• 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.

Door swing issue..............

J

JPohling

SAWHORSE
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
1,699
Location
San Diego
Project is a drug and alcohol rehab facility in California. The sleeping module layout was completed with the doors to the sleeping rooms swinging in. Client would now like the doors to swing out for access to barricaded or non-responsive patients. Typically code would require that we maintain 22" clear beyond the edge of the door in the 90 degree open position to the opposite corridor wall. The issue I see is that the doors align across the corridors so if both doors are open 90 degrees then there is no clear path. Hinges could be 180 degree hinges. I have not seem this particular arrangement illustrated in the code. Would this be a problem in your jurisdiction?

Recessing the doors into an alcove is not really a possibility. I am wondering if the doors were swung opposite of each other across the corridor so the doors in the open position are 36" apart and the 22" clear is available for a 36" width would be acceptable? These walls are 1 Hour rated. door swing at corridor.png
 
Joe, highly unlikely that would be acceptable to our client. Maintaining fire rated pocket door assemblies is complicated and expensive. Providing an STC rating of 50 STC. would be difficult as well.
 
How much clearance do you get in the green dimension below?

1721240071400.png

https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-building-code-2022/chapter/10/means-of-egress#1005.7.1

1005.7.1 Doors​


Doors, when fully opened, shall not reduce the required width by more than 7 inches (178 mm). Doors in any position shall not reduce the required width by more than one-half.
Exceptions:
  1. In other than Group I-2 occupancies, surface-mounted latch release hardware shall be exempt from inclusion in the 7-inch maximum (178 mm) encroachment where both of the following conditions exist:
    1. The hardware is mounted to the side of the door facing away from the adjacent wall where the door is in the open position.
    2. The hardware is mounted not less than 34 inches (865 mm) nor more than 48 inches (1219 mm) above the finished floor.
  2. The restrictions on door swing shall not apply to doors within individual dwelling units and sleeping units of Group R-2 occupancies and dwelling units of Group R-3 occupancies.
 
Pretty sure the doors opening across from each other are not considered. The encroachment issue is to the opposite corridor wall.

From the IBC commentary to 1005.7.1 (2018)

Historically, this section has looked at doors on one
wall at a time. Doors located across the hall from one
another are not considered additive when considering
protrusion limits. Doors would not typically be opened
to the full extent at exactly the same moment, nor can
they remain open at 90 degrees and totally block the
hall because of the maximum 7-inch (178 mm)
encroachment limitation when fully open (typically
approaching 180 degrees)
 
11B-404.2.6 Doors in series and gates in series. The distance between two hinged or pivoted doors in series and gates in series shall be 48 inches (1219 mm) minimum plus the width of doors or gates swinging into the space.
 
I don't think these wouldn't be doors in series though. I understand doors in series to be in use by the same person with the requirements meant to allow maneuvering clearance and space to operate one door after traversing the first door.
 
JPohling said:
Project is a drug and alcohol rehab facility in California. The sleeping module layout was completed with the doors to the sleeping rooms swinging in. Client would now like the doors to swing out for access to barricaded or non-responsive patients. Typically code would require that we maintain 22" clear beyond the edge of the door in the 90 degree open position to the opposite corridor wall. The issue I see is that the doors align across the corridors so if both doors are open 90 degrees then there is no clear path. Hinges could be 180 degree hinges. I have not seem this particular arrangement illustrated in the code. Would this be a problem in your jurisdiction?

Recessing the doors into an alcove is not really a possibility. I am wondering if the doors were swung opposite of each other across the corridor so the doors in the open position are 36" apart and the 22" clear is available for a 36" width would be acceptable? These walls are 1 Hour rated. View attachment 13853
Click to expand...

Yes it would absolutely be a problem where I work. First off, the requirement (unless California changed it) isn't 22" clear, it's half the required width of the passageway or corridor. If the corridor is required for any reason to be more than 44" wide, then the magic number isn't 22". And 180-degree hinges aren't the answer:

1005.7.1 Doors. Doors, when fully opened, shall not
reduce the required width by more than 7 inches (178
mm). Doors in any position shall not reduce the required
width by more than one-half.
Click to expand...

Yes, the commentary talks about doors not being open at the same time. That's fine if one door is an office door and opposing door is a closet. Where both doors serve spaces with identical function and it can be anticipated that both doors WILL be open in the event of an emergency, I would regard that as a violation.
 
The doors are not used in series.
Typically we have only ever looked at a single door at a time as several have mentioned, but I would prefer something better.
Our exit width needs are satisfied by the 44" and 22" would be the magic number.
I looked at the plan and feel that this option would accomplish what we are trying to do. there are exits in both directions.
1721246670762.png
 
JPohling said:
The doors are not used in series.
Typically we have only ever looked at a single door at a time as several have mentioned, but I would prefer something better.
Our exit width needs are satisfied by the 44" and 22" would be the magic number.
I looked at the plan and feel that this option would accomplish what we are trying to do. there are exits in both directions.
View attachment 13859
Click to expand...
I agree that this option complies with 1005.7.1.
 
I asked the ICC once about the requirement of a turning space in a corridor that has a door on each end. Too me this would be two doors in series and the corridor was not wide enough for a turning space. They told me that the rule was only for vestibules, not corridors even though it does not say it in the code. But then they said a turnaround space could be required if there are no other doors in the corridor besides the ones on the ends of the corridor. So, then I asked, then they don't need the turning space in a vestibule if there is a third door in a vestibule. They said a turnaround space would still be required in a vestibule like this. They also said a vestibule can be for an exterior door or can be where you need to go through two rest room doors. But all the definitions that I can find (none in the i codes) only defined a vestibule only for an entrance door. The code should be more understandable for this.
 
Penguin87 said:
Pocket doors aren't allowed by code in this situation are they?
Anyways, doors must be recessed enough so the swings do not block the hallway.
Click to expand...
I don't know your situation well enough to know, and it's not an issue for me to research decide on anyways. Just a thought I was throwing out there for you.
 
sliding barn or pocket doors would be allowed as the occupant load of the sleeping rooms are less than 10.
Fire rating, security, sound control and accessibility are difficult and expensive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top