any conditions.

Acceptance Acceptance of truncated dome detectable warnings (blister surfaces) is

good.
• They are reported to be helpful to people with visual impairments.
• Some people having mobility impairments report having
difficulties, therefore the extent of the surface is limited.
• No adverse impact has been reported for the general public.

Information Sue Sharp, Disability Policy Peter Barker, Manager

provided by Branch, Mobility Unit Joint Mobility Unit
Dept. of the Environment, Royal National Institute
Transport and the Regions for the Blind
Floor 1/11, Great Minster House 224 Great Portland St.
76 Marsham St. London W1N 6AA, England
London SW1P 4DR, England Phone: +44 (0) 171-387 2233
Phone: +44 (0) 171 890 4917 Fax: +44 (0) 171-388 3160
Fax: +44 (0) 171 890 6102 E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail:
[email protected]

54 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Australia

History of use Truncated dome warning surfaces have been specified since 1988,
but not required under the Building Code of Australia until 1999
(AS 1428.4 Design for access and mobility—Tactile ground surface
indicators for the orientation of people with visual impairment ).
• Required at curb-ramps, medians, stairs, ramps, escalators, around
overhead obstacles under 2000 mm in height from the floor, and at
main entrances to buildings where there is no curb separating the
pedestrian from the vehicular way
• Also becoming common at bus and trolley stops, railway
platforms and wharves

Specifications: Type A
two types • Dome height—4 to 5 mm
• Dome base diameter—23 ± 1 mm
• Dome top diameter—11.5 ± 1 mm
• Dome spacing—60 ± 1 mm apart, measured on the diagonal,
with diagonal alignment
Type B—recommended for outdoor use
• Dome height—4 to 5 mm
• Dome base diameter—35 ± 1 mm
• Dome top diameter—25 ± 1 mm
• Dome spacing—50 ± 1 mm apart, with parallel alignment

Location Warning surface locations are specified in the Building Code of

Australia.
• At curb-ramps: placed 300 mm back from the curb line,
600 mm deep, and the width of the ramp
• At medians and islands: placed 300 mm back from the curb line,
600 mm deep, and the entire width of the curb-ramp or cut-
through
• At high use vehicular areas such as parking lots: placed
300 mm back from the driveway, 600 mm deep, and full width
of the pathway
• At transit platforms: placed 600 to 900 mm from platform edge,
600 mm deep
List continued on next page

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 55

Australia, continued

Location, continued • At bus stops: placed 300 mm back from the edge of the road, 600
mm deep and 1800 mm wide
• At tops and bottoms of stairways and escalators: one tread width
from riser, 300 ± 10 mm deep for enclosed stairways and
escalators, and 600 ± 10 mm deep for unenclosed stairways and
escalators

Products • Concrete—must be 60-70 MPa (8,700-10,000 psi) in strength to

maintain luminance contrast in wet weather and to produce strong,
durable domes.
• Vitrified porcelain
• Synthetic rubber/vinyl
• Polymer plastic—on trial
• Layers of reflective paint—on trial

FIG. 4-5. (LEFT)

AUSTRALIAN CURB RAMP
WITH DETECTABLE
WARNING.

FIG. 4.6. (RIGHT)

CURB RAMP LEADING TO
HANDICAPPED PARKING
SPACE, AUSTRALIA.

Continued on next page

56 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Australia, continued

Durability • Concrete and vitrified porcelain are durable, but domes can be
damaged when snowplows are not set carefully.
• Synthetic rubber/vinyl is subject to damage.
• Methacrilate resin cracks and chips.

Acceptance • People with visual impairments find them helpful provided they
have some instruction in their use.
• Major organizations of and for people with mobility impairments
agree that rises of 5 mm can be negotiated without difficulty.
• Truncated domes are not used in “Aged Care Residential
Facilities” as they could be hazardous to residents who shuffle.
Also, residents become familiar with layout of their residences and
do not need warnings.
• The general public experiences no problems.
• When used to warn of overhead protrusions where there is no
barrier, they protect all pedestrians.

Information Murray Mountain

provided by Access Design Solutions
103 New Street
Brighton, Victoria
Australia 3186
Phone: +61 3 9593 3750
Fax: +61 3 9592 9071
Mobile: 0414 589 414
E-mail: mountain@
alphalink.com.au

FIG. 4-7. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE

ACROSS FULL WIDTH OF SIDEWALK AT AN
ALLEYWAY (HAZARDOUS VEHICULAR WAY) IN
AUSTRALIA.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 57

New Zealand

History of use Truncated dome warning surfaces and guidance surfaces have been in
use in New Zealand since 1990.
They have been required since 1993 under NZS/AS 1428.4 Design for
access and mobility—Tactile ground surface indicators for the
orientation of people with visual impairment .
Most local authorities are using warning surfaces at intersections.

Texture of Specified by NZS/AS 1428.4 and Land Transport Safety Authority

warning surface Standards RTS 14 (June 1997)
Type A
• Dome height—4 to 5 mm
• Dome base diameter—23 ± 1 mm
• Dome top diameter—11.5 ± 1 mm
• Dome spacing—60 ± 1 mm apart, measured on the diagonal, with
diagonal alignment
Type B—(preferred in New Zealand)
• Dome height—4 to 5 mm
• Dome base diameter—35 ± 1 mm
• Dome top diameter—25 ± 1 mm
• Dome spacing—50 ± 1 mm apart, with parallel alignment

Location Warning surfaces are required:

• At curb-ramps: placed 300 mm back from the curb line,
600 mm deep, and the width of the ramp
• At medians and islands: placed 300 mm back from the curb line,
600 mm deep, and the entire width of the curb-ramp or cut-
through
• At high use vehicular areas such as parking lots: placed 300 mm
back from the driveway, 600 mm deep, and 600 mm min. wide

Products • Precast concrete

• Synthetic rubber
• Cobble stone with truncated domes

Continued on next page

58 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

New Zealand, continued

Maintenance and • Concrete is extremely durable and maintenance-free.

durability • There are some maintenance problems with synthetic rubber.
• There has been minimal experience with snow removal, but this
does not seem to be a problem.
• Surfaces are not slippery in wet or dry conditions.

Acceptance • Positive feedback from people with visual impairments has been
received for 10 years.
• People with mobility impairments have a strong preference for
Type B warnings.
• No complaints by general public have been received except when
tiles are not installed flush with the ground surface.
• General recognition of tactile tiles at crossing points has increased
awareness of general population, making these crossing points
safer.
• People with multiple disabilities consider them helpful.
• People who are elderly report that they are helpful.

Guidance surface

FIG. 4-8. DIAGRAM

SHOWING REQUIRE-
Curb ramp
with Sidewalk
MENTS FOR GUIDANCE detectable
SURFACE AND DETECT- warning
600
24

ABLE WARNING ON
CURB-RAMPS IN NEW
ZEALAND.

Information Michael Browne, Mobility Research Centre

provided by P.O. Box 9518
Newmarket
Auckland, New Zealand
Phone: +64 520-4953
Fax: +64 524-4177

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 59

Italy

History of use A tactile warning surface, “Loges,” exhibited in Düsseldorf,

Germany was introduced in Italy in 1997.
• Loges is now used in 20 cities.
• Locations include subway stations, railway stations
and post offices.

Texture of domes A handbook describes the texture characteristics (Orientation and

safety guide-strip: Designer’s handbook).
• Full domes 5 mm high having diagonal alignment are used as a
warning.
• Truncated domes 5 mm high having diagonal alignment are used
to signal a danger that can be safely overcome.
• Dome base diameter—22 mm
• Dome spacing—55 mm with parallel arrangement

Location Distance of warning surface from the indicated danger varies.

• Placed 300-400 mm back from a danger that can be crossed
• Placed 500-700 mm back from a danger which cannot be crossed
• Depth of warning—400 mm

Products Commonly used materials are:

• Concrete (exterior use)
• Rubber (interior use)
• Reconstructed stone (areas of artistic or historic significance)
• Stoneware

Maintenance, Maintenance and durability are not considered to be a problem.

durability and
• Surfaces are as easy to maintain as other paving or flooring
slip resistance
surfaces.
• Surfaces are as durable as other paving or flooring surfaces.
• Surfaces do not become slippery.

Continued on next page

60 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Italy, continued

Acceptance Warning surfaces are well accepted in Italy.

• Blind pedestrians find them very helpful.
• Blind pedestrians consider that warning surfaces promote a
positive image of pedestrians with visual impairments, as they
travel with greater independence and confidence.
• People having mobility impairments do not find them
troublesome.

Information Antonio Quatraro, Counselor in the domain of

provided by the integration of the visually impaired.
Via L. Fibonacci 9
50131 Firenze, Italy
Phone: +39 335 246246
Fax: +39 55 588103
E-mail: [email protected]

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 61

France

History of use Use of warning surfaces began in France in 1989, along rail transit
platforms.
• French standard, NF P 98-351,1989, Footways—Provision for
disabled persons—Warning for caution—Characteristic and testing
of pedotactile warning devices for the blind and partially sighted,
specifies textures, locations and placement of warning surfaces:
- Along railway platforms,
- At crosswalks with cut curbs,
- At raised crosswalks.
• Warning surfaces have been required since September 1999 on
curb-ramps and on sidewalks where they adjoin raised crosswalks.

Specified texture The texture of the domes is:

• Dome height—5 mm
• Dome base diameter—25 mm (domes not truncated)
• Dome spacing—75 mm on center, with diagonal alignment
The dome profile is specified by French standard NF P98-351.
Figure 4-9 shows the dimensions of the dome.
25
5

FIG. 4-9. DIMENSIONS OF FRENCH DOME

PROFILE (FULL DOME, NOT TRUNCATED)

Placement of Depth of the warning surface and placement in relation to the street or
warning surfaces platform edge are the same for different environments.
• Placed 900 mm back from platform edge or bottom of curb ramp,
extending the length of the platform, or width of the curb ramp
• 420 mm deep

Continued on next page

62 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

France, continued

Materials Commonly used materials are:

• Rubber
• Concrete pavers
• Methacrilate resin
• Stainless steel tiles or
stainless steel nails
The photograph in Figure 4-10
shows a detectable warning
installation with steel nails
manufactured by ACCESSIville.
FIG. 4-10. FRENCH
DETECTABLE WARNING NAILS.

Durability Concrete pavers have performed best in France.

• Rubber is difficult to adhere.
• Methacrilate resin cracks and chips.

Acceptance Warning surfaces are well accepted in France because of the

involvement of persons with disabilities in their design.
• Surfaces were field tested and approved by persons with visual
impairments and persons with mobility impairments.
• On rail transit platforms, all passengers tend to wait further from
the platform edge, behind the warning.

Information Maryvonne Dejeammes

provided by CERTU
9 Rue Juliette Recamier
69456 Lyon 06
France
Tel: (33)(0) 4 72 74 5867
Fax: (33)(0) 4 72 74 5930
E-mail: [email protected]

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 63

Germany

History of use Tactile ground surface indicators have been used in Germany since
1984.
• Warning and guidance surfaces are now in use in
approximately 1000 (17%) of German railway stations, and
they are widely used in pedestrian areas in towns and cities.
• Efforts toward standardization began in 1989.
• A sinusoidal wavy texture, in various dimensions, is used for
guidance and warning.

Standard texture
Standards to be published in April 2000 as DIN 32984.
• Texture is comprised of parallel rounded grooves.
• Grooves—3 mm deep
• Spacing—10 to 20 mm on center

Location TGSIs are used at curb ramps,

medians, top and bottom of stair
runs, transit platforms, and bus
stops.

FIG. 4-11. W ARNING &

GUIDANCE SURFACE AT
GERMAN BUS STOP.

Products The following products are used in Germany.

• Concrete tiles • Hard rubber tiles
• Ceramic tiles • Metal plates

Maintenance and • Surfaces are easily cleaned using cleaning machines.

durability • Surfaces are less slippery than normal concrete surfaces when wet,
oily or icy.
• Surfaces are adequately durable.

Continued on next page

64 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Germany, continued

Acceptance The guidance system is well accepted by all groups.

• Blind pedestrians who use a long cane find the guidance system
helpful, but travel somewhat more slowly using the system than
when not using it.
• Surfaces are well accepted by people with mobility impairments
because they comply with a standard requiring a minimum tremor
to wheels when crossing structured surfaces.
• Most rail passengers seem to use the guidance system as an
indication of the limit of the safe waiting area on the platform.
• Older persons comment that their feet don’t get cold when they
stand on rubber guidance tiles at bus stops.

FIG. 4-12. GERMAN

TGSI PATH DOWN A
SIDEWALK AND TO A
CROSSWALK.

Information Gerhard Kuper Volker Koenig

provided by Von-Siemensstr. 6A Wiedetwiete 42
D 22880 Wedel, Germany D 22880 Wedel, Germany
Phone & Fax: +49 4103-87083 Phone: +49 4103 84311
E-mail: Gerhard.Kuper@ Fax: +49 4103 180438
arcormail.de

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 65

Austria

History of use Warning surfaces have been used in Austria since 1992, primarily on
transit platforms.
Approximately 80% of metro stations in Vienna have warning
surfaces.

Specifications for ÖNORM V2102, adopted in 1997, specifies the dimensions of tactile
warning textures indicators for warning (attention) and guidance, and the dimensions
(“attention fields”) and placement for installations on transit platforms and on public
rights-of-way. Warnings can be either truncated domes or truncated
pyramids.
• Height—5 mm preferred;
4 mm minimum acceptable for exterior use;
3 mm minimum acceptable for interior use
• Dome diameter—base 30-40 mm; top 20-30 mm
• Dome spacing—50-70 mm on center
• Pyramid side—base 30 mm; top 20 mm
• Pyramid spacing—45-50 mm on center, with parallel alignment
• Warning and guidance indicators should contrast visually with
adjoining surfaces by at least 30%.

Placement and ÖNORM V2102 also specifies dimensions and placement of warning
dimensions textures to indicate changing situations and boarding locations on
transit platforms and public rights-of-way.
• At changing situations, warning indicators should be 300-400 mm
from a change such as a drop-off, stairs or a ramp; they should be
400-1000 mm deep.
• At boarding locations, warning indicators should be 100-120 cm
square.
• At cut-through islands or medians, a 600 mm deep warning
indicator should be placed at each side of the island.
• At raised crosswalks, warning indicators should be placed on the
sidewalk 300-400 mm from the curb line.

Continued on next page

66 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Austria, continued

Materials Materials used for warning indicators are:

• Stone • Concrete • Road marking paint

Maintenance, Maintenance, durability and slip resistance of warning indicators are

durability and slip- not a problem.
resistance
• Stone and concrete surfaces have not deteriorated.
• Road marking paint is in good condition after seven years.
• Snow and ice removal is not considered a problem.
• Warning surfaces are sometimes slippery, but only when
surrounding surfaces are also slippery.

Acceptance Warning indicators are well accepted.

• Pedestrians with visual impairments find them very helpful.
• There have been no complaints from persons with mobility
impairments.

Information Günther Ertl Phone: +43 (0) 1 7909-41300

provided by Wiener Linien-Vproj Fax: +43 (0) 1 7909 41390
A-1030 Wein E-mail:
Erdbergstrasse 202 [email protected]
Vienna, Austria

FIG. 4-13. (LEFT) A

LINEAR DIRECTIONAL
SURFACE LEADS TO AND
BEYOND A LEVEL RAIL
CROSSING. A DETECT-
ABLE WARNING SURFACE
EXTENDS FROM BUILD-
ING TO CURB LINE ON
BOTH SIDES OF TRACKS,
VIENNA, AUSTRIA.
FIG. 4-14. (RIGHT)
A LINEAR DIRECTIONAL
SURFACE LEADS TO A
DETECTABLE WARNING
SURFACE AT A CURB,
VIENNA, AUSTRIA.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 67

Netherlands

History of use In the early 1980s a rubber warning surface was introduced in
Holland.
• Although detectability seemed good, the surface was not
sufficiently durable.
• Extensive research has been conducted on 40 surfaces. .

