exit width measurement

[cda]

http://www.ihatehardware.com/

agree//// disagree???

 

[LGreene]

Re: exit width measurement

Thanks for posting this here - I'd love to know what you all think. The sketch was (unofficially) blessed by someone from the ICC but if you're handling it a different way out in the field, I need to know.

Here's a link directly to the post in question: http://www.ihatehardware.com/?p=3130

 

[vegas paul]

Re: exit width measurement

How's this for an interpretation? The code addresses the width for a 90 degree opening, but doesn''t specifically require the door to open 90 degrees... So, how about using the effective width while travelling in a straight path as if the door were open 90 degrees?

Where W = the door opening width

? = the maximum opening angle

and Weff = the effective opening width...

Weff = W - cos?(W)

The result is something less than W, based on the limitation that the door swing presents to "straignt line" travel through the opening. Opinions?

 

[fw.]

Re: exit width measurement

If the door needs to be accessible, I think that instead of a cylinder, a rectangle should be used. Wheelchairs aren't round.

 

[LGreene]

Re: exit width measurement

If the door needs to be accessible, I think that instead of a cylinder, a rectangle should be used. Wheelchairs aren't round.

True. I originally sent sketches asking whether the measurement should be taken parallel to the frame or parallel to the door (see attached) but he kept coming back with the cylinder.Just to clarify...this was the DRAFT, not the final sketch that reflected what the ICC said was the correct way to measure. The link for that is: http://www.ihatehardware.com/?p=3130Clear Width Measurement.jpg[/attachment:354szil2]View attachment 53

View attachment 53

/monthly_2010_05/572953b501a98_ClearWidthMeasurement.jpg.a4713d4638367dced106b99de646ee3b.jpg

 

[Coug Dad]

Re: exit width measurement

for doors that open less than 90 degress the landing provisions of 1008.1.4 and 1008.1.5 (2006) address the issue.

 

[LGreene]

Re: exit width measurement

for doors that open less than 90 degress the landing provisions of 1008.1.4 and 1008.1.5 (2006) address the issue.

I don't see a direct answer in the landings sections but maybe I'm just missing it:

1008.1.4 Floor elevation. There shall be a floor or landing on each side of a door. Such floor or landing shall be at the same elevation on each side of the door. Landings shall be level except for exterior landings, which are permitted to have a slope not to exceed 0.25 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2-percent slope).

Exceptions:

1. Doors serving individual dwelling units in Groups R-2 and R-3 where the following apply:

1.1. A door is permitted to open at the top step of an interior flight of stairs, provided the door does not swing over the top step.

1.2. Screen doors and storm doors are permitted to swing over stairs or landings.

2. Exterior doors as provided for in Section 1003.5, Exception 1, and Section 1018.2, which are not on an accessible route.

3. In Group R-3 occupancies not required to be Accessible units, TypeAunits or Type B units, the landing at an exterior doorway shall not be more than 7.75 inches (197 mm) below the top of the threshold, provided the door, other than an exterior storm or screen door, does not swing over the landing.

4. Variations in elevation due to differences in finish materials, but not more than 0.5 inch (12.7 mm).

5. Exterior decks, patios or balconies that are part of Type B dwelling units, have impervious surfaces and that are not more than 4 inches (102 mm) below the finished floor level of the adjacent interior space of the dwelling unit.

1008.1.5 Landings at doors. Landings shall have a width not less than the width of the stairway or the door, whichever is greater. Doors in the fully open position shall not reduce a required dimension by more than 7 inches (178 mm). When a landing serves an occupant load of 50 or more, doors in any position shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half its required width. Landings shall have a length measured in the direction of travel of not less than 44 inches (1118 mm).

Exception: Landing length in the direction of travel in Groups R-3 and U and within individual units of Group R-2 need not exceed 36 inches (914 mm).

 

[brudgers]

Re: exit width measurement

The door doesn't provide the required clear floor area for accessiblity.

 

[TJacobs]

Re: exit width measurement

If the door needs to be accessible, I think that instead of a cylinder, a rectangle should be used. Wheelchairs aren't round.

Exactly. I agree with this and what brudgers said.

I use a 32" wide by 48" long rectangle, width of required door opening and length of clear floor space.

 

[LGreene]

Re: exit width measurement

If the door needs to be accessible, I think that instead of a cylinder, a rectangle should be used. Wheelchairs aren't round.

Exactly. I agree with this and what brudgers said.

I use a 32" wide by 48" long rectangle, width of required door opening and length of clear floor space.

Is there anything in the IBC or A117.1 that I can take back to the ICC to see if they want to change their answer? In A117.1-2003 it talks about clear floor space of 30" wide by 48" long in 305.3. If a 30" x 48" or 32" x 48" rectangle is the minimum rather than a 32" diameter cylinder, I'll ask again - if he'll take my call.

Thanks for your input everyone.

 

[brudgers]

Re: exit width measurement

Is there anything in the IBC or A117.1 that I can take back to the ICC to see if they want to change their answer? In A117.1-2003 it talks about clear floor space of 30" wide by 48" long in 305.3. If a 30" x 48" or 32" x 48" rectangle is the minimum rather than a 32" diameter cylinder, I'll ask again - if he'll take my call. Thanks for your input everyone.

Ask him how it complies with A117.1 figure 404.2.3.1

And of course ADAAG 1994 figure 25.

BTW, this is why I don't take IBC interpretations and the Code Commentaries as definitive.

 

[Plans Approver]

Re: exit width measurement

Wouldn't 1024.2 also be applicable. "The capacity of the exit discharge shall be not less than the required discharge capacity of the exits being served."

