• 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.

cased opening in corridor

W

wmott

SAWHORSE
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
22
Location
Massachusetts
2015 IBC,
I have a 5'-0" wide corridor (44" min required) with a door in it which I would like to remove and leave the opening as a cased opening.
But I can not find a clear path to qualify this.
Is a cased opening considered a "doorway" and meets the requirements of 1010.1.1 Size of Doors?
This section requires a min clr opening of 32".
The cased opening is 36.

I'm in Massachusetts and the MAAB allows an accessible route to be reduced to 32" for a max of 24" run.

Thanks
 
A cased opening would be acceptable in regard to an accessible route. However, you may want to check to make sure the door is not required for any other purpose, such as a fire door in a fire barrier, fire wall, or fire partition.
 
Thanks for the Welcome. I found this through the ICC web sites some time ago. Find it to be very helpful, and full of interesting reads.
 
wmott said:
Thanks for the Welcome. I found this through the ICC web sites some time ago. Find it to be very helpful, and full of interesting reads.
Click to expand...

This has been a self supporting site

To help it keep going you can become a Sawhorse

Besides the mountain of knowledge here,,,, it makes it easier to upload pictures and similar files
 
wmott,

Check the door casing and the door edges to see if there's a fire rating tag to see if there's a fire rating, sometimes painted over!
 
The door is not required for any fire rated assemblies. This has been determined.
What I am having trouble with is qualifying the opening as it restricts the width of the path of egress and am looking for a clear argument as to how it is allowed if/when questioned.
For that matter, I am not finding verbiage which allows the egress width to be reduced by a 36" door (min 32" clr opening" )

Am I missing something?

1005, means of egress sizing.
at 0.2"/occ, the 36" wide opening could accommodate 360 occ. Far less than my condition.

1005.4 continuity, The min width or required capacity .... shall not be reduced along the path of egress travel until arrival at the public way.

1005.7.1, doors when fully open can protrude 7", while opening, 50% of required width.
Other projections mentioned, but nothing that would cover a cased opening or a 36" door opening.

1018 Aisle has some widths, but for my condition, width is referred to the width required by 2020 corridors.

1020, requires a clr width of 44".
1020.3 Obstructions, states min width or required capacity of corridors shall be unobstructed, Exception, Encroachments complying with Section 1005.7. This only allows the 7" door encroachment of 7" fully open, and 50% while opening.

Nothing seems to allow a 36" cased opening, or even allowing a 36" door opening to, from, or in the corridor.

Here in MA, we have the MAAB for accessibility. This code allows a restriction in the accessible route of 32" min clr for a max depth of 24" (a door or cased opening falls in this) But the accessibility code is not the egress code.

Any direction is appreciated.
I think there are now other posts, so as soon as I send this, I will refresh my screen and see.

This may be nitpicky, but I have been hit with nitpicky comments in the past and like to have clear interpretation paths when ever possible.
 
Tried hitting the link at the top of the page to find out about "Sawhorse" but got a message "hmmmm.... can't reach that page"

Will try again later.

Thanks
 
wmott said:
The door is not required for any fire rated assemblies. This has been determined.
What I am having trouble with is qualifying the opening as it restricts the width of the path of egress and am looking for a clear argument as to how it is allowed if/when questioned.
For that matter, I am not finding verbiage which allows the egress width to be reduced by a 36" door (min 32" clr opening" )

Am I missing something?

1005, means of egress sizing.
at 0.2"/occ, the 36" wide opening could accommodate 360 occ. Far less than my condition.

1005.4 continuity, The min width or required capacity .... shall not be reduced along the path of egress travel until arrival at the public way.

1005.7.1, doors when fully open can protrude 7", while opening, 50% of required width.
Other projections mentioned, but nothing that would cover a cased opening or a 36" door opening.

1018 Aisle has some widths, but for my condition, width is referred to the width required by 2020 corridors.

1020, requires a clr width of 44".
1020.3 Obstructions, states min width or required capacity of corridors shall be unobstructed, Exception, Encroachments complying with Section 1005.7. This only allows the 7" door encroachment of 7" fully open, and 50% while opening.

Nothing seems to allow a 36" cased opening, or even allowing a 36" door opening to, from, or in the corridor.

Here in MA, we have the MAAB for accessibility. This code allows a restriction in the accessible route of 32" min clr for a max depth of 24" (a door or cased opening falls in this) But the accessibility code is not the egress code.

Any direction is appreciated.
I think there are now other posts, so as soon as I send this, I will refresh my screen and see.

This may be nitpicky, but I have been hit with nitpicky comments in the past and like to have clear interpretation paths when ever possible.
Click to expand...

Historic note: Mass in 68', not NC had the first code for access in the US!
 
wmott said:
Tried hitting the link at the top of the page to find out about "Sawhorse" but got a message "hmmmm.... can't reach that page"

Will try again later.

Thanks
Click to expand...


I sent a note to the moderator

Give it a day or two and will reply
 
Try tapping on your icon at very top of page

Than there should be a tab for account upgrade
 
The link was at the top of the page. Here is what it says. (I'll try these other links as well.

"Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by clicking here: Upgrades"
 
@ ~ @

wmott,

Here is what I came up with.
1st, ...start with the `15 IEBC since it is an existing bldg.
I would first refer to Section 704 - Means of Egress: "Alterations shall be
done in a manner that maintains the level of protection provided for the
means of egress".

Since you have an existing 5' - 0" wide Corridor, Section 1005.4 says that
you cannot reduce the MOE along the path of egress travel until arrival at
the Public Way ( 44" min. required ).

IMO, ...I believe that you can remove the door & frame, but you would have
to provide a minimum Corridor [ clear ] width of 44" until arrival at the Public
Way...….Going from 5' - 0" down to 44" would leave an 8" difference on
each side of the new cased opening......The 44" min. width is all that is
required.

What is the dimension of the existing Corridor on the other side of the
existing door ?

Also, ...THANK YOU for becoming a "much valued" Sawhorse \ contributor
to this Forum !

@ ~ @
 
As long as it met the width allowance for a doorway, I would be fine with it. I fail to see how this is less safe just by taking the existing door off.
 
The corridor is 5'-0" on both sides of the door.
Agreed that 44" min is the width required to be maintained.
Also agreed that removing the door would not make it less safe.

My condondrum (spelling) is that I thought it would be a simple qualification, but when looking, did not find a clear path to qualify. Then I realized that I could read it all to mean that a door would also need to be the min 44" wide to maintain the min width as I did not see anything that allowed the width to be reduced to a min 32" clr door opening.

Bldg Department accepted the argument that it is not less safe, but this started a bone gnarring exercise for me.

I had joined this site some years ago. Have posted a few questions as I get perplexed. But in the past, I did not find many responses. This seems to have changed. There is a lot on this one. With that said, Very glad to join the Sawhorse club..

Thanks Again.
 
Not sure if this has any help but here goes:

Are there any exits on the exit path prior to the 44-inch case opening that would account for a portion to exit to those exits? If that makes any sense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top