Recommended A truncated dome (“blister”) surface is now recommended for

texture warning.
• 25 domes in 30 x 30 cm module

Location Warnings should be 60 cm deep, and as wide as the hazard. They

are recommended for use in the following types of locations:
• Dangerous crossings
• All crossing points where there is no level difference between the
pedestrian way and the vehicular way
• Tops and bottoms of stairs
• Bus stops
• “Decision points” where tactile guidance surfaces intersect

Products The product currently recom-

mended is a metal plate that
has been pre-formed with
blisters, glued on 30 x 30 cm
concrete, then coated with a
gritty white or yellow epoxy
layer.

FIG. 4-15. DETECTABLE

WARNING PAVERS
AT A BLENDED CURB.

Information Henk Grotendorst

provided by Dutch Federation of the Blind and Partially Sighted
Postbus 2062
3500 GB Utrecht
Phone: +30 299 28 78
E-mail: [email protected]

68 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

International standardization

International ISO is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies.

Organization for
• International Standards are prepared through the work of ISO
Standardization
technical committees and working groups.
(ISO)
• International organisations, governmental and non-governmental,
in liaison with ISO, participate on technical committees and
working groups.
• Adoption of ISO standards by member countries is voluntary.

Technical ISO/TC173-Technical systems and aids for disabled or

Committee 173 handicapped persons-
(ISO/TC173)
• Has a number of working groups, including one on tactile
ground/floor surface indicators (TGSIs).
• Working Group 7 completed Committee Draft ISO/CD
11550.2(E), Technical aids for blind and vision impaired persons
Tactile ground/floor surface indicators (TGSIs) in November
1999.

ISO draft on TGSIs • Specifies requirements for design and installation of tactile
indicators for use on ground or floor surfaces to assist the
orientation and mobility of people with visual impairments
• Includes specifications for warning, directional, and shared
pedestrian/cycle surface indicators
Warning surface
The warning surface is comprised of truncated domes:
• Dome height5 ± .5 mm
• Dome top diameter12-25 mm
• Dome spacing50-65 mm on
Directional surface
The directional surface is a series of raised elongated bars running in
the direction of pedestrian travel:
• Bar height5 ± .5 mm
• Bar top width30 ± .5 mm
• Bar spacing75 ± .5 mm on center

Continued on next page

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 69

International standardization, continued

ISO draft on TGSIs, Shared pedestrian/bicycle indicator

continued The shared pedestrian/bicycle indicator is:
• A central delineator strip: trapezoidal profile, 150 ± 1 mm wide
• Trapezoid height: 12-20 mm ± 1 mm
• Top surface: 50 ± .1 mm
Contrast luminance factor
Recommended minimum of 30% luminance contrast between tactile
indicators and surrounding surfaces

Applications Applications for warning surfaces are:

• Curb-ramps
• Crossings where there is a raised road surface
• Vehicle crossovers with high traffic flows
• Pedestrian refuges/medians
• Railway platforms and passenger wharves
• Level railway crossings
• Stairways and moving stairs
• Intersections with shared pedestrian/bicycle traffic
• Shared pedestrian/bicycle paths

Installation of Warning surfaces are to be:

warning surfaces
• Installed across the full width of the trafficable surface
• Installed perpendicular to the path of travel
• Set back a maximum of 400 mm from the hazard
• Have a minimum depth of 400 mm (600 mm preferred)
• Have a base surface level 0-3 mm above the
surrounding surface
• Laid so there is no likelihood of surfaces lifting
• Have slip resistance in accordance with the standard of
the country where the application is laid

70 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

 Chapter 5

U.S. Use of Detectable Warning
Surfaces: Case Studies
Summary This chapter includes information on use of truncated dome detectable
warnings in the U.S. The method of obtaining information is
described, and a summary of the information is given. The chapter
concludes with case studies of selected cities and rail transit systems
where truncated dome detectable warnings have been installed. Case
studies include history, locations, maintenance and durability, and
acceptance of detectable warnings in each location.

Chapter contents This chapter covers the following topics:

Topic Page
Locating U.S. installations of detectable warning
surfaces 72
Responses to mail survey 73
Interviews regarding detectable warning installations 74
Interview locations 75
Interview questions 76
Interview results  general; installation problems;
Maintenance; durability; public reaction 77
Austin, TX 82
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
(MARTA), Atlanta, GA 84
Roseville, CA 86
Metro North Railroad, greater New York City 88
Harrisburg, PA 90
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
(MBTA), Boston, MA 92
Cleveland, OH 94
Baltimore County, MD 96
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), San Francisco, CA 98
Claremont, CA 100

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 71

Locating U.S. installations of detectable warning surfaces

Developing a An E-mail survey was sent to several mailing lists of individuals who
list of locations might have information regarding locations of detectable warnings
surfaces in the United States. Manufacturers were also contacted and
installation locations were requested. Available pedestrian design
guidelines were also reviewed to determine locations that currently
require a truncated dome detectable warning surface.

Mail survey In October 1999, a survey was sent to E-mail listserves whose
subscribers might be aware of locations where a texture change is used
to provide information to pedestrians who are visually impaired or
blind.
• Groups included pedestrian advocates, orientation and mobility
specialists, Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the
Blind and Visually Impaired (AER), individuals who are blind or
visually impaired, and traffic engineers.
• Survey requested specific locations, types of location (curb ramp,
transit platform, edge of street, medians) and the texture (grooves,
grid pattern, brick, rubber mat, truncated domes, or other), of any
texture change intended to provide information to pedestrians with
visual impairments.
• Survey requested the name of a contact person who might be able
to answer questions about experience with truncated dome
detectable warning surfaces.

Other information Additional information was gathered about installations from:

sources
• Manufacturers of truncated dome detectable warning materials
were asked for contacts in locations where their products had been
installed
• Conversations with Access Board staff
• A review of references in previously published materials
• Personal contacts of authors
• American Public Transit Association

72 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Responses to mail survey

Responses to The 48 responses included surveys from 28 states, the District of

survey Columbia and Canada
• Many respondents noted two or more locations and types of
locations, for example, the name of an entire transit system that
had detectable warnings and a list of several intersections in that
city with grooves on the curb-ramps.
• Five respondents replied that they were not aware of any locations
where a texture change was used.
• Thirty-nine reported the use of other surfaces besides, or in
addition to, truncated domes, including grooves, grid patterns,
standard bricks, exposed aggregate, and “exposed rock.”

State and local Responses from several states indicated that there were state or local
requirements requirements for tactile surfaces on curb-ramps.
• For example, a traffic engineer from Minnesota stated that an
exposed aggregate was required on all curb-ramps,
• and a response from Phoenix stated that grooves were required on
curb-ramps in all new construction.
• California requires grooves at the top of the curb ramp and
detectable warnings where the slope is less than 1:15.

FIG. 5-1.
A MINIMALLY DETECT-
ABLE WARNING SURFACE
IN PORTLAND, ME.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 73

Interviews regarding detectable warning installations

Interview Research assistants made calls to locations identified by the initial

survey as having truncated dome detectable warnings.
The detectable warning and its location was confirmed and it was
determined that the individual being interviewed had some
responsibility related to its installation or use. Names of additional
contacts were requested.

Locating Architects and facilities maintenance supervisors of transit systems,

appropriate ADA coordinators of transit systems and cities, traffic engineers, city
persons engineers, and various public works officials were queried.
• Phone calls were made to city public works departments,
engineering departments, and transit systems in order to locate
knowledgeable individuals.
• Some cities have a designated curb ramp managermany do not.
In several situations, the public official was unaware of the presence of
detectable warning within his/her jurisdiction until the researcher
identified the specific location.

Types of locations The people interviewed reported the following types of locations for
for detectable detectable warnings:
warnings
• Curb-ramps at intersections18 jurisdictions
• Curb-ramps throughout the city2 cities
• Entrances to public stores, between parking lot and entrance
4 jurisdictions
• Transit system platforms, or light rail loading areas, usually at
numerous locations throughout systems17 systems
• Raised intersection crosswalks, along driveways at a school for the
blind, and a university3 reports

FIG. 5-2. CURB RAMP

EXPOSED AGGREGATE
SURFACE IN VIRGINIA.
PEDESTRIANS WHO
ARE BLIND DO NOT
RELIABLY DETECT
EXPOSED AGGREGATE
CONCRETE.

74 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Interview locations

City interviews Interviews were conducted for these cities:

• Roseville, CA • Chicago, IL • Portsmouth, NH
• Sacramento, CA • Cambridge, MA • Cleveland, OH
• San Diego, CA • Towson, MD • Harrisburg, PA
• San Francisco, CA • Anoka, MN • Austin, TX
• Lakeland, FL • Greensboro, NC

Transit system Interviews were conducted for these transit systems:

Interviews
• San Diego Trolley, • Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
San Diego, CA Transit Authority (MARTA),
• Bay Area Rapid Transit, Atlanta, GA
(BART), San Francisco, CA • Chicago Transit Authority,
• San Francisco Municipal Rail- Chicago, IL
way (MUNI), San Francisco, • MTA and Maryland Area Rail
CA Commuter (MARC),
• Valley Transportation Baltimore, MD
Authority, San Jose, CA • Massachusetts Bay Transpor-
• AC Transit, San Pablo, CA tation Authority, Boston, MA
• Metrolink, Southern • Metro North Railroad,
California Commuter Rail Greater New York City, NY
• Sacramento Regional Transit, • Cleveland Regional Transit
Sacramento, CA Authority, Cleveland, OH
• Metro-Dade Transit, Miami, • Portland TriMet, Portland, OR
FL • Virginia Railway Express,
Washington DC & VA

Other interviews Interviews were conducted with these individuals and organizations:
• Maintenance supervisor • Contractor in Atlanta, GA,
at University of Alaska, • Blind person in Towson, MD
Fairbanks, AK • Consultant in accessibility
• Maintenance supervisor issues, Ottawa, ON, Canada
at ARCO, Anchorage, AK • Employee of Q-Lube,
• Blind person in Canada Bonney Lake, WA
• Manager at a TOYS R US • Maintenance supervisor at the
store, Roseville, CA Washington State School for
• Manager of Checkers the Blind, Seattle, WA
Drive-In, Lakeland, FL • Contractor in Ontario, CA

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 75

Interview questions

Interview Interview questions were divided into five major categories:

questions
• Location and materialsinformation about the exact location, type
of installation, and type of material including the manufacturer, if
known
• Installationdate installed, approximate cost per square foot,
installation method, color of detectable warning and problems or
difficulties in the installation process
• Maintenance and durabilitymaintenance problems, cleaning
method and products, evidence of wear and tear and extent of the
problem, experience with snow and ice removal, and whether any
replacements have been needed
• Public Reaction/Problems/Concernsspecific instances where
truncated domes have been the cause of pedestrian complaint, or
legal action; comments from individuals who are blind, who have
mobility impairments, or from the general public
• Additional Information/ContactsContacts were asked for names
of other knowledgeable individuals, photos of the detectable
warning installations, any research on detectable warnings, and
about their plans to install more detectable warnings.
See the Appendix for a copy of the interview questionnaire and
specific questions asked in each area.

Snow removal

FIG. 5-3. (LEFT)

CURB RAMP IN
ANCHORAGE, AK.

FIG. 5-4. (RIGHT)

CURB RAMP IN
ANCHORAGE, AK
SHOWING SNOW
REMOVAL WITH A
BRUSH.
A

76 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Interview results  general

Materials A wide range of materials were reported:

• Unit masonry
• Precast concrete units
• Concrete, stamped after pour
• Epoxy polymer composite tile
• Ceramic tile
• Plastic/rubber urethane tile
• Latex-modified mortar
Some of the originally installed products are no longer commercially
available and some of the manufacturers are no longer in business.
See Chapter 7, U.S. Detectable Warning Manufacturers.
At several locations the original material was unsatisfactory, but
replacement detectable warnings from the same or a different
manufacturer have been installed and are functioning in a satisfactory
manner.

Color of Colors used included safety yellow, light gray, red brick, black and
detectable warning blue.

Installation dates Dates of installation ranged from 1986 to 1999.

Installation costs Although cost per square foot information was requested in each
interview, it was generally unavailable, or impossible to adequately
compare with other installations due to the variations in materials,
installation methods (whether installed by manufacturer or a
contractor), job size, and dates of installations. Therefore, responses
are not reported here.

Installation method Most panel or sheet type materials were mechanically fastened, as well
as glued to the surface material. Some types of panels are specifically
manufactured with a flange to be set in wet concrete.
Brick and paver type materials are installed using standard procedures.
Stamped concrete requires precise attention to dome height,
appropriate pressure in the process, and curing of the concrete.
Detailed specifications and contractor requirements for installation
methods and materials have been developed by Roseville, CA; Austin,
TX; Cambridge, MA; Towson, MD; and many of the transit systems
queried.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 77

Interview results  installation problems

Installation Various types of difficulties were reported, many of which were

problems or considered minor by the individual reporting them. Each type of
difficulties material requires a specified procedure.
Transit systems using tiles generally had to grind down a section of the
platform edge to retrofit their systems with the detectable warning.
Two specifically reported that it was a much easier process than
anticipated, since the manufacturer had equipment that handled the
requirements.
Many installation A number of negative reports involved the process of stamping the
difficulties were truncated dome surface in concrete, with very few successful
considered minor by experiences. Stamping the dome texture on sloping concrete and
the individuals getting an acceptable consistency of surface, dome height, and concrete
reporting them hardness seemed to be an extremely difficult process, requiring expert
contractors. One public works official in Minnesota stated that the
dome surface had worn better than he expected, but he would not
install it again as stamped concrete because the process was too
difficult.
Contractors were generally reported to be familiar with the methods of
setting brick pavers, even on a sloped surface. Setting pavers in mortar
was suggested by the experience in several locations.
There were a number
of negative reports The problems reported with pavers were related to cutting the pavers to
about stamping in fit curves, and the lack of guidelines for maintaining the distance
concrete. between domes when materials needed to be cut to fit a curve, such as
at the base of a blended curb ramp.
Precast truncated dome units for curb-ramps are manufactured in
specific sizes, requiring consistency in the curb ramp type and
placement.

78 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Interview results  maintenance

General Cleaning method and products were standard. Most curb ramp
maintenance installations were not cleaned. Many indoor transit locations were
pressure washed. One location reported using solvents, as necessary.
Frequency of cleaning ranged from “never” to weekly.

Snow & ice Experience, method and comments regarding snow and ice removal
removal were requested. Concerns about snow and ice removal have been one
of the barriers to installation of truncated dome surfaces, so questions
were specifically asked regarding experience with clearing snow and
ice.
Number of cities Experience with
or transit systems snow & ice removal
22 No experience with snow or ice
3 Recent installation and no experience to date
16 Have had experience with snow and ice
Various methods of clearing, including snowplows, brushes or brooms,
and chemicals, were reported.
While concerns continue to be expressed about damage to the domes
from snowplows, only three people stated that plows removed domes.
One said that snowplows removed domes at apex curb-ramps while
another stated that it was “no problem because the domes are set in
concrete and the blade passes over them”. The same person also stated
that truncated domes were “preferred to grooves because they
(truncated domes) don’t fill up with snow and dirt.” Clearly, there has
been a variety of experience, depending on the equipment and the
detectable warning material.
• A report from Anoka, MN stated: “People thought shovels would
shear off domes, but they don’t. Brooms work much better …
either do that or flood with salt. Plows break some domes off.”
• One commented: “Use brooms and sand. Any water will collect
below the domes while people step on top.”
• A plow with a rotary brush was recommended.
• Two people reported problems with salt degrading the domes on
stamped concrete surfaces and another commented “no problems,
chemicals don’t seem to hurt.”
• Chemicals may make some types of detectable warning materials
slippery.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 79

Interview results  durability

Durability Specific questions were asked about problems with tiles chipping, color
fading, domes wearing, tiles peeling, and whether these of problems
“We do not take any were considered minor, major or no problem
special precautions • More than one transit system facility supervisor stated that although
during snow removal tiles had to be replaced regularly, they considered that a typical
and it seems to have maintenance item and did not see it as a problem.
held up quite well.”
• Numerous problems with peeling and bubbling were reported in
“Yes, it is plowed early installations of rubber tiles, particularly in outdoor
mainly with a front end installations. Many of those installations in transit systems have
loader with a bucket. been replaced with a different material. Adhesives alone may not
It scrapes the ground be adequate in outdoor installations and care must be taken to
pretty hard so [the
detectable warning]
follow manufacturer’s recommendations.
takes quite a bit of • A detectable warning, thought to be Pathfinder Tile, was installed
abuse.” before 1996 in Fairbanks, AK, and it is still in good condition. It is
across a driveway and subject to extreme cold, regular plowing, and
Ed Foster, Univ. of
some traffic by heavy vehicles. On a similar detectable warning
Alaska Fairbanks
Maintenance. installed in Anchorage, Alaska, snow is regularly removed with the
same brush used for sidewalk snow removal (see Fig. 5-4).
• Seven of the transit systems
and two cities noted color
fading. Three indicated that it
was major, with two saying
that the manufacturer either
replaced or re-coated the
materials. All others reported
the fading as minor.
• Problems with wear on domes
were generally reported by
cities with curb ramp locations
where a “stamped after pour”
FIG. 5-5. DETECTABLE concrete surface was installed.
WARNING SURFACE
WITH A PARTIAL SNOW
COVER BETWEEN THE
DOMES, ANCHORAGE,
ALASKA.

