• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

ADA manuevering clearance for thick walls

D

Dimtick

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
6
Location
Cleveland
I have a problem with a retail project. We have a existing emergency egress only door in a 2 foot thick wall. This door has a closer on it. The door is recessed approx. 1 foot from inside finish face. There is existing column adjacent to the door which makes it impossible to create a recessed pocket on the push side of the door per ADA 404.2.4.3. I'm trying to see what the options are. Obviously we could move the door to another location but because of many other issues, this would create a hornets nest of other problems. The options that I see are to eliminate the closer or add a door operator to the door.

Does anyone else know of other options?

thanks for your time

Chuck
 
First, welcome to the forum.

Second, what code(s) are you working with?

Can you mirror the door so the hinge side is adjacent to the existing column and then create the recessed pocket?

Is this existing egress door required per the building code?

Rather than moving this door, can you add an egress door in a wall section that is not 2 foot thick and provide directional signage at this existing door to the newly created accessible exit?
 
Add panic device and remove closer which eleviate the need for maneuvering clearances

The door if an exit door, swings out

Or make it an automatic door
 
Thanks everyone for your replies.

the door is an existing door in a cmu wall. there is column on the inside face of the cmu adjactent to the door. the column is part of a brace frame and was not taken into account by the shell architect so now it falls to me to solve someone elses . my personal preference is to relocate the door but for purely political (childish) reasons this is not viewed as a very viable option.

the more i research, the more it seems like adding an automatic operator seems like the best option. seems like overkill to put an operator on a emergency egress door but the tenant will not eliminate the closer for fear of looting.

I tried to upload a drawing but I don't seem to have permission to do that.
 
With an automatic door opener, what happens during a power failure? Does the door unlock - welcome looters?

Or does it remain locked, requiring a manual latch release? If there is a manual release and no recessed pocket, is the door still compliant?

Can you put an alarm on the closer-less door to notify someone it is open?
 
With an automatic door opener, what happens during a power failure? Does the door unlock - welcome looters?

Yes, just like a front door....

Can you put an alarm on the closer-less door to notify someone it is open?

Yes
 
Thanks Mark, I am not educated in the ways of automatic door openers / locks.

I know that individual alarms are available for doors, so I should have phrased the question like this: Will the tenant approve the door without a closer if the door is alarmed?
 
Mech said:
Thanks Mark, I am not educated in the ways of automatic door openers / locks.I know that individual alarms are available for doors, so I should have phrased the question like this: Will the tenant approve the door without a closer if the door is alarmed?
Click to expand...
I was solving the obstruction problem not the pilfering issue....
 
Mech said:
With an automatic door opener, what happens during a power failure? Does the door unlock - welcome looters?Or does it remain locked, requiring a manual latch release? If there is a manual release and no recessed pocket, is the door still compliant?

Can you put an alarm on the closer-less door to notify someone it is open?
Click to expand...
Because of the fear of looting, i think that the automatic door opener is the best option. Becauase this is an egress door, code requires that the opener have a battery backup. so the door would always be secure.

The door does have delayed egress-alarmed panic hardware. without a closer, if someone exited thru the door, it could potentially remain open allowing someone to reenter the store. someone could set off the fire alarm, exit thru the front door with the crown and then sneak back in thru this egress door. depending on the response time of the fire department the would-be-thief could have a lot of time inside. there are a lot of small high end expensive items that would be easy picking. hopefully that makes sense.
 
mark handler said:
By the way, another option is to relocate the door to flush out with column and infill wall gaps
Click to expand...
about the obstruction problem....

automatic doors with standby power are an exception to the manuevering clearance. I don't remember what the time requirements are for the standby power. gonna have to look that up. when the standby power runs out the door would remain locked (fail secure).

this egress door is part of the building shell and the responsibility of the building owner. the door has never complied because the shell architect didn't account for the brace framing, so it should fall to him to rectify. becuase of issues that we have nothing to do with , there is currently a lot of animosity between the tenant (our client) and the building owner (which already involve lawyers and construction hasn't even started). The cost of an automatic door is insignificant compared to the storm that comes with getting the building owner involved (even to get his permision to move the door to the interior face). off the record, these guys need to stop acting like babies but you didn't hear that from me.....
 
I believe most people here have at least one horrible shell vs. fitout story....It's just your turn now....Welcome to the forum! I don't want to overlook the obvious.....Is the door required? If not, get rid of it....
 
1007.1 Accessible means of egress required.

Accessible means of egress shall comply with this section. Accessible spaces shall be provided with not less than one accessible means of egress. Where more than one means of egress are required by Section 1015.1 or 1021.1 from any accessible space, each accessible portion of the space shall be served by not less than two accessible means of egress.

Exceptions:

1. Accessible means of egress are not required in alterations to existing buildings.

Mark is gonna hit me...Not all egress doors are required to be accessible....Under the building code....I am not going to speak to ADA...
 
http://idighardware.com/2012/09/recessed-doors/

Answers to your door, hardware, and code questions from Allegion.

ada-404-2-4-3.gif


see illustration "b" remove the closer....
 
steveray - this is not an existing building yet.

From post #14:

there is currently a lot of animosity between the tenant (our client) and the building owner (which already involve lawyers and construction hasn't even started).
Click to expand...
I do agree with the idea of eliminating the door if it is not required by code. But it seems by Dimtick's last post that getting the owner involved is one of the last resorts.
 
Mech....I think the shell might be built....just not this particular tenant....might have had a previous CO...might not...I was speaking of just "boarding it up", landlord might not have much issue with that....
 
yes, door is existing and required to be accessible.

this is a big box tenant as part of a large mall development. per the lease the owner is responsible for shell and tenant for the interior. this is only one part of a overall major face lift. project has been plagued by problems and construction delays and there's no hope of completing in time for next holiday season....and yes...there are penalty clauses. i think you can guess the next part. fortunately none of the disputes have anything to do with us. sorry. this is way to much information for a simple door clearance question.
 
Dimtick said:
yes, door is existing and required to be accessible.this is a big box tenant as part of a large mall development. per the lease the owner is responsible for shell and tenant for the interior. this is only one part of a overall major face lift. project has been plagued by problems and construction delays and there's no hope of completing in time for next holiday season....and yes...there are penalty clauses. i think you can guess the next part. fortunately none of the disputes have anything to do with us. sorry. this is way to much information for a simple door clearance question.
Click to expand...
It is also not that difficult to move the door...even if masonry wall.

christchurchseismicretrofit07.jpg
 
Sorry I didn't see this discussion sooner, but here's some info on the 2010 ADA requirement for the auto operator have standby power if it doesn't have the proper maneuvering clearance on the egress side: http://idighardware.com/2011/08/auto-operators-stand-by-power/

The ADA doesn't include the required time or number of operations for standby power, but I've seen 100 operations somewhere - maybe CA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top