80 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Interview results  public reaction

Public reaction, Public reaction seems to have been most positive in locations where
problems or the disability community was involved in the Americans with
concerns Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan and making decisions regarding
the use of detectable warnings.
One question asked about specific instances where truncated domes
have been the cause of pedestrian complaints or problems. Five
Pedestrians who are locations answered that there was an instance of pedestrian complaint.
mobility impaired find One was a mobility impaired individual using a cane, who found the
the truncated domes truncated domes more difficult to traverse. A city ADA coordinator
just “more difficult to
stated that pedestrians who are mobility impaired find the truncated
manage.” A city ADA
coordinator
domes “just more difficult to manage”. Another stated that there were
complaints from women in high heels, but no injuries.
There were two instances in which legal action was reported in
association with a truncated dome detectable warning. The authors of
this report made extensive phone calls to attempt to document the
details, as noted below.

No record In one case, the Manager of Construction and Maintenance for a city
of any lawsuits stated that truncated domes were no longer installed on curb-ramps in
that city because there were “too many lawsuits from women in high
heels.” However, he said he knew no details and referred us to the
Engineering Manager. Phone conversations with the managers and
“I think this is one of staff of the engineering and traffic operations departments failed to
those urban myths.” locate any information.
A city risk manager.
The city’s department of Risk Management was contacted and stated
that there was no record of any lawsuits associated with curb-ramps or
truncated dome detectable warnings in the past seven yearsthe
detectable warnings were installed six years ago. The Risk
Management department Manager stated “I think this is one of those
urban myths.”

Lawsuits, In another situation, the transit system construction manager stated that
but no details there had been two lawsuits. He did not know any details and said his
only knowledge was that the city had contacted him with general
questions regarding the installation of the detectable warning material.
Further information could not be located.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 81

Austin, Texas

History The city of Austin has installed truncated dome detectable warnings at
curb-ramps since 1992.
• The disabled community was involved in preparing an ADA
compliance transition plan.
• When Austin began putting in curb-ramps, detectable warnings
were required. Even though the federal detectable warning
requirement was subsequently suspended, the state of Texas
continued to require the use of either truncated dome detectable
warnings or grooved surfaces at curb-ramps.
• A recent rules change now permits the use of grooved surfaces in
residential or industrial areas; however, truncated dome detectable
warnings are required within the Central Business District and in
the area surrounding the school for the blind.
• Additionally, truncated dome detectable warnings are required
at any curb ramp that is constructed using public funds.
Over 1000 ramps in Austin now have truncated dome detectable
warnings.

Materials and • In 1992, the first installations were stamped concrete approxi-
Installation mately 4 ft x 6 ft, covering the entire ramped area.
• This practice was discontinued due to the difficulty associated
with stamping the concrete and the poor durability of the painted
surface.
• Dark red brick pavers have been installed since 1995.
• Pavers are installed in the full width and depth of the ramp,
exclusive of the flares, typically an area of 4 ft x 5 ft.
• There were problems with settling when pavers were installed
in sand, but setting in mortar solved that problem.

Specifications City of Austin standard

specifications and standard details
are available on the internet at
www.ci.austin.tx.us. From the
FIG. 5-6. MID-BLOCK pull down menu, select Quick
CROSSING WITH CURB Connections >Development
RAMP, AUSTIN. Process > Standard Details &
Specifications.

Continued on next page

82 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Austin, Texas, continued

Maintenance and Ken Zimmerman, Project Manager with the ADA Curb Ramp and
Durability Sidewalk Program reports no problems with wear, except possibly
some fading.
• Pavers are never
washed.
• There has been no
experience with snow
or ice.
• Revising the
installation method
solved the problem of
settling.
• A few individual
pavers have been
replaced due to
FIG. 5-7. DETECTABLE WARNING
settling and damage
BRICK PAVERS, AUSTIN, TEXAS.
from trucks.

Acceptance • Ken Zimmerman said he thinks wheelchair users would “prefer no

bumps”, but there have been no complaints.
• General public is “supportive”.
• Originally detectable warnings were installed across sidewalks at
commercial driveways having blended curbs or curb-ramps.
Comments from blind individuals led to discontinuing installation
The general public is
supportive.
of detectable warnings at commercial driveways because blind
pedestrians sometimes counted them as streets and thus became
disoriented.
• Representatives of the Commission for the Blind, the Texas
School for the Blind, and Council of the Blind have attended
meetings and hearings and have expressed support for the curb
ramp program

Contacts Dolores Gonzalez Ken Zimmerman,

ADA Coordinator Project Manager, ADA Curb
City of Austin Ramp and Sidewalk Program
PO Box 1088 Dept. of Public Works & Trans-
Austin, TX 78767-8839 portation, City of Austin PO Box
Phone: (512) 499-3256 1088, Austin, TX 78767-8839
E-mail: Phone: (512) 499-7138
[email protected] E-mail:
[email protected]

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 83

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA)

History MARTA, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, in Atlanta

Georgia, as part of their ADA compliance plan, agreed to install
truncated dome detectable warnings at all platform edges in all stations
in the system.
• Working with the Elderly and Disabled Access Advisory
Committee, MARTA staff evaluated detectable warning materials
& installation methods, & determined an installation priority list.
• Installation of detectable warning began in 12 stations in 1992.
All 36 stations now have truncated dome detectable warning
along the edge of the platform.
• Detectable warnings will be installed in all new stations as
required by ADAAG.

Materials At this time, the detectable warnings are either Armor-Tile or High-
Quality Tile. All are a hard surface, rather than resilient material.
MARTA has a very exacting performance specification and other
manufacturers have not been able to meet all their requirements.
In the most recent installations, MARTA has been using a precast
Armor-Tile concrete panel that has the warning tile placed on it at the
factory. This tile is installed on the concrete slab and “aligns better”.

Installation Detectable warning is installed 2 ft deep for the length of the platform,
with a space underneath to enhance sound on cane-contact difference.
• Tiles are secured with mechanical fasteners and structural adhesive.
• In the retrofit installations, the detectable warning tiles replaced a
two-foot portion of a three-foot granite strip along the edge of the
platform, which was originally installed as a tactile warning. A
portion of the granite strip was ground down to allow installation of
the tiles. This installation was accomplished in stages, with most of
the construction done at night when trains were not in service.
• Tiles are a gray color, preferred by MARTA architects to provide
contrast with the original platform colors.

Maintenance The detectable warning is pressure washed and scrubbed approximately

bimonthly. MARTA has had very little experience with snow and ice
removal. Barry Hodges, MARTA’s Manager of Architecture states
that there is not a problem, because the engineering and design of the
tile prevents water from pooling or icing on the tile.

Continued on next page

84 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, continued

Durability • Problems with chipping, cracking and occasional lost screw covers
were reported as minor by MARTA staff.
• The chipping of the detectable warning surface at the platform edge
has been determined to be caused by either MARTA’s money carts,
or escalator equipment carts, which are very heavy and moved from
station to station via rail. Replacing the carts’ steel wheels with
rubber wheels has largely solved this problem. The previous
granite edge strip had been cracked and required repair for the same
reason, so the chipping of the Armor-Tile is not considered
significant.

Acceptance No complaints have been documented.

• The detectable warning installations have been very well received
by the patrons. Several blind or visually impaired individuals have
expressed appreciation in public hearings regarding the addition of
the detectable warnings.
• MARTA staff has stated that the detectable warnings encourage all
patrons to stand back from the edge of the platform.

Contact Barry Hodges, Manager of Architecture

MARTA, 2424 Piedmont Road, Atlanta, GA 30324
Phone: (404) 848-4434
Fax: (404) 848-4329

FIG. 5-8. MARTA

STATION SHOWING
INSTALLATION OF
ARMOR-TILE.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 85

Roseville, California

History California Title 24 regulations require detectable warnings on curb-

ramps that slope less than 1:15 (6.67%). Grooves are required around
the top edge of the curb ramp and a ½ in beveled lip is required at the
curb line.
• The City of Roseville requires that curb-ramps have a maximum
5% slope when street slopes allow this.
• All curb-ramps, regardless of slope and design shall include
detectable warnings.
• As curb-ramps are added, detectable warnings are included.
• Detectable warnings are installed at all driveways that include curb
radii, such as high volume commercial driveways.
• Detectable warnings are installed at the access and egress points of
corner islands.
Currently “several hundred” curb-ramps have detectable warnings.

Materials and • Since August 1997, Roseville’s specifications require a specially

installation manufactured Armor-Tile panel, 3 ft deep x 4 ft wide, installed at
the back of the curb.
• This panel is manufactured in safety yellow, with parallel
alignment of the rows of truncated domes.
• There is a 1½ in flange around the detectable warning surface,
which is set into wet concrete when the ramp is poured.
• Specifications are available from Rick McCarter (contact
information below).

FIGURE 5-9. CURB Sidewalk

RAMP DESIGN 1/2"
36
915

REQUIRED IN beveled
ROSEVILLE, lip
CALIFORNIA.
Flared side Curb ramp with
Grooved border detectable warning

Continued on next page

86 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Roseville, California, continued

Maintenance • Tiles are not cleaned on a regular basis; rain washes them off
• There has been no experience with snow or ice.

Durability • No problems with cracking or lifting of panels have been observed,

since it is installed in the concrete
• The color has faded somewhat.

Acceptance There has been good agreement from local disability groups in
deciding appropriate placement and solutions. They worked together
on requirements and on how to resolve differences.
• Parallel alignment of domes on detectable warning material is
helpful to wheelchair users.
• No complaints have been received.

Contact Rick McCarter, Senior Public Works Inspector

City of Roseville
316 Vernon Street #106, Roseville, CA 95678
Phone: (916) 774-5481
E-mail: [email protected]

FIG. 5-10. PARALLEL

CURB RAMP IN
ROSEVILLE USING
ARMOR-TILE PANEL.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 87

Metro North Railroad

History Metro North is the second largest commuter railroad in the nation.
Metro North's main lines are the Hudson, Harlem, and New Haven runs
northward out of Grand Central Terminal into suburban New York and
Connecticut. West of the Hudson river, Metro-North's Port Jervis and
Pascack Valley lines operate from NJ Transit's Hoboken Terminal.
Metro North operates 117 stations.
Metro North Railroad has installed detectable warnings along platform
edges in 29 stations, including indoor and outdoor, elevated and non-
elevated stations.
• Installations took place from 1995 to 1997.
• Other agencies, vendors, and other systems were contacted in
determining appropriate materials and plans for ADA compliance.

Materials and Detectable warnings are Lanxide (SMC) and Armor-Tile (Engineered
Installation Plastics). Most are yellow. Detectable warnings are two feet deep
along the length of the platform, set back 4 inches from the platform
edge. Setback is to prevent damage from trains to the detectable
warning along the platform edge.
• Various installation methods have been tried, including riveting,
combining rivets and adhesives/mastics, and setting into wet
concrete with overlay type materials. All have some problems and
are less than satisfactory.
• Upcoming installation will probably be cast in place as that has
been most successful to date. Mr. Ziegler is working on developing
the best possible plans, but notes that there are difficulties anytime
a cold joint of two dissimilar materials is installed on the platforms
and exposed to the elements, particularly in elevated platform
situations.
• Some tiles were installed with a cavity between the detectable
warning and the base surface for sound difference, but this opens
up the concrete base to more possibilities of deterioration. The
setback from the platform edge also leaves a joint for water
intrusion creating freeze/thaw problems
• Setting in wet concrete was the most successful method of
installation in retrofit; however, concrete can puddle and it has to
be installed expertly.

Continued on next page

88 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Metro North Railroad, continued

Maintenance • Detectable warnings are pressure washed on no set schedule.

• Snow plows and chemical are used to remove snow. Some
chipping has resulted from snow plow use. Calcium chloride
makes the surface of the detectable warning slippery.
• Domes are difficult to clean.

Durability Extensive concerns with durability were expressed.

• Cracks in both types of tiles are reported as a major problem. Mr.
Ziegler believes it is from freeze/thaw, snow removal, and car
washing equipment.
• The installation procedures for retrofitting tiles required milling up
the concrete of the platform, then installing the tiles. No matter
how well sealed, this exposed the concrete base to salt and water,
which caused it to deteriorate.
• More problems were reported with the SMC material and
ultraviolet, however there is fading in all products.
• In some instances the riveted overlay material was removed and
replaced with tiles set in concrete. This was due to platform
deterioration problems.

Acceptance Mr. Ziegler does not strongly favor detectable warnings, feels the “idea
was not well thought out” and is concerned by problems he’s had.
• He does not remember any favorable comments about the
detectable warning and has observed some slip resistance problems.
• He stated that there is a tripping hazard, particularly for “drunks
who run and trip on the detectable warning”.

Contact Kurt Ziegler

Metro North Railroad
420 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
Graybar, Engineering and Design Division
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 499-4417
Fax: (212) 499-4420
E-mail: [email protected]

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 89

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

History Detectable warnings were installed on 300 to 400 curb-ramps in the

downtown area of Harrisburg, PA in 1993-1994.
The truncated dome detectable warning surface covers the entire
ramped area, exclusive of the flares.
Shortly after project was begun, the requirement for truncated dome
detectable warnings was suspended. The experience and results,
according to City Engineer Joseph Link, was “less than what was
expected”.

Materials and Units were precast, then installed in the ramp area with concrete poured
Installation around them. Most units were brick red, for contrast with surrounding
concrete.
A local contractor was used for installation. When he attempted to
form the domes by the typical method of pressing the rubber mold into
the concrete, the “form stuck to domes and they pulled off”. The
contractor developed a process that worked, pouring the concrete into
the mold, then installing it in the ramp as a precast unit.

Maintenance Detectable warnings are not cleaned, except for normal rain washing of
the sidewalk.
Snow and ice are removed with salt, which may have degraded the
domes. The City Engineer stated that other methods of clearing don’t
work with the domes.

Durability • Although concrete was rated at 6000 PSI, domes broke off.
• Major wear is reported. Some settling is also reported.
Major wear to the • Individual units were replaced in a few instances where cracking
concrete domes is occurred. Cracking was thought to be caused by garbage trucks
reported. Joseph
driving over the units.
Link, City Engineer

Continued on next page

90 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, continued

FIG. 5-11. BRICK

DETECTABLE WARNING
SURFACE CONTRASTS
WITH ADJACENT
CONCRETE,
HARRISBURG, PA.

Acceptance No comments were received from individuals who are blind.

Mr. Link stated that most ramps are 1:12 and there are audible signals
at the intersections, so individuals who are blind do not have difficulty
recognizing the street.
An individual with a mobility impairment, who uses a cane and
cannot lift her feet well, complained. Another individual stated that the
bumpiness was bad for those wheelchair users with bladder problems.
Comments from the general public were: “What are those stupid
things for?”
Mr. Link was not pleased with the results. He states that he would
never do truncated domes again, that the color difference didn’t look
good and was not important, and that most of the domes are gone
anyway. He does not intend to install additional detectable warnings
unless mandated.

Contact Joseph Link, City Engineer

City of Harrisburg
123 Walnut Street, Suite 212
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Phone: (717) 255-3091
Fax: (717) 255-3078
E-mail: [email protected]

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 91

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

History Detectable warnings have been installed at approximately sixty-one

stations in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)
system, including rapid rail, light rail and commuter rail stations,
indoors and outdoors.
• Most have been installed since 1993.
• Research on detectable warnings was done before, during and after
the installation of the detectable warning.
• A number of different products have been installed in the system.

Materials and Materials vary since the type of detectable warning and manufacturer
Installation are subject to the competitive bidding process.
• Installations include detectable warnings of epoxy, plastic and
ceramic tiles. The detectable warning materials are adhered with
adhesives, fasteners and/or screws directly on the base surface.
• All detectable warnings are yellow, in accord with the
specifications of the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board.
• The detectable warnings in all stations are 24 in deep by the length
of the platform, installed at the edge of the platform.

Maintenance No maintenance issues

were reported.
• Detectable warnings
are washed on a “non-
regular basis”, using a
hose and water.
• Snow and ice are
removed by shovel,
sand and broom.

FIG. 5-12. MBTA STATION

WITH DETECTABLE WARN-
ING TILE (SUMMITVILLE).

Continued on next page

92 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, continued

Durability • Some tiles are missing, peeled, cracked and chipped and the surface
texture of a few detectable warning tiles has degraded somewhat.
• Detectable warning products have been removed and reinstalled at
several stations.
• The color of a few tiles has degraded with some discoloration.
• A few tiles have been replaced.

Acceptance No comments or complaints have been received regarding the

detectable warnings.
Detectable warnings will be installed throughout the system.

Contact Michael Festa, Senior Accessibility Specialist for Design

MBTA Design and Construction Department
500 Arborway, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
phone: (617) 222-1984 TTY
fax: (617) 222-3426
E-mail: [email protected]

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 93

Cleveland, Ohio

History
Detectable warnings were installed on curb-ramps on the Public Square
in the city of Cleveland in 1996.

Materials and Detectable warnings are brick units, 4 in x 8 in x 3.5 in, in a red brick
Installation color. Full depth bricks are used rather than face bricks for durability.
• The manufacturer’s name is not available. The contractor selects
the manufacturer.
• Units were installed in sand with a 4 in concrete base underneath on
Brick pavers are “the the entire ramped area, approximately 5 ft x 6 ft.
only thing that works
in northern climates.” Randy DeVaul, Commissioner of Engineering, stated that truncated
domes are more costly and he prefers ridges that can be sawed.
Mr. McLaughlin stated that brick pavers are the “only thing that works
in Northern climates,” and that stamped surfaces of the truncated dome
texture were impractical.

Maintenance No maintenance problems were reported.

• Detectable warnings are swept or hosed down on “no set schedule”.
• Snow and ice are removed by snow plow, shovel, or salt. Mr.
DeVaul expressed concerns about snow removal and snow building
up and becoming slippery.

Durability No problems were reported with durability.

A few bricks have broken or become loose from trucks driving over
them, but “anything else would be broken up by that.”

Continued on next page

94 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Cleveland, Ohio, continued

Acceptance No problems have been reported.

Contacts Bill McLaughlin Randy DeVaul

Consulting Engineer, Division Commissioner of
of Engineering & Construction Engineering & Construction
City of Cleveland City of Cleveland
601 Lakeside Ave. 601 Lakeside Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44114 Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 664-4278 Phone: (216) 664-2371
Fax: (216) 664-2289

FIG. 5-13. TRUNCATED

DOME PAVERS CUT AND
FITTED TO THE ENTIRE
SURFACE OF A PERPEN-
DICULAR CURB RAMP,
INCLUDING FLARES,
CLEVELAND, OH.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 95

Baltimore County, Maryland

History Detectable warnings are used in numerous curb ramp locations in

Baltimore County, MD. They have been installed mainly where older
commercial areas are being “revitalized”.
At one location a band of detectable warning materials was placed
around the perimeter of the ramp, as well as 32” at the base of the
ramp. Now, a 32 in deep section of detectable warning material is
installed at the base of the ramp.

Materials and Manufacturers vary, since each project is contracted. Specifications

Installation call for brick pavers with the truncated dome surface. They are dark
red-brown, as are other sidewalk pavers to define the clear path in the
concrete sidewalk.
The pavers are set on a concrete substrate. Usually the concrete base is
poured, then 1 in of sand, with the brick pavers set into the sand. No
Installation is “the problems are reported with installation since installation is “the same as
same as any paver.” any paver.”
Richard Calkins, Installation at the Towson roundabout is Endicott Brick, installed in
Project Manager
1997-1998. Where the detectable warnings were laid in a brick field,
they are mortared rather than set in sand.
After some informal testing and experimentation, the decision was
made to lay the pavers in a layout aligning the domes, so wheelchair
wheels can travel between them.

Maintenance and Maintenance

Durability No problem has been reported.
To date, there has been minimal experience with snow or ice removal.
In traveling in snow The pavers are dark, so the snow melts quickly. Use of chemicals is
and ice, the least of planned, as needed. Mr. Calkins stated that in traveling in the snow
his problems was and ice, the least of his problems was going over the truncated domes.
going over truncated Durability
domes. Dome wear was reported to be a minor issue.

Continued on next page

96 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Baltimore County, Maryland, continued

Acceptance No instances of problems have been reported.

Before installation, there were concerns about problems for those
wearing high heels; however, it has not been a problem to date.
Comments from individuals who are blind have stated that it’s the
“only thing detectable”.

Contacts Richard Calkins, Project Manager Dan Witt

Commission on Disability Maryland DOT
Baltimore County Department Baltimore, MD
of Public Works Phone: (410) 321-2825
111 W. Chesapeake Ave.
Towson, MD 21204
Phone: (410) 887-3734
E-mail: [email protected]

FIG. 5-14. A BAND

OF DETECTABLE WARN-
ING PAVERS OUTLINES
THE TRIANGULAR SHAPE
OF THIS CURB RAMP
IN TOWSON, MD.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 97

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)

History Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is a 95-mile, automated rapid transit
system serving over 3 million people in four counties, including San
Francisco County. BART has 12 surface, 13 aerial, and 14 subway
stations. Four stations in downtown San Francisco are shared with the
San Francisco Municipal Railway.
Research on detectable warning surfaces was conducted in the BART
system beginning in 1986 (Peck & Bentzen, 1987).
Since 1987, detectable warnings have been installed throughout the
BART system in all of 39 stations.
The BART safety department found that incidence of falls has
decreased since installation of the detectable warning tiles.

Materials and Early installations were Pathfinder Tile, manufactured by Carsonite.

Installation The Pathfinder Tile is a resilient material that was glued to the platform
surface. Installations since 1997 are Armor-Tile.
All are installations are yellow, with black tiles at door locations.
Armor-Tile installations are attached with adhesives and mechanical
fasteners. Two types of Armor-Tile materials have been used. One is
flat (1/2 in) tile, attached in a recessed fashion to the platform surface.
In a few stations, a 3 in thick Armor-Tile product has been used. This
tile replaced the concrete on the platform edge; it was used where there
were problems with the concrete of the platform.

Maintenance Tiles are cleaned on a weekly basis with the stations.

There has been no experience with snow and ice.

Durability The Pathfinder Tile peeled up over time due to weather, platform
vibration and scrubber type cleaning. Many tiles have been replaced
by Armor-Tile.
Color degraded in one instance with tile from a different vendor and
the contractor replaced the faded tile with Armor-Tile.

Acceptance Tiles are very well accepted by the public. No problems are reported.
While Armor-Tile is not resilient, Mr. Nnaji reports better sound
distinction than with the resilient tiles.

Continued on next page

98 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), continued

Contact Ike Nnaji, ADA Compliance Officer

BART
800 Madison Street, Oakland, CA 94604
Phone: (510) 464-6173
Fax: (510) 464-6196
E-mail: [email protected]

FIG. 5-15.
DETECTABLE WARNING
SURFACE AT A BART
STATION, CALIFORNIA.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 99

Claremont, California

History Detectable warnings have been installed on a trial basis at a roundabout

in Claremont, CA. The temporary installation is at curb-ramps and
median edges and was installed in about October, 1999. Two-foot
wide sections were glued down at the ends of the curb-ramps and in the
middle of the cut-through area of the splitter island.
Mr. Desatnik states: “In a permanent installation, we would probably
try to put the tactile material on both entrances to the cut-through area
of the splitter islands…. It is very important for the blind user to know
exactly where they are in the splitter island…. With the tactile material
at each edge, once they hit the first one, then they know they are in the
safe zone, then when they hit the second strip, they know they are at
the edge of the travel lane and ready to cross the street.”

Materials and The detectable warning is a rubber tile product that has been glued
Installation down on the surface of the ramp and median areas, on top of the
existing pavement. A slight lip of approximately ¼ in is caused by the
material thickness.

Maintenance and • The material is not cleaned.

Durability • The durability has not really been tested, since the material has
been installed recently.
• There have been no problems with lifting or peeling.

Acceptance No pedestrian complaints have been received about the detectable

warnings. Mr. Desatnik feels that concerns regarding a tripping hazard
are “an inflated concern”.
Concerns regarding
a tripping hazard are Comments from individuals who are blind are very positive about the
“an inflated concern” detectable warning. These individuals are not happy with the
Brian Desatnik, roundabout design, however they have stated that the detectable
Housing and warning helps them know where the median is. Elderly pedestrians are
Redevelopment complaining about the roundabout crossings, but not about the
Coordinator detectable warning.

Contact Brian Desatnik Phone: (909) 399-5341

Housing & Redevelopment Coord. Fax: (909) 399-5366
City of Claremont E-mail:
207 Harvard Avenue [email protected]
Claremont, CA 91711

100 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

 Chapter 6

U.S. Use of Detectable Warning
Surfaces: Applications

Summary Recommended locations for use of truncated dome detectable

warnings that are currently being considered in the U.S. include curb-
ramps, islands and medians, raised crosswalks, and raised
intersections.
This chapter summarizes and illustrates recent guidelines and
recommendations on the use of detectable warnings in locations other
than transit platforms.

None of the recommendations should be construed to represent

the opinion of the authors or of the Access Board.

Chapter contents This chapter covers the following topics.

Topic Page
Sources of recommendations 102
Recommendations for detectable warnings
at curb-ramps 105
Detectable warnings at hazardous vehicular ways 109
Detectable warnings at medians and islands 110
Detectable warnings at raised crosswalks and
raised intersections 112

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 101

Sources of recommendations

Purpose of With the exception of the Americans with Disabilities Act

this chapter requirement (ADAAG 10.3.1(8)) for 24 in deep truncated dome
detectable warnings at transit platform edges having drop-offs (see
Chapter 2), there is no national requirement in the U.S. for the use of
truncated dome detectable warnings in other locations.
• However, a number of publications that followed ADAAG,
including local and state standards, resolutions of organizations of
and for people who are blind, and a workshop on the topic
conducted by Project ACTION provide recommendations or
guidance on other uses of truncated dome detectable warnings in
locations where pedestrians who are blind do not have a definitive
cue to the end of the pedestrian way.
• These recommendations are summarized and illustrated in this
chapter.
• Readers will note that some of the recommendations are in conflict
with one another.
• None of the recommendations should be construed to
represent the opinion of the authors or of the Access Board.

ADAAG As published in 1991, ADAAG included scoping and technical

provisions for detectable warnings on transit platform edges, curb-
ramps, hazardous vehicular ways and at reflecting pools. The specific
sections in ADAAG are re-printed in Chapter 2. In this chapter (6),
ADAAG requirements for locations other than transit platforms are
illustrated for the sake of comparison with other recommendations.

California Title 24 Title 24, California Code of Regulations is the California accessibility
code. The 1999 edition requires detectable warnings on curb-ramps
having a slope less than 1:15, at hazardous vehicular ways, and on all
transit boarding platforms. The specifications for the detectable
warning are similar to those in ADAAG 4.29.2, but a little more
specific. Detectable warnings at most curb-ramps, at hazardous
vehicular ways, and on transit platforms require a more precisely
specified surface texture: the dome diameter shall be .9 in, measured
at the bottom of the dome, tapering to .45 in at the top. Detectable
warnings on curb-ramps for privately funded housing, at hazardous
vehicular ways, and on transit platforms shall be safety yellow
(Federal color 33538).

Continued on next page

102 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Sources of recommendations, continued

Project ACTION On June 4-5, 1995, Project ACTION, at the request of the Access
panel of experts Board, convened a panel of experts to consider the needs of
pedestrians with visual impairments when using intersections. The 22
panel members represented the following constituencies and areas of
expertise.
• Two major organizations of people who are blind
• Orientation and mobility specialists
• Civil engineers
• Transportation engineers
• Assistive technology experts
• Experts in human/ergonomic factors
The panel recommended the use of detectable warnings on curb-
ramps.

Accessible Rights In November 1999, the U.S. Access Board published Accessible
of Way: A Design Rights-of-Way: A Design Guide. This guide contains best practice
Guide recommendations for the design, construction, alteration, and retrofit
of public pedestrian facilities. Detectable warnings are recommended
as one way to make boundaries between sidewalks and streets
perceptible at curb-ramps, at raised crosswalks, and at cut-through
islands. The guide does not provide recommendations for specific
placement and dimensions of the detectable warnings, however.

Designing Designing sidewalks and trails for access: Part II of II: A best
Sidewalks & Trails practices guidebook (Axelson, Chesney, Galvan, Kirschbaum,
for Access: Part II. Longmuir, Lyons, and Wong) is to be published in late 2000 by the
A Best Practices Federal Highway Administration. This detailed, well-illustrated guide
Guidebook to best practices for designing accessible sidewalks and trails contains
numerous drawings showing locations for and dimensions of
detectable warnings on curb-ramps, at depressed corners, at cut-
through and ramped medians and islands, and at level railroad
crossings.

ACB Street Design In 1999 the American Council of the Blind (ACB) produced Street
Guidelines Design Guidelines, which recommends the placement of 24 in deep
detectable warnings at the bottom of curb-ramps and at locations
where the pedestrian walkway is level with the street. The guidelines
caution against the overuse of detectable warnings, recommending
that the truncated dome surface be used only as a warning, never for
guidance.

Continued on next page

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 103

Sources of recommendations, continued

Roseville, CA Roseville standard plans require 36 in deep detectable warnings at the

bottom of curb-ramps instead of the full surface of the curb ramp as
required by California Title 24. Precast detectable warning panels are
used.

Cambridge, MA Cambridge specifications require detectable warnings on sidewalks, at

the street edge, at locations with raised crosswalks or raised
intersections.

Austin, TX Austin specifications require detectable warnings on curb-ramps in the

central business district. A 4 x 5 ft section of pavers is used on most
curb-ramps.

Baltimore County, Baltimore County, MD, specifications call for 32 in deep detectable
MD warnings at the bottom of curb-ramps including the radius of blended
curbs.

AER resolutions The Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and
Visually Impaired (AER) adopted resolutions in 1992, 1994 and 1998
calling for the use of detectable warnings. The 1994 and 1998
resolutions specifically called for a 24 in deep detectable warning at
the bottom of curb-ramps.

ACB resolutions The American Council of the Blind (ACB) adopted resolutions in
1994, 1995, 1996 and 1998, favoring the use of detectable warnings.
ACB resolutions in 1995 and 1996 requested the placement of
detectable warnings on the bottom 24 in of curb-ramps. A resolution
passed in 1994 called for detectable warnings at level track crossings.

NFB resolutions The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) adopted resolutions in
1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 opposed to the installation of truncated
dome detectable warnings because they were considered to be costly,
not necessary, and possibly harmful to the independent mobility of
blind pedestrians.

104 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Recommendations for detectable warnings at curb-ramps

Whole surface ADAAG originally required detectable warnings on the full surface of
of ramp— curb-ramps. Flares were not required to have detectable warnings.
ADAAG

FIG. 6-1. ADAAG Sidewalk

DETECTABLE WARNING
DESIGN (TEMPORARILY
SUSPENDED).

Flared side Curb-ramp with

detectable warning

FIG. 6-2. SPLITTER

ISLAND WITH DETECT-
ABLE WARNING ON FULL
SURFACE OF CURB
RAMP, AUSTIN, TX.

Continued on next page

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 105

Recommendations for
detectable warnings at curb-ramps, continued

Whole surface Since 1994, California Title 24 has required detectable warnings on
of ramp— the full surface of curb-ramps having slopes less than 1:15. The
California Title 24 detectable warning on transit platforms must be safety yellow (Federal
Color No. 33538).
The California specifications for the detectable warning texture for
curb-ramps and transit platforms are more precise than those in
ADAAG, specifying that the 0.9 in dome diameter is to be measured
“The only legal action at the base of the dome, and the top diameter is to be 0.45 in. The
related to detectable 2.35 in dome spacing is to be measured on the diagonal of a square
warnings in California pattern of domes.
has been one
California has also required a ½ in beveled lip at the lower end of each
threatened suit in W.
curb ramp since 1982. The requirement for the ½ in beveled lip was
Sacramento. A
the result of extensive consultation involving both pedestrians who are
bicyclist was injured.
blind and people who use wheelchairs as a mobility aid. The ½ in
The city was not
beveled lip was to indicate to pedestrians who are blind the location of
considered liable
the bottom of the ramp, and the lip was not considered to make curb-
because the domes
ramps inaccessible to people who use wheelchairs.
were required by
state law.” Michael California Title 24 also requires a grooved border 12 in wide at the
Mankin, AIA, CA level surface of the sidewalk along the top and each side. The grooves
office of the State are approximately ¾ in on center.
Architect.

FIG. 6-3. CURB-RAMP Sidewalk

DESIGN REQUIRED BY
1/2"
CALIFORNIA TITLE 24. beveled
lip

Flared side Curb ramp with

Grooved border detectable warning

Bottom 3 feet— The City of Roseville, CA requires that a 3 ft deep strip of detectable
Roseville, CA warning surface extend the width of the curb-ramp.
See Figure 5-9 in the Roseville Case Study.

Continued on next page

106 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Recommendations for detectable warnings at curb-ramps

Bottom 2 feet— Placing detectable warnings only on the bottom 2 ft of curb-ramps has
multiple sources been recommended in a number of sources.
• The panel of experts convened by Project ACTION at the request of
the Access Board, on June 4-5, 1995, recommended that 24 in
deep detectable warnings be placed at the bottom of curb-ramps.
• The same recommendation is made in Designing sidewalks and
trails for access: Part II of II: A best practices guidebook
(Axelson, et al., 2000, FHWA).
• Multiple resolutions passed by the AER and by the ACB have also
called for 24 in deep detectable warnings at the bottom of curb-
ramps.
• All of these sources suggest that parallel alignment of the
truncated domes may make it easier for people with mobility
impairments, especially those who use wheelchairs, to use curb-
ramps having detectable warnings.

Sidewalk
24
610

Flared side Curb ramp with

detectable warning

Flared side

Curb ramp with

detectable warning

FIG. 6-4. CURB RAMP

24 10
6

DESIGNS SHOWING
24 IN DETECTABLE
WARNING.

Sidewalk

Continued on next page

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 107

Recommendations for
detectable warnings at curb-ramps, continued

Parallel curb-ramp Sidewalk

Level
Slope down Slope down

24
610
Detectable
warning

FIG. 6-5. PARALLEL CURB-RAMP DESIGN SHOWING

RECOMMENDED 24-INCH DETECTABLE WARNING.

108 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Detectable warnings at hazardous vehicular ways

California Title 24 California Title 24 requires that “If a walk crosses or adjoins a
vehicular way, and the walking surfaces are not separated by curbs,
railings or other elements between the pedestrian areas and vehicular
areas, the boundary between the areas shall be defined by a continuous
detectable warning which is 36 inches (914 mm) wide….” It must be
safety yellow.
Several types of hazardous vehicular ways are shown below.

Street
36" deep
detectable warning
at blended curb
Sidewalk

FIG. 6-6. A BLENDED

CURB WITH A DETECT-
ABLE WARNING AT A
WIDE CORNER RADIUS. Street

No change Vehicular area

in level
FIG. 6-7. A or slope
DETECTABLE WARNING
36" deep detectable warning
DEFINING THE LIMIT OF
THE SAFE WAITING AREA
Pedestrian area
IN FRONT OF A HOTEL
THAT HAS NO CURB
DEFINING THE EDGE OF Hotel
THE PEDESTRIAN AREA.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 109

Detectable warnings at medians and islands

Cut-through Placement of detectable warnings on cut-through medians varies

medians with the width of the median.
• Designing sidewalks and trails for access: Part II of II: A best
practices guidebook (Axelson, et al., 2000, FHWA) recommends a
24 in deep detectable warning at each side of the cut-through
walking surface.
• There is no U.S. recommendation that deals with narrow medians,
however United Kingdom guidelines (Guidance on the Use of
Tactile Paving Surfaces, 1998) recommend that on medians no
more than 4 ft wide, the detectable warning should cover
the entire depth and width of the cut-through.
• Medians that have curb-ramps should have detectable warnings
following the guidelines for curb-ramps.

FIG. 6-8. DETECTABLE

WARNINGS USED AT
CUT-THROUGH MEDIANS.

48
24
>48

Continued on next page

110 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Detectable warnings at medians and islands, continued

Cut-through Designing sidewalks and trails for access: Part II of II: A best
splitter islands practices guidebook (Axelson, et al., 2000, FHWA) recommends a 24
in deep detectable warning at each end of all cut-through walking
surfaces.
This is also recommended in the United Kingdom publication,
Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces (1998).

Street Passage at street level with

24" deep detectable warning

n e
la
rn
t tu
h
R ig
k
al
FIG. 6-9. SPLITTER e w
S id
ISLAND: PEDESTRIAN
Street

Splitter
PASSAGE THROUGH THE island
ISLAND IS AT THE SAME
LEVEL AS THE STREET.
DETECTABLE WARNING
IS SHOWN AT EACH END
OF CUT-THROUGH
WALKING SURFACES.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 111

Detectable warnings at
raised crosswalks & raised intersections

Raised crosswalks Designing sidewalks and trails for access: Part II of II: A best
& raised practices guidebook (Axelson, et al., 2000, FHWA) recommends a 24
intersections in deep detectable warning on the sidewalk at each end of raised
crosswalks.

This design is required by Cambridge, MA specifications.

.

Up Detectable warning

Up Up Up Up
FIG. 6-10. AT LEFT, A Street
RAISED INTERSECTION.
AT RIGHT, A RAISED Sidewalk
CROSSWALK SHOWN
Up Vehicle ramp up
AT MIDBLOCK

A raised intersection is a traffic calming element that has flat raised

areas covering the entire intersection, including adjoining crosswalks,
with vehicle ramps on all street approaches. A raised intersection is
also known as a raised junction, intersection hump, table, or plateau.

Fitting to a blended Installing detectable warnings around a corner radius can be

curb at a raised accomplished in two ways.
intersection
• In Towson, MD, brick pavers are cut into a trapezoidal shape and
then fitted together (see Case Study: Baltimore County).
• Alternatively, they can be splayed apart (see Fig. 7-5).
• Either design results in some domes being closer than others are.
Small irregularities in dome spacing do not appear to decrease
detectability (Bentzen et al., 1993).

FIG. 6-11. DESIGN DRAWING SHOWING CUTTING PATTERN

FOR BRICK DETECTABLE WARNING PAVERS AT THE RADIUS
CURB LINE OF A RAISED CROSSWALK (TOWSON, MD).

112 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

 Chapter 7

U.S. Detectable Warning Products
Summary This chapter includes information on detectable warning products that
are produced in the U.S. Information in this chapter is based on
research and telephone interviews conducted in late 1999 through
April 2000.
Only products and tooling systems generally complying with ADAAG
technical provisions for truncated dome detectable warnings are
included.

Chapter contents This chapter covers the following topics:

Topic Page
Spacing of truncated domes 114
Shape of truncated domes 116
Types of detectable warning products 117
Dimensional pavers 118
Thin tiles and sheet goods 119
On-site fabrication of truncated dome surfaces 120
Characteristics of detectable warning products 123
Detectable warning product matrix 125
Photographs of detectable warning products 126
Detectable warning manufacturers 132

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 113

Spacing of truncated domes

Manufacturing In complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility

standards Guidelines (ADAAG), manufacturers have adopted various dome
configurations to accommodate existing industry-standard sizes of
paving products

ADAAG technical The ADAAG 4.29.2 (1991)

specification specification for a detectable warning
surface is an array of truncated domes.
(See the full specification at the
beginning of Chapter 2.)
ADAAG includes no illustration of the
truncated dome profile or of the dome
pattern. It also does not specify where
required dimensions are measured.
However, the Access Board issued FIG. 7-1. DOME SPACING
CAN BE MEASURED EITHER
Detectable Warnings Bulletin #1 in
(ADJACENT) PARALLEL (P) OR
1993 to provide additional guidance.
DIAGONALLY (D).
A figure in this bulletin shows spacing
(2.35 in) measured diagonally.
Another figure shows the .9 in dome
diameter applied to the base of the
domes.

Brick pavers Detectable warning brick pavers must

conform to the relatively small 4 in x
8 in module to be compatible with the
industry standard for flat surface
pavers.
Four manufacturers have handled the
truncated dome spacing in an identical
manner:
• Adjacent spacing = 2.00 in
• Diagonal spacing = 2.82 in
This is a slightly larger dome to dome FIG. 7-2. HERRINGBONE BOND
spacing than is typically found for WITH DETECTABLE WARNING
larger tiles. BRICK PAVERS.

Continued on next page

114 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Spacing of truncated domes, continued

Pattern repetition Most detectable warning

products are configured so that
repeating a single unit (tile,
paver, or sheet) will result in a
continuation of the ADAAG-
specified pattern of truncated
domes. A gap in pattern
between adjacent tiles does not
impair detectability (Bentzen
et al., 1993). FIG. 7-3. TYPICAL 12”X12” TILES.

Complementary One manufacturer (Crossville Ceramics)

tile pairs produces a detectable warning tile system
consisting of two complementary tile pairs:
• Type A tile (rows of 3-2-3-2-3 domes)
• Type B tile (rows of 2-3-2-3-2 domes)
Type A tiles are used in conjunction
with Type B tiles to produce an unbroken,
repeating pattern.
FIG. 7-4. COMBINATION
OF 12 AND 13 DOME
TILES.

Working with Fitting square modular pavers within the irregular shape of a radius
irregular shapes curb line can be a challenge. Systems with field-applied truncated
domes can accommodate to irregular surfaces and to irregular
boundaries.
Figure 7-5 shows how detectable warning pavers can be splayed to
match the radius of a street boundary.

Street

Flush curb

FIG. 7-5. SPLAYED

12 IN TILES ON AN Detectable
8 FT TO 10 FT RADIUS. warning
Sidewalk

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 115

Shape of truncated domes

Truncated dome There are two ways to conform to ADAAGs dome size specification:
diameter Generally U.S. manufacturers apply the required 0.9 in dimension at
the truncated dome base.
Two products conform by applying the dimension to the flattened
dome top.
Figure 7-6 illustrates how domes with different base diameters
conform to ADAAG. The dome on the right has a base diameter of
1.25 in.

FIG. 7-6. APPLYING DOME DIMENSION GUIDELINES.

Manufacturers’ The ADAAG specification is open to a number of interpretations. In

response part, this explains why currently available detectable warning products
vary considerably in appearance.

FIG. 7-7. FULL-SCALE CROSS SECTIONS OF

TRUNCATED DOMES FROM VARIOUS PRODUCTS.

116 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Types of detectable warning products

Summary Detectable warning products are produced using a variety of

manufacturing processes and materials.
• Natural stone and stone composites
• Brick and concrete
• Rigid polymer and flexible polyurethane sheets and tiles
• Large precast assemblies
• Tools to produce the warning surface in wet concrete
• Surface applied domes used with membrane decking
Each product type is discussed in this chapter. Manufacturers’ names
are included in parentheses.

Use of term This publication uses the term “detectable warning” to mean the
“detectable walking surface consisting of truncated domes as specified ADAAG.
warning” A number of other textured surfaces are used for flooring and paving.
These are not highly detectable and are not comparable in usability to
truncated domes.

Rely on current Persons selecting detectable warning products should rely on current
specifications specifications. Manufacturer’s product literature may feature products
that comply with out-of-date specifications such as ANSI A117.1-
1986, which has been superceded by ANSI A117.1-1998.

Details should This chapter discusses detectable warning products available in the
be verified U.S. at the time of writing. The discussion is based on sales/technical
literature and product samples, and is an introduction to the wide
variety of material types that are offered. Far more options are
available than can be suggested in this brief space.
All product specifications should be verified with their respective
manufacturers for accuracy and current availability.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 117

Dimensional pavers

Definition Dimensional pavers as discussed in this section include all products

that are sufficiently thick to require that they be recessed into the
platform, sidewalk, or curb ramp.
These products vary in thickness from ½ in to 3 or 4 in.

Natural stone, Paving stones manufactured with a truncated dome surface are
stone composites, available in natural granite (Cold Spring Granite) and a similar
& ceramic tile looking product made of reconstituted granite (Ryowa from
Architectural Tile & Granite) which is pressed and fired at high
temperature.
Crushed limestone and granite pavers are available (Hanover) as two
inch thick pavers in nominal 12 in x 12 in, 24 in x 24 in, and
24 in x 36 in sizes.
Detectable warning products marketed as ceramic tiles and
porcelain stone tiles (Summitville and Crossville) are designed to be
used in conjunction with a wide range of modularized flooring tile
systems.

Brick pavers Brick and concrete brick pavers that incorporate truncated domes are
produced in nominal 4 in x 8 in sizes. This includes pavers measuring
an actual 4 in x 8 in, and those that are 3 5/8 in x 7 5/8 in that include
a mortar allowance. Thicknesses vary from ½ in to 2¼ in.
Detectable warning brick pavers (and concrete brick pavers) have a
uniform spacing of truncated domes that allows the bricks to be laid in
a running bond, stack bond, or herringbone pattern (See Fig. 7-2).

Large precast units Large precast concrete units are available for detectable warning
surfaces. One manufacturer (Steps Plus) makes a 3 ft square sidewalk
unit, and a curb ramp unit with ramp and flared sides cast in concrete
as a single unit.
Durability of domes has been reported as a problem with some
concrete products (see Chapter 5).
One composite stone product (Hanover) mentioned above also
markets detectable warning pavers up to 2 ft x 3 ft in dimension.

118 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Thin tiles & sheet goods

Definition Thin tiles and sheet goods are discussed in this section. This
grouping includes those products that are a nominal 1/8 in thick.
These products may be applied to the surface of a new or existing
platform, sidewalk, or curb ramp. Often these products are available
with a beveled edge to make a smoother transition to adjoining
surfaces.

Rigid & Two manufacturers (ADA Fabricators and Engineered Plastics)

flexible product supply rigid tiles or panels of polymer composition. The material is
composition described as:
• Glass and carbon reinforced copolymer composite, or
• Vitrified Polymer Composite (VPC).
One supplier (Disability Devices Distributor) offers a flexible tile or
mat described as:
• Flexible polyurethane.

Tile size Applied tiles or panels with truncated domes are available in a variety
of sizes including: 12 in x 12 in; 24 in x 24 in; 24 in x 36 in; and
24 in x 48 in.
These products are a nominal 1/8 in thickness (exclusive of the height
of the truncated domes).
Armor-Tile (Engineered Plastics) also has a second detectable
warning product available with truncated domes of 0.9 in top diameter
and 1.325 in base diameter. This distinctive product has dome
spacing closely resembling that used on the 4 in x 8 in brick pavers.

Installation Surface applied tiles are secured to the substrate with a structural
adhesive system. Two products (Engineered Plastics and Disability
Devices Distributor) are available with optional mechanical fasteners
that function as anchors into the supporting surface.
In addition, two of these manufacturers offer a thick composite shell
product that can be filled with concrete and installed similar to a
paving stone.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 119

On-site fabrication of truncated dome surfaces

Definition Several detectable warning products consist of systems that are

fabricated on-site. Three different approaches are used:
• Truncated domes produced by molding or stamping the top
surface of freshly poured concrete
• Individual truncated domes transferred from a carrier sheet to
new or existing platform, sidewalk, or curb ramp.
• Domes “flowed” onto a surface guided and formed by a fixed or
moveable template.

On-site production Individual truncated domes may be applied to an existing surface,

of domed surface often concrete, sometimes metal. Fig. 7-8 shows an example of a
truncated dome surface being created on-site.
Domes are produced from a catalyzed carboxylated latex emulsion.
The field between domes (if used) is a latex vinyl copolymer applied
by roller.

FIG. 7-8. APPLICATOR MACHINE IS PULLED FIG. 7-9. COMPLETED

AT STEADY SPEED AS MATERIAL FROM THE DETECTABLE WARNING
HOPPER IS PLACED AS TRUNCATED DOMES APPLICATION AT RAIL-
ON PLATFORM SURFACE BELOW ROAD PLATFORM
(STRONGWALL). (STRONGWALL).

Continued on next page

120 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

On-site fabrication of truncated dome surfaces, continued

Stamped concrete Local concrete contractors use stamping tools to produce raised
truncated domes on the surface of freshly poured concrete
(Cobblecrete and Increte).
A high-quality surface can only be obtained with a skillful installer.
See Chapter 5 for case study discussions of problems of casting
truncated domes on a sloping surface. Quality control is necessary
to prevent premature dome wear.
These on-site procedures for producing
truncated domes are an extension of an
existing technology which is widely
used to impart textures to concrete
surfaces to resemble slate, brick, flag-
stone, and so forth.
Concrete may be integrally colored, or
have mineral pigments broadcast over
the surface, or both.
The stamping tool may be rigid or
flexible, and made of rubber or
polyurethane. This tool is pressed into
FIG. 7-10. the concrete surface with sufficient
ONE PROCEDURE force to create the pattern of truncated
FOR PRODUCING domes.
STAMPED CONCRETE
(INCRETE SYSTEMS). After the concrete surface has partially
cured, a clear sealer is brushed on.

Detectable
warnings that
are not on grade
The surface-applied truncated
FIG. 7-11. TRUNCATED dome products have a special
DOMES APPLIED TO A advantage when a detectable
WOODEN RAILROAD warning surface is required on
PLATFORM (COTE-L). a flexible surface such as a
wooden deck above grade.

The applied dome products are usually installed in conjunction with a

membrane coating surface. This provides added traction on a surface
such as wood that can become slippery when wet.

Continued on next page

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 121

On-site fabrication of truncated dome surfaces, continued

Surface-applied Individual truncated domes may be applied to an existing surface,

dome products often concrete or bituminous.
The domes of the Vanguard product (Tilco) may be applied to a
surface as shown in Fig. 7-12. The underlying surface is not
otherwise coated in this installation. Vanguard also offers a concrete
micro-coating system which can be applied to the domes and
immediately surrounding surface. This coating provides a high level
of visual contrast in white or safety yellow.

FIG. 7-12.
SURFACE-APPLIED
TRUNCATED DOMES
SHOWN CONFORMING TO
IRREGULAR SURFACE
(VANGUARD / TILCO).

In one product application (COTE-L), a polyurethane coating is

applied to the underlying surface. The coating includes rubber
granules that give increased friction and resilience. Rubber truncated
domes, which come attached to a carrier sheet, are pressed on top of
the fresh polyurethane coating. The plastic carrier sheet is peeled off,
and three additional coats of polyurethane coating are applied.
FIG. 7-13. (LEFT)
TRUNCATED DOMES ARE
ARRAYED ON A CARRIER
SHEET (COTE-L).

FIG. 7-14. (RIGHT)

DOMES SHOWN
ADHERED TO PLATFORM
SURFACE. A SAFETY
YELLOW POLYURE-
THANE COATING IS BEING
APPLIED (COTE-L)

122 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Characteristics of detectable warning products

Slip resistance Products use several methods to improve traction and reduce potential
pedestrian slipping incidents:
• Glass beads embedded in the domes and/or a surface coating
• Small raised bumps molded onto the field surface and dome
surface of rigid polymer products
• A gritty applied traction coating
• Raised concentric circles on dome top

Color Manufacturers offer detectable warning products in a wide range

of standard and custom colors.
ADAAG requires that detectable warnings contrast with adjacent
surfaces, but it does not specify a particular color. Research indicates
that standardized safety yellow is especially visible, and it is strongly
preferred by many people having low vision (Bentzen et al.,1995;
Hughes, 1995). A number of products are available in safety yellow.
Some products are available in a more muted yellow or buff color.
A traditional brick red color can be obtained by using traditional brick
detectable warning pavers, concrete pavers with integral red color, or
stamped concrete with red mineral pigments applied to wet concrete.
Traditional granite colors are available by using actual granite, or
composite stone pavers that incorporate granite aggregates. In
Atlanta, a polymer detectable warning material was matched to
existing granite when this became an architectural requirement (see
MARTA case study in Chapter 5).
Color is required by ADAAG to be integral to the product. Some
products meet this requirement through the roller application of a
heavy coating of pigmented pedestrian decking material. This should
not be confused with surface painting.

Contrast ADAAG (4.29.2) requires that the detectable warning surface contrast
visually with adjoining surfaces, and the ADAAG Appendix to that
document recommends that the materials should contrast by at least
70%.
Many products come in a wide range of colors from light grays and
tans to dark red and blacks. Contrast at curb-ramps helps pedestrians
with low vision recognize curb-ramps, and it helps in directing all
pedestriansespecially those of short staturetoward the opposite
corner.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 123

Characteristics of detectable warning products, continued

Sound on Detectable warning surfaces may also differ in resiliency from the
cane-contact adjoining platform, street, or sidewalk surface. This aids detectability
& resiliency under foot and with a long cane. One product (COTE-L) uses rubber
domes that are inherently resilient. Another resilient product is
flexible polyurethane tile (Disability Devices Distributor).
One product (Armor-Tile) has a series of raised bosses on the lower
side of the tile. The purpose of these is to allow the tile to be
supported without full adhesive coverage. This in turn produces a
“hollow” sound that is detectable by a blind person using a long cane
(Bentzen & Myers, 1997).

Durability The durability of detectable warning products, particularly of the

raised truncated domes, is an important concern.
Over the years, a number of jurisdictions have conducted laboratory
and field tests of detectable warning products. In Chapter 3, refer to
the section titled “Evaluation of detectable warning materials.”
For additional discussion, see the case studies in Chapter 5.
Each case study covers durability and maintenance.

124 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Detectable warning product matrix

Natural & pressed stone

Polymer / polymer conc.

MATERIAL TYPE / COLOR

Ceramic/porcelain tile

0.9” dome base diam.

Flexible polyurethane

Diagonal alignment

Recessed material
Parallel alignment

0.2” dome height

DOME GEOMETRY

Surface applied
Rubber & other

Dome spacing
Safety yellow

INSTALLATION
Concrete
Brick
MANUFACTURER
/ SUPPLIER
DIMENSIONAL
Cold Spring Granite • • • • • A •
Arch. Tile & Granite • • • • • • A •
Hanover Arch. Prods. • • • • A •
Steps Plus • • • • A •
Summitville Tiles • • • • A •
Crossville Ceramics • • • • A •
Endicott Clay Prods. • • • • B •
Whitacre-Greer • • • • B •
Superock Block • • • • B •
PAVESTONE • • • • B •
Castek / Transpo • • • C • A •
THIN PAVERS
ADA Fabrications • • • • • A • •
Engineered Plastics • • • • • • A • •
Disability Devices • • • • • A •
APPLIED DOMES
Vanguard-Tilco • • • D D A •
COTE-L • • • • • A •
Strongwall • • • • • A •
STAMPED IN PLACE
Cobblecrete • • A •
Increte Systems • • A •

Notes: Some manufacturers market

products in addition to those noted above.
A. Adjacent spacing: 1.66” on center C. 0.90” dome top diameter
Diagonal spacing: 2.35” on center D. 1.1” dome base diameter;
B. Adjacent spacing: 2.00” on center 0.15” dome height.
Diagonal spacing: 2.82” on center

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 125

Photographs of detectable warning products

Sample The photographs in this section are of product samples provided by

photography the manufacturer. All products are shown at the same magnification.
Some manufacturers have more detectable warning products than are
illustrated here. Many of the products come in a variety of sizes and
thicknesses. The photographs here may not reflect product size;
the sample may be cut from a larger paver block or sheet.
Note that the products which require placing truncated domes on an
existing walking surface substrate are shown applied to a backing
material (plywood or sheet plastic) which is not part of the product.

FIG. 7-15.
COLD SPRING
GRANITE COMPANY
R & S TRUNCATED
DOMES FINISH, IN
SIERRA W HITE.

FIG. 7-16.
ARCHITECTURAL TILE
& GRANITE, INC.
RYOWA PRESSED STONE
PAVER - BRAILLE
SERIES, DOME TACTILE
TYPE WITH DIAGONAL
ROW .

126 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Photographs of detectable warning products, continued

FIG. 7-17.
HANOVER
ARCHITECTURAL
PRODUCTS, INC.
RECONSTITUTED
PRESSED LIMESTONE &
GRANITE DETECTABLE
WARNING PAVER.

FIG. 7-18.
STEPS PLUS, INC.
PRECAST REINFORCED
CONCRETE.

FIG. 7-19.
SUMMITVILLE
TILES, INC.
TACTILE-TREAD
CERAMIC TILE.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 127

Photographs of detectable warning products continued

FIG. 7-20.
CROSSVILLE CERAMICS
COMPANY, L.P.
A301 TAC TILE.

FIG. 7-21.
ENDICOTT CLAY
PRODUCTS CO.
HANDICAP DETECTABLE
WARNING PAVER.

FIG. 7-22.
WHITACRE-GREER
FIREPROOFING CO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
PAVER.

128 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Photographs of detectable warning products continued

FIG. 7-23.
CASTEK, INC.
PRECAST POLYMER
CONCRETE TILE.

FIG. 7-24.
ADA
FABRICATORS, INC.
COPOLYMER COMPOSITE
TILE.

FIG. 7-25.
ENGINEERED
PLASTICS, INC.
ARMOR-TILE ADA
EPOXY POLYMER
COMPOSITE TILE.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 129

Photographs of detectable warning products continued

FIG. 7-26.
ENGINEERED
PLASTICS, INC.
ARMOR-TILE STANDARD
EPOXY POLYMER
COMPOSITE TILE.

FIG. 7-27.
DISABILITY DEVICES
DISTRIBUTOR
POLYURETHANE
DETECTABLE W ARNING
MAT.

FIG. 7-28.
VANGUARD ADA
PRODUCTS OF AMERICA,
TILCO, INC.
APPLIED TRUNCATED
DOMES (SHOWN ON
BLACK SHEET ACRYLIC
BACKING FOR SAMPLE
ONLY).

130 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Photographs of detectable warning products continued

FIG. 7-29.
COTE-L
INDUSTRIES, INC.
SAFTI-TRAX APPLIED
RUBBER DOMES &
DURABACK
POLYURETHANE
COATING (SHOWN ON
PLYWOOD BACKING
FOR SAMPLE ONLY).

FIG. 7-30.
STRONGWALL
INDUSTRIES, INC.
APPLIED LATEX-
MODIFIED MORTAR
DOMES & TRAFFIC DECK
MEMBRANE SYSTEM
(SHOWN ON PLYWOOD
BACKING FOR
SAMPLE ONLY).

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 131

Detectable warning manufacturers

The manufacturers listed below offer Cold Spring Granite Company

truncated dome detectable warning products. 202 South 3rd Ave.
Cold Spring, MN 56320
ADA Fabricators, Inc.
P.O Box 179, N. Billerica, MA 01862 [Granite paver]
Phone: (320) 685-3621, (800) 328-7038
[Copolymer composite tile]
Phone: (978) 262-9900, (800) 372-0519 Fax (320) 685-5490
Fax: (978) 262-1455 Web: www.coldspringgranite.com
Crossville Ceramics Co., L.P.
Architectural Tile and Granite, Inc.
P.O. Box 1168, Crossville, TN 38555
P.O. Box 3542, Sunriver, OR 97707
[Porcelain stone tile]
[Ryowa Braille Series
reconstituted granite paver] Phone: (931) 484-2110
Fax: (931) 484-8418
Phone / Fax: (541) 593-1790
E-mail: [email protected]
Castek Division, Transpo Industries, Inc. Web: www.crossville-ceramics.com
20 Jones Street, New Rochelle, NY 10801
Disability Devices Distributor
[Step-Safeâ precast polymer concrete tile]
17420 Mount Hermon St. #C
Phone: (800) 321-7870 or (914) 636-1000
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Fax: (914) 636-1282
[Polyurethane Detectable Warning Mat]
Cobblecrete International, Inc. Phone: (714) 437-9237, (800) 747-5651
485 West 2000 South, Orem, UT 84058 Fax: (714) 437-9309
[TurboMat (roller) for on-site texturing]
Phone: (800) 798-5791 or (801) 224-6662 Endicott Clay Products Co.
Fax: (801) 225-1690 PO Box 17, Fairbury, NE 68352
E-mail: [email protected] [Handicap Detectable Warning Paver, brick]
Web: www.cobblecrete.com Phone: (402) 729-3315
Fax: (402) 729-5804
COTE-L Industries, Inc. E-mail: [email protected]
1542 Jefferson St., Teaneck, NJ 07666 Web: www.endicott.com
[Safti-Trax applied rubber domes
Engineered Plastics Inc.
& Duraback polyurethane coating]
Olympic Towers, 300 Pearl Street, Suite 200
Phone: (201) 836-0733
Buffalo, NY 14202
Fax: (201) 836-5220
[Armor-Tile epoxy polymer composite]
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (800) 682-2525 or (716) 842-6039
Web: www.cotelind.com
Fax: (800) 769-4463
Web: www.engplastics.com

Continued on next page

132 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Detectable warning manufacturers, continued

Hanover Architectural Products, Inc. Superock Block Company Inc.

240 Bender Rd., Hanover, PA 17331 3301 27th Avenue N, P O Box 5326
[Reconstituted pressed limestone & Birmingham, AL 35207-0326
granite Detectable Warning Paver] [Compressed concrete StoneScape
Phone: (717) 637-0500 Detectable Warning Paver]
Fax: (717) 637-7145 Phone: (205) 324-8624
Web: www.hanoverpavers.com Fax: (205) 324-8671
http://[email protected]
Increte Systems
Inco Chemical Supply Co., Inc. Vanguard ADA Products of America
8509 Sunstate St., Tampa, FL 33634 Tilco, Inc.
[Stamping tools for ADA Tactile 20628 Broadway Avenue,
Detectable Warning Systems] Snohomish, WA 98296
Phone: (800) 752-4626, (813) 886-8811 [Applied truncated domes]
Fax: (813) 886-0188 Phone: (800) 290-5700
Web: www.increte.com Fax: (360) 668-3335
E-mail: [email protected]
Pavestone Company
Web: www.vngrd.com
4835 LBJ Freeway, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75244 Whitacre-Greer Fireproofing Company
[Concrete detectable warning paver] 1400 S. Mahoning Avenue,
Phone: (800) 245-PAVE, (972) 404-0400 Alliance, OH 44601
Fax (972) 404-9200 [Detectable warning ADA Brick]
E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (800) WGPAVER, (330) 823-1610
Web: www.pavestone.com Fax: (330) 823-5502
E-mail: [email protected]
Steps Plus, Inc.
Web: www.wgpaver.com
6375 Thompson Rd., Syracuse, NY 13206
[Precast reinforced concrete
Detectable Warning Units]
Phone: (315) 432-0885 The following companies do not currently
Fax: (315) 432-0612 offer ADA detectable warning products.
Web: www.steps-plus.com Their names appear on earlier supplier lists:
Strongwall Industries, Inc. Advantage Metal High Quality Tactile
P.O. Box 201, Ridgewood, NJ 07451 American Olean Lanxide (SMC)
[Applied latex-modified mortar domes Bomanite Rehau, Inc.
& traffic deck membrane system] Carsonite (Pathfinder) Roppe Corp.
Phone: (800) 535-0668 or (201) 445-4633 Daltile Corp. Specialty Concrete
Fax: (201) 447-2317 Goria Enterprises Synertech Molded
Web: www.strongwall.com Hastings Pavement Terra Clay Prodcts
Summitville Tiles, Inc.
P.O. Box 73, Summitville, OH 43962
[Tactile-Tread ceramic tile]
Phone: (330) 223-1511
Fax: (330) 223-1414
Web: www.summitville.com

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 133

134 Use of Tactile Warning Surfaces
 Appendix

Summary The Appendix includes combined references / annotated bibliography,

and a glossary of terms used in the text. A copy of the questionnaire
used in interviews regarding detectable warning installations is also
included.

Appendix contents The Appendix has the following sections.

Topic Page
References and Annotated Bibliography 136
Glossary 147
Questionnaire for interviews regarding 148
detectable warning installations

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 135

References and Annotated Bibliography

Annotations emphasize only the portions of each

publication which are most relevant to this synthesis.

Accessible rights-of-way: A design guide. (1999). Washington, DC: U.S. Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
A comprehensive overview of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its application to
public rights-of-way. Contains detailed suggestions for making public rights-of-way
accessible. Suggests detectable warnings as a way to make information about
pedestrian/vehicular boundaries perceptible to persons who are visually impaired.

Aiello, J. & Steinfeld, E. (1980). Accessible buildings for people with severe visual impairment.
Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy
Research, Report No. HUD-PDR-404.
First U.S. research on warning surfaces. A ribbed rubber mat was found to be highly
detectable to eight blind subjects travelling with a long cane, when they approached it from
brushed concrete.

American national standard: Accessible and usable buildings and facilities CABO/ANSI
A117.1-1992. (1992). Falls Church, VA: Council of American Building Officials.
The only standard regarding detectable warnings is that they shall be standard within a
building, facility, site, or complex of buildings. Contains no technical specification for
detectable warnings.

American national standard: Accessible and usable buildings and facilities ICC/ANSI A117.1-
1998. (1998). Falls Church, VA: International Code Council.
Provides standards for truncated dome detectable warnings—similar to ADAAG 4.29.2.
Provides use of other surfaces or technology that ensure equivalent detectability.

American national standard: Specifications for making buildings and facilities accessible to and
usable by physically handicapped people ANSI A117.1-1980. (1980). New York: American
National Standards Institute, Inc.
The first U.S. standard for tactile warning surfaces on curb ramps, preceding hazardous
vehicular ways, preceding stairs, and at reflecting pools. Specifies use of exposed
aggregate concrete, rubber, or plastic cushioned surfaces, raised strips, or grooves.
Grooves permitted indoors only.

American national standard for buildings and facilities—providing accessibility and usability for
physically handicapped people ANSI A117.1-1986. (1986). New York: American National
Standards Institute, Inc.
Similar to ANSI A117.1-1980, except tactile warnings now called detectable warnings.

136 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

References and Annotated Bibliography, continued

Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility guidelines (July 26, 1991). Washington, DC: U.S.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. 36 CFR Part 1191.
Contains scoping and technical specifications for achieving accessibility to the built
environment for persons with disabilities in accordance with the mandates of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Gives technical specifications for truncated dome
detectable warnings and places where they are used.

Axelson, P.W., Chesney, D.A., Galvan, D.V., Kirschbaum, J.B., Longmuir, P.E., Lyons, C., &
Wong, K.M. (1999). Designing sidewalks and trails for access: Part I of II: Review of existing
guidelines and practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Publication No: FHWA-HEPP-00-006.
Reviews ways of providing information to pedestrians who are blind. Describes use
of detectable warnings and tactile surfaces for wayfinding.

Axelson, P.W., Chesney, D.A., Galvan, D.V., Kirschbaum, J.B., Longmuir, P.E., Lyons, C., &
Wong, K.M. (anticipated 2000). Designing sidewalks and trails for access: Part II of II: A best
practices guidebook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration.
Provides extensive guidance on making public rights-of-way, including trails, accessible to
persons with disabilities including visual impairments. Has numerous examples of the
use of detectable warnings to provide information to persons who are visually impaired.

Barlow, J. & Bentzen, B.L. (1994). Cues blind travelers use to detect streets. Final report.
Cambridge, MA: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center.
Showed that proficient blind travelers, using a long cane, frequently fail to detect
unfamiliar intersecting streets approached via a curb ramp, even in the presence of
traffic on the intersecting street. Failure to detect streets found to be associated with
ramp slope, abruptness of change in slope between sidewalk and curb ramp, and
diagonal vs. perpendicular placement.

Bentzen, B.L. (1997). Environmental accessibility. In B. Blasch, W. Weiner, & R. Welsh

(Eds.). Foundations of orientation and mobility. 2nd ed. New York: American Foundation for
the Blind. 317-356.
Comprehensive review of access problems and solutions for people who are visually
impaired, including a section on public rights-of-way.

Bentzen, B.L. & Barlow, J.M. (1995). Impact of curb ramps on safety of persons who are blind.
Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 89, 319-328.
Journal version of Barlow & Bentzen, 1994.

Bentzen, B.L., Jackson, R.M. & Peck, A.F. (1981). Techniques for improving communication

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 137

References and Annotated Bibliography, continued

with visually impaired users of rail rapid transit systems. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Report No. UMTA-MA-0036-81-3.
Shows that falling or fear of falling from high-level transit platforms is a major cause of
anxiety amongst visually impaired transit riders.

Bentzen, B.L., Nolin, T.L. & Easton, R.D. (1994a). Detectable warning surfaces: Color,
contrast and reflectance. Cambridge, MA: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit
Administration, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Report No. VNTSC-DTRS-57-
93-P-80546.
Safety yellow detectable warnings having as little as 40% contrast with an adjoining
surface are found to be more detectable to persons having low vision than detectable
warnings of other colors having up to 86% contrast.

Bentzen, B.L. & Myers, L.A. (1997). Human factors research, Appendix C in Detectable
warnings evaluation services. Menlo Park, CA: Crain & Associates, Inc.
Objective and subjective testing of four detectable warning materials installed on Sacramento
Regional Transit light rail platforms, for detectability under foot and using a long cane or dog
guide, differences in sound on cane-contact, and differences in visual contrast.

Bentzen, B.L., Nolin, T.L., Easton, R.D., Desmarais, L. & Mitchell, P.A. (1993). Detectable
warning surfaces: Detectability by individuals with visual impairments, and safety and
negotiability for individuals with physical impairments. Final report VNTSC-DTRS57-92-P-
81354 and VNTSC-DTRS57-91-C-0006. Cambridge, MA: U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Transit Administration, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, and Project
ACTION, National Easter Seal Society.
13 truncated dome surfaces complying approximately with ADAAG specifications but varying
in material, were found to be highly detectable to 24 blind travelers under foot and by use of a
long cane when used in association with four different transit platform surfaces. Nine
truncated dome detectable warning surfaces on 6-ft ramps with 1:12 slope were found to
have minimal adverse impact on 40 persons having mobility impairments.

Bentzen, B.L., Nolin, T.L., Easton, R.D., Desmarais, L. & Mitchell, P.A. (1994b). Detectable
warnings: Safety & negotiability on slopes for persons who are physically impaired.
Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration and Project ACTION of the National Easter
Seal Society.
Nine truncated dome detectable warning surfaces on 6-ft ramps with 1:12 slope were
found to have minimal adverse impact on 40 persons having mobility impairments.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24. (1999). Sacramento, CA: Division of the State
Architect.
The California accessibility code. Requires truncated dome detectable warnings at curb
ramps, hazardous vehicular ways, and transit boarding platforms.

138 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

References and Annotated Bibliography, continued

California Department of Transportation. (1998). Local assistance procedures manual: Design

standards. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation.
Includes design standards for curb ramps, including rationale and specifications for
placement of truncated dome detectable warnings at curb ramps, islands, and medians.

Collins, B.L., Tibbott, R.L. & Danner, W.F. (1981). Communication systems for disabled users
of buildings. Washington, D.C., National Bureau of Standards.
Summarizes U.S. research on warning surfaces, and existing standards for
warning surfaces as of 1981.

Detectable warnings: Bulletin #1. (1993). Washington, DC: U.S. Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Provides a figure clarifying the intent of the ADAAG technical specification for truncated
dome detectable warnings, and provides background information on the rationale for the
use of detectable warnings.

Disability Unit Circular 1/91: The use of dropped kerbs and tactile surfaces at pedestrian
crossing points. London, England: Department of Transport.
Describes the use of a flat topped dome surface on curb ramps, and extending back to
the edge of the sidewalk farthest from the curb line, to help pedestrians who are blind
locate crossing points. Detectable warning pavers are aligned in the direction of travel
across the crosswalk, regardless of whether this is perpendicular to the curb.

Evaluation of detectable warning surfaces: Final Report. (1997). Menlo Park, CA: Crain &
Associates, Inc.
Detectability of four different truncated dome detectable warnings for use on light rail transit
platforms in Sacramento, CA. Particular attention to effect of color and sound on cane-
contact on detectability. Includes evaluation of maintenance and durability.

Florida pedestrian planning and design handbook. (1999). Tallahassee, FL: Florida
Department of Transportation.
Includes guidelines for the installation of curb ramps recommending a tactile surface
on curb ramps.

Gallon, C. (1992). Tactile surfaces in the pedestrian environment: Experiments in

Wolverhampton: Contractor report 317. Crowthorne, England: Transport and Road Research
Laboratory.
Evaluation of 5 warning and guidance surfaces installed in one community.

Gallon, C., Oxley, P. & Simms, B. (1991). Tactile footway surfaces for the blind: Contractor
report 257. Crowthorne: England: Transport and Road Research Laboratory. .
Summary of research on discriminability of tactile surfaces for warning and guidance.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 139

References and Annotated Bibliography, continued

Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces. (1998). London, U.K.: Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Describes the use of seven different tactile surfaces for providing information and/or
guidance to persons with visual impairments at crosswalks, hazardous areas, off-street
transit platform edges, on-street transit platform edges, shared cycle tracks/footways,
guidance paths, and information points.

Hauger, J, Rigby, J, Safewright, M. & McAuley, W. (1996). Detectable warning surfaces at curb
ramps. Journal of Visual Impairments and Blindness 90:512-525.
Found that curb ramps resulted in inability of blind travelers to detect some streets.
Detectable warnings on curb ramps were judged to improve street detection. When
negotiating curb ramps with detectable warnings compared with brushed concrete curb
ramps, persons with mobility impairments experienced minimal difficulties. Many subjects
having mobility impairments judged curb ramps having detectable warnings to be safer,
more stable, more slip resistant, and to require less effort than concrete curb ramps.

Hauger, J.S., Safewright, M.P., Rigby, J.C. & McAuley, W.J. (1994). Detectable warnings pro-
ject: Report of field tests and observations. Final Report to U.S. Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University.
Full version of Hauger, Rigby, Safewright & McAuley (1996).

Hines, S.S. (1990). The impact of fear on blind and visually impaired travelers in rapid rail
systems. In M. Uslan, A. Peck, W. Wiener & A. Stern, (Eds.). Access to mass transit for blind
and visually impaired travelers. New York: American Foundation for the Blind University.
Analysis with anecdotes of consequences of blind persons’ fear of falling at transit platforms.

Hughes, R.G. (1995). A Florida DOT field evaluation of tactile warnings in curb ramps:
Mobility considerations for the blind and visually impaired. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Highway Safety Research Center.
Confirms high detectability of truncated dome detectable warnings. Shows preference
of people with low vision for yellow vs. black warning surfaces.

Ibukiyama, S., Fujita, D., Yoshioka, A., & Kinoshita, S. (1985). Standards for textured guide
strips for the visually impaired. Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan: The Japan Highway Association,
Inc.
Recommended standards for installation of guide strips, including truncated dome
detectable warnings.

Inspection and testing of tactile warning strips for Metra [Chicago] railroad platforms, (1993).
Northbrook, IL: Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Project No. 921683.
Laboratory and field evaluation of 11 truncated dome detectable warning surfaces
installed on a transit platform. Evaluation included color, installation adequacy, grip and slip
resistance, impact performance, and ability to be cleaned.

140 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

References and Annotated Bibliography, continued

Kearney, Peter and Planner (1992). Metro-North Commuter Railroad tactile warning strip: Test
methodology, demonstrations results, and rating of the ADA tactile strips test at Peekskill
Station, NY. New York: Metro-North Commuter Railroad, Metropolitan Transportation
Authority.
Test of detectability of nine truncated dome detectable warning products. Includes
comments on installation, wear and maintenance.

Ketola, N. and Chia, D. (1993). Results of laboratory testing of detectable warning materials.
Burlington, MA: Technology & Management Systems, Inc. Technical Memo No 65-09-01,
November.
Detailed report of laboratory testing of 18 truncated dome detectable warnings.

Ketola, N. and Chia, D. (1994). Detectable warnings: Testing and performance evaluation
at transit stations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit
Administration.
Laboratory testing of 18 truncated dome detectable warnings and subsequent evaluation
of 8 of those materials at transit stations in Boston, Cleveland and Philadelphia. Provides
performance assessment of the 8 materials after 7 months wear.

König, V. (1996). Handbuch über die blinden- und sehbehindertengerechte Umwelt- und
Verkehrsraumgestaltung, Bonn: Deutscher Blindenverband e.V. (DBV).
Highly illustrated book showing numerous ways to make the built environment more
accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision. Includes chapters on public
rights-of-way and transit.

Massachusetts pedestrian transportation plan. (1998). Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department

of Transportation.
Includes recommendations for making public rights-of-way accessible to persons with
disabilities.

McCulley, R. and Bentzen, B.L. (1987). Train platform accidents reported by visually impaired
travelers: Results of a survey by the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind. Unpublished
report. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Commission for the Blind.
In a 30 day period 24 people who were blind responded to the invitation to call the
Massachusetts Commission for the Blind to report that they had fallen from a transit
platform edge in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority subway system at some
time in the past.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 141

References and Annotated Bibliography, continued

McGean, T.K. (1991). Innovative solutions for disabled transit accessibility. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Report No.
UMTA-OH-06-0056-91-8.
Found that platform edge accidents for all riders decreased following installation of detectable
warnings along platform edges in BART. Riders on BART platforms having detectable
warnings tended to stand farther from the platform edge while waiting for trains than riders
waiting on San Francisco Municipal Railway platforms (not having detectable warnings)
in the same station.

Mitchell, M. (1988). Pathfinder tactile tile demonstration test project. Miami, FL: Metro-Dade
Transit Agency.
Confirmed the high detectability of truncated dome detectable warnings.

Murakami, T., Aoki, S., Taniai, S., & Muranaka, Y. (1982). Braille blocks on roads to assist the
blind in orientation and mobility. Bulletin of the Tokyo Metropolitan Rehabilitation Center for
the Physically and Mentally Handicapped, 11-24.
Describes current (1982) practice in Japan of installing bar tiles and dot tiles (truncated
domes) to provide a comprehensive tactile wayfinding system for blind persons.

Murakami, T., Ohkura, M., Tauchi, M., Shimizu, O., & Ikegami, A. (1991). An experimental
study on discriminability and detectability of tactile tiles. Proceedings of the 17th sensory
substitution symposium, 1991/12/3-4 Tokyo.
Research on discriminability of dot (truncated dome) vs. bar (linear surface) tiles.
Dot tiles were sometimes misidentified as bar tiles.

National standard for the provision of accessible services to persons with disabilities by
Canadian motor coach operators and terminal operators (draft 1993). Ottawa, Canada:
National Transportation Agency of Canada.
Calls for detectable warnings at changes in elevation, curb ramps, ramps, staircases,
escalators or doors. Does not provide specifications.

O’Leary, A.A., Lockwood, P.B. & Taylor, R.V. (1996). Evaluation of detectable warning
surfaces for sidewalk curb ramps. Transportation Research Record No. 1538.
Four truncated dome, two exposed aggregate, and one raised linear surface were tested
for detectability by people who were visually impaired and maneuverability by people
who had mobility impairments. Truncated dome surfaces were more detectable than
exposed aggregate surfaces. Exposed aggregate surfaces were minimally detectable
by people who were visually impaired, but were preferred by people having mobility
impairments. Virginia Department of Transportation standard adopted in 1992 called for
exposed aggregate on curb ramps.

142 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

References and Annotated Bibliography, continued

Oregon bicycle and pedestrian plan, 2nd ed. (1995). Salem, OR: Oregon Department of
Transportation, Pedestrian and Bicycle Program.
Contains facility design standards for public rights-of-way. Includes texturing of
curb ramps as an aid to persons having visual impairments.

Pavlos, E., Sanford, J. & Steinfeld, E. (1985). Detectable tactile surface treatments. Atlanta,
GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.
Test of detectability of a wide variety of existing surfaces. The only material that was
sufficiently detectable to be used as a warning was artificial grass. Various grooved
textures in concrete were very minimally detectable. Redundancy in differences including
texture, resiliency and sound on cane-contact were found to facilitate detection.

Peck, A.F. & Bentzen, B.L. (1987). Tactile warnings to promote safety in the vicinity of transit
platform edges. Cambridge, MA: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit
Administration, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Report No. UMTA-MA-06-
0120-87-1.
Three part project to identify a warning surface that was highly detectable both under foot
and through use of a long cane, when used in association with four surfaces representing
the textural extremes of surfaces currently in use for transit platforms. A truncated dome
surface complying with ADAAG 4.29.1 was highly detectable.

Peck, A.F., Tauchi, M., Shimizu, O., Murakami, T., & Okhura, M. (1991). Tactile tiles for
Australia: A performance evaluation of selected tactile tiles under consideration for use by the
visually impaired in Australia. Unpublished manuscript. Association for the Blind, Brighton
Beach, Victoria, Australia.
Confirmed the high detectability of truncated dome warning surfaces.

Pedestrian facilities guidebook: Incorporating pedestrians into Washington’s transportation

system. (1997). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Transportation.
Includes guidelines for the installation of curb ramps recommending a tactile surface
on curb ramps.

Portland pedestrian design study guide. (1998). Portland, OR: City of Portland, Office of
Transportation, Engineering and Development, The Pedestrian Transportation Program
Contains detailed guidelines for making sidewalks, street corners, crosswalks, pathways,
and stairs accessible to and usable by all pedestrians, including those with disabilities.
Includes texturing of curb ramps as an aid to persons with visual impairments.

Ratelle, A., Zabihaylo, C., & Gresset, J. (1998). Detectability of warning tiles by functionally
blind persons: Effects of warnings tiles’ width and adjoining surfaces’ texture. In E. Sifferman,
M. Williams, and B. Blasch (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Mobility Conference.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 143

References and Annotated Bibliography, continued

Decatur, GA: Veterans Administration, Rehabilitation Research and Development Center.

Thirty inches of detectable warning were required to enable detection and stopping on
at least 90% of trials. A rough texture adjacent to a detectable warning decreased the
detectability of the warning.

Report of fundamental research on standardization relating to tactile tiles for guiding the
visually impaired: Aiming at standardization of patterns. (Study of the relationship between
individual patterns and ease of recognition. (1998). Japan: Ministry of International Trade
and Industry, National Institute for Technology and Evaluation.

Reports research on detectability and identifiability of nine dot (truncated dome), and nine bar
tiles having different height, width or diameter, and spacing.

Samuels, J. (1989). New guidance system aids blind pedestrians. Civic Public Works.
April, 15-16.
Use of Pathfinder tiles in Canada on transit platforms and public rights-of-way. Snow is
easily removed by shovel.

Sanford, J. and Zimring, C. (1985). Detectable tactile surface treatments. Atlanta, GA: Georgia
Institute of Technology.
There were great differences in detectability of common surface treatments that could be
considered for use as warnings. Astroturf was the most detectable surface tested.

Savill, T., Davies, G., Fowkes, A., Gallon, C. & Simms, B. (1996). Trials on platform edge
tactile surfaces. Crowthorne, Berkshire, U.K.: Transport Research Laboratory.
Reports research validating the use of tactile warning surfaces at transit platform edges.

Savill, T., Stone, J. & Whitney, G. (1998). Can older vision impaired people remember the
meanings of tactile surfaces used in the United Kingdom? Crowthorne, Berkshire, U.K.:
Transport Research Laboratory.
Reports successful performance of 39 visually impaired persons 66-95 years of age on tasks
involving learning and remembering the meanings of six tactile surfaces used for different
purposes in the United Kingdom.

Sawai, H., Takato, J., & Tauchi, M. (1998). Quantitative measurements of tactile contrast
between dot and bar tiles used to constitute tactile pathway for the blind and visually impaired
independent travelers. In E. Sifferman, M. Williams, & B. Blasch (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th
International Mobility Conference. Decatur, GA: Veterans Administration, Rehabilitation
Research and Development Center.
Research comparing ability to discriminate between dot tiles (dome or truncated dome) and
bar tiles showed that tiles having truncated domes spaced closer together were harder to
discriminate from bar tiles than dot tiles having full domes or smaller dots, spaced farther
apart. Shoe sole also affected ability to discriminate between dot and bar tiles; thinner soled
shoes yielded better discrimination.

144 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

References and Annotated Bibliography, continued

Shimizu, O., Murakami, T., Ohkura, M., Tanaka, I. and Tauchi, M. (1991). Braille tiles as a
guiding system in Japan for blind travelers. Proceedings, International Mobility Conference 6,
Madrid, Spain.
Reviews history and describes installation of tactile tiles (truncated dome detectable
warnings and linear directional surfaces) in Japan. Location and pattern of tactile tiles
are not standardized, resulting in confusion. Tactile tiles are considered beneficial to the
safety of people who are visually impaired but do not help them establish a direction for
crossing streets.

Spiller, D. and Multer, J. (1992). Assessment of detectable warning devices for specification
compliance or equivalent facilitation. Cambridge, MA: U.S. Department of Transportation,
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.
Evaluates ADAAG specification for detectable warnings. Recommends procedures to
establish equivalent facilitation.

Street design guidelines. (1999). Washington, DC: American Council of the Blind.
Provides concise guidance for designing sidewalks and intersections that are accessible
to and readily usable by pedestrians who have visual impairments.

Tactile edge warning systems evaluation. (1990). Toronto, Canada: Toronto Transit
Commission.
Reports objective and subjective evaluation of 17 potential warning surfaces. A
truncated dome surface was recommended for installation. .

Tactile warning panel demonstration installation (1995). Oakland, CA: VBN Architects.
Reports laboratory and field testing of 12 truncated dome detectable warning surfaces.

Tanaka, M. (1991). Making cities safer for the visually impaired. Wheel Extended 19:24-32.
Examines use and drawbacks of “guide blocks” in Japan, including truncated domes.

Taraya, E. (1995). Guidestrips for visually disabled/blind pedestrians: Executive summary. San
Francisco: Department of Public Works, Office of the Disability Access Coordinator.
Tactile strips to provide guidance across geometrically complex or confusing intersections
were evaluated for installation requirements, maintenance and durability.

Technical aids for blind and vision impaired personsTactile ground/floor surface indicators.
(November, 1999). International Organization for Standardization (ISO) TC 173, Working
Group 7. Draft.
Proposed international standard for truncated dome warning or attention surfaces and
linear guidance surfaces.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 145

References and Annotated Bibliography, continued

Templer, J. A. & Wineman, J.D. (1980). The feasibility of accommodating elderly and
handicapped pedestrians on over-and-undercrossing structures. Washington, DC: Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Government Printing Office. FHWA-RD-79-146.
A resilient tennis court surfacing material and strips of thermoplastic 6 in wide and spaced 6
in apart were highly detectable to persons who had low vision or who were totally blind.

Templer, J.A., Wineman, J.D., & Zimring, C.M. (1982). Design guidelines to make crossing
structures accessible to the physically handicapped. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Final Report #DTF-H61-80-C-00131.
Project to determine the relationship between surface detection and texture (defined as
depth, spacing, and width of grooves), impact noise, and resiliency. Steel surfaces and
surfaces applied over a plywood surface were most detectable from concrete on the
basis of differences in sound.

Textured pavements to help blind pedestrians (1983). Crowthorne, England: Transport and Road
Research Laboratory.
Describes first laboratory testing in the United Kingdom to find a distinctive texture by
means of which pedestrians who are blind could identify Zebra and Pelican crossings.
Criteria for the texture were that the surface had to be simple, detectable, distinctive,
comfortable, durable and cheap. The best texture had rounded domes, 25 mm diam.,
6 mm high, and 67 mm apart on center. It was acceptable to wheelchair users and
detectable by people who were blind.

Tijerina, L., Jackson, J.L. & Tornow, C.E. (1994). The impact of transit station platform edge
warning surfaces on persons with visual impairments and persons with mobility impairments.
Final report. Battelle Contract No. FE-6591/BK to Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority.
Four surfaces created by tooling granite were compared with a truncated dome surface
for detectability under foot, using a long cane or dog guide, and using low vision, and
for maneuverability by people having mobility impairments. The truncated dome
surface and a pattern of raised squares were most detectable. No important difficulties
in maneuverability occurred with any tested surface.

The use of dropped kerbs and tactile surfaces at pedestrian crossing points. Disability Unit
Circular 1/91 (1992) London, England: Department of Transport.
Guidance on installation of truncated dome surfaces on curb ramps at corners,
at mid-block crossings and on islands.

146 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis

Glossary

Apex curb ramp. A curb ramp occurring at Midblock crossing. Crossing point that
the vertex of the intersection of two streets. occurs in the center of a block rather than at
Same as diagonal curb ramp or corner-type an intersection.
curb ramp. Parallel curb ramp. Curb ramp design for a
Beveled lip. A lip or threshold required in narrow sidewalk, where the sidewalk slopes
California at the lower end of a curb ramp. down on either side of a landing. Also called
“dropped landing.”
Blended curb. A situation in which there is
no perceptible difference in slope or surface Pedestrian. People who travel on foot or
level between a sidewalk and the adjoining who use assistive devices, such as
street. wheelchairs, for mobility.
Cross slope. The slope measured perpendi- Raised crosswalk. A long raised speed hump
cular to the usual direction of travel. with a flat section in the middle and ramps
connecting to the street level. Also known as
Curb ramp. A short ramp cutting through a
a flat top speed hump, trapezoidal hump,
curb or built up to it. Sometimes referred to
speed platform, speed table, or raised
as curb cut.
crossing. Often occurs as a midblock
Detectable warning. A standardized surface crossing.
feature built in or applied to walking surfaces
Raised intersection. An intersection with a
or other elements to warn visually impaired
flat raised area covering the entire
people of hazards on a circulation path.
intersection, including adjoining crosswalks,
Diagonal curb ramp. See apex curb ramp. and with ramps on all street approaches. Also
Flared side. The triangular transition surface known as a raised junction, intersection
between the main sloped area of a curb ramp hump, or plateau.
and the adjacent sidewalk. Speed table. See raised crosswalk or raised
Grooved border. A border at the level of the intersection.
sidewalk required in California at the top and Tactile. An object that can be perceived
side of a curb ramp using the sense of touch.
Island. A pedestrian refuge within the right- Tactile ground/floor surface indicators
of-way and traffic lanes of a highway or (TGSIs). Walking surfaces for indoor or
street. outdoor use, intended to provide warning
Long cane. A cane individually prescribed to and/or wayfinding information to people who
provide safety and orientation information to are blind or visually impaired.
persons who are blind or visually impaired; TGSI. See tactile ground surface indicators.
typically much longer than a support cane and
Truncated domes. Small domes with
not intended for support; typically has a
flattened tops used as detectable warnings.
white, reflective surface.
Vehicular way. A route intended for
Median. See island.
vehicular traffic, such as a street, driveway,
or parking lot.

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 147

[Questionnaire for interviews regarding detectable warning installations; see Chapter 5]

Accessible Design for the Blind

Access Solutions • Human Factors Testing • Assistive Technology

Contact Name:
Company:
Phone #/E-mail address:
Date:
Detectable Warning Location A, B, C, D, E (circle 1)
NOTE: On Question # 1, 2 and 3, only one answer should be chosen. If multiple answers apply, a questionnaire
should be completed for each location.)

Location Information/Type
Location (street names/station names: _______________________________________________
City: __________________________________________
State: ______________
1. Type of location (choose one, if different types, fill out a different questionnaire as a separate location)
___curb ramp/blended curb
___edge of train or transit platform--indoor
___edge of train or transit platform--outdoor
___median
___edge of street (parallel to walkway/sidewalk)
___other
2. Manufacturer's name (choose one, if different types, fill out a different questionnaire as a separate location)
___Applied Surfaces ___Increte Systems
___Carsonite ___Specialty Concrete Products
___Castek/Transpo ___Steps Plus
___Cobblecrete ___Strongwall Industries
___Crossville Ceramics ___Summitville Tiles
___Disability Devices Distributor ___Tilco/Vanguard
___Engineered Plastics ___Whitacre-Greer
___Hanover Architectural Products ___other _________________________
3. Type of material (choose one, if different types, fill out a different questionnaire as a separate location)
___unit masonry (brick, pavers)
___precast concrete units
___concrete, stamped after pour
___fiberglass tile
___epoxy tile
___ceramic tile
___plastic/rubber tile
___other _____________________________________

148
Installation
4. Date installed: ______________
5. Approximate cost per square foot : $_____
6. Dimensions of the installation? _______ x ________ depth (from edge of platform or street)x width
a. If curb ramp, where?
___whole ramped area
___centered strip
___strip at bottom/base of ramp
___strip at top
___other
7. Installation method:
___glued/cemented
___screwed
___poured concrete
___other
8. Cavity between DW and base surface (for sound difference)?
___Yes ___No
9. Color of detectable warning
___yellow ___black ___gray ___other ____________
10. Problems or difficulties in the installation process?
___yes ___no Comments:

Cleaning and Maintenance

11 Maintenance problems?
___yes ___no Comments
12. Cleaning method and products (describe):
12a. Cleaning frequency:
___daily ___weekly ___monthly ___annually ___never ___no set schedule ___other __________________
12b. Any cleaning problems? Describe:
13. Evidence of wear and tear, type of wear, and extent of problem:
___Color degraded: ___major, ____minor ___no problem
___Domes worn: ___major, ____minor ___no problem
___Tiles chipping: ___major, ____minor ___no problem
___Bubbles or lifting: ___major, ___minor ___no problem
___Cracks: ___major, ___minor ___no problem
___Other: ___major, ____minor ___no problem
Comments:

14. Any experience with snow and ice removal? ___yes ___no
14a. Method of snow and ice removal:
___Snow plow ___shovel ___broom ___chemical ___other:
Comments:

15. Had to replace individual tiles or modules of the surface? ___yes ___no
16. Had to remove and reinstall any detectable warning products? ___yes ___no
16 a. If yes, why?
16b. Brand removed and Replacement brand?

U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis 149

Public Reaction/Problems/Concerns
17. There has been concern by some people that truncated domes on slopes like curb ramps could cause trips, slips,
falls, or difficulties for pedestrians with mobility impairments, although research has not documented these
problems. Do you know of any specific instances where truncated domes have been the cause of pedestrian
complaints or problems?
___Yes ___No

17 a. Who made the complaint or had the problem?

___Blind pedestrian
___Mobility impaired pedestrian using __Wheelchair/scooter ___Cane ___Crutch ___Other
___General public
___ Other _________________________
17 b. What was the nature of the problem?
___Trip ___Slip ___Fall ___High heels ___Stroller ___Difficulty for mobility impaired pedestrian
___Other _________________________ Comments:
17 c. Has action been taken by your agency in response to the complaint or problem? ___Yes ___No
Comment:
17 d. Was any legal action initiated? ___Yes ___No
17 e. Would you be willing to discuss legal action? Comment:
18. Have you received any comments from individuals who are blind?
___yes ___no Comments:
19. Have you received any comments from individuals who have mobility impairments?
___yes ___no Comments:
20. Have you received any comments from general public?
___yes ___no Comments:

Additional Information
21. Do you have any photos of installations? If so, could you send copies to us? ___ yes ___no
22. Has your agency conducted any research on detectable warnings, either before or after installation?
___yes ___no If yes, could we please have three copies of any reports that are available?
23. Do you expect to be installing more detectable warnings?
___yes ___no ___don’t know Comments:
24. Will they be the same type, from the same manufacturer?
___yes ___no ___don’t know Comments:
25. Have you seen/used detectable warnings installed abroad? Comments:
26. Do you know of anyone else in your field/area that we should contact on this subject?
Name:
Title/Company:
E-mail:
Phone:
Address:
27. Can we use your name in our document as a possible contact regarding your experience with detectable
warnings?
__yes __no

150 U.S. Access Board  Detectable Warnings: Synthesis