Can't determine what is on the other side of that door. An occupant load of less than 50 (exit discharge width = 36" wide) or greater than 50 (exit discharge width = 44" wide).

Also the diagram does not match the picture, it should probably look more like this.

Obviously, existing and not accessible.

 

[LGreene]

Re: exit width measurement

Wouldn't 1024.2 also be applicable. "The capacity of the exit discharge shall be not less than the required discharge capacity of the exits being served."Can't determine what is on the other side of that door. An occupant load of less than 50 (exit discharge width = 36" wide) or greater than 50 (exit discharge width = 44" wide).

Also the diagram does not match the picture, it should probably look more like this.

Obviously, existing and not accessible.

The photo in the blog post is not the same door that I had the question about. The 50 doors in the college classroom building are stair and corridor doors.

I will go back to the ICC today and try to get a clarification.

 

[Plans Approver]

Re: exit width measurement

The photo in the blog post is not the same door that I had the question about. The 50 doors in the college classroom building are stair and corridor doors.

Sorry 'bout that. I reverted to college days when I looked at the pictures instead of reading the articles like my classmates.

IBC 1008.1.1, ANSI 117.1, and ADAAG 4.13.5 all state "Clear openings of doorways with swinging doors shall be measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees"

The diagram in the blog article is based on a 34 1/2" door (32" opening, 1 3/4" door thickness, 2 stops @1/4" ea., 2 margins @ 1/8"ea.) which doesn't usually doesn't exist and probably hasn't been tested. So I put together the following illustrations for a 34 1/2" door which fails to maintain 32" clear at 80 degree opening and a 36" door which fails to maintain 32" clear at approximately 69 degrees.

I guess their rationale is that if the door was open 90 degrees it complies with 1008.1.1 etc., and, the accessible clear space of 32" measured perpendicular to the door is maintained.

Good luck w/ ICC.

 

[LGreene]

Re: exit width measurement

I swear, I love you guys. The rest of the world thinks I'm crazy for thinking about this stuff, and you're taking time out of your busy day to do detailed drawings of various layouts!

ICC is sticking with the cylinder method, but I am going to modify my blog post and add the rectangle as another possibility for "testing" the accessibility of the door.

As always, I appreciate all of your insight. Have a great weekend.

- Lori

 

[brudgers]

Re: exit width measurement

So I put together the following illustrations for a 34 1/2" door which fails to maintain 32" clear at 80 degree opening and a 36" door which fails to maintain 32" clear at approximately 69 degrees.I guess their rationale is that if the door was open 90 degrees it complies with 1008.1.1 etc., and, the accessible clear space of 32" measured perpendicular to the door is maintained.

I still can't see how the door complies with the clear floor area requirements which show the door at 90 degrees.

While I wouldn't worry about it from the Building code standpoint, ADAAG would definitely be an issue.

 

[texasbo]

Re: exit width measurement

I swear, I love you guys. The rest of the world thinks I'm crazy for thinking about this stuff, and you're taking time out of your busy day to do detailed drawings of various layouts!ICC is sticking with the cylinder method, but I am going to modify my blog post and add the rectangle as another possibility for "testing" the accessibility of the door.

As always, I appreciate all of your insight. Have a great weekend.

- Lori

Based on my knowledge of the group that populates this forum, and my experiences with ICC, I would rely on the members of this board every time.

 

[AegisFPE]

Re: exit width measurement

Part of the measurement for the clear width of the doorway could depend on the landing.

It would seem that the ICC staff opinion and most posters here are generously assuming the "direction of travel" for a landing per 1008.1.5 to be parallel to the door in the fully open position (but unclear if the length of the landing would be measured from the hinge or the latch, or the most restrictive depending on which side of the door you are on). Also, this approach risks the potential of furnishings or hardscape being placed so as to obstruct the landing area in the future (especially on the latch side to the space the doors swings into, and on the hinge side from the space thee door swings out of). It may also be necessary to consider maneuvering clearance for a wheelchair to access the latch on both sides where the landing is not perpendicular to the wall. This approach also is limited to single doors, as pairs of doors could be more problematic unless the unobstructed leaf opens to an angle at least parallel to the obstructed door.

A more strict interpretation could consider the dimensions of the landing to be based on a direction of travel being perpendicular to the wall opening. In this case, the width of the opening would be reduced further, based on the projected opening of the door measured from the latch-end perpendicular to the opening in the wall. Now furnishings placed adjacent to the door frame would not obstruct the landing area on either side of the door, and conditions involving pairs of doors are more readily accommodated.

However, an ultra-strict interpretation could find that such obstructed doors would not be permitted in new construction, as 1008.1.1 prescribes a 90º door opening and 1008.1.1.1 prohibits projections into the clear width below 34 inches above the floor; such an obstructed door would either not open 90º or could be considered a projection into the clear width.

 

[TJacobs]

Re: exit width measurement

The photo in the blog post is not the same door that I had the question about. The 50 doors in the college classroom building are stair and corridor doors.

Sorry 'bout that. I reverted to college days when I looked at the pictures instead of reading the articles like my classmates.

IBC 1008.1.1, ANSI 117.1, and ADAAG 4.13.5 all state "Clear openings of doorways with swinging doors shall be measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees"

The diagram in the blog article is based on a 34 1/2" door (32" opening, 1 3/4" door thickness, 2 stops @1/4" ea., 2 margins @ 1/8"ea.) which doesn't usually doesn't exist and probably hasn't been tested. So I put together the following illustrations for a 34 1/2" door which fails to maintain 32" clear at 80 degree opening and a 36" door which fails to maintain 32" clear at approximately 69 degrees.

I guess their rationale is that if the door was open 90 degrees it complies with 1008.1.1 etc., and, the accessible clear space of 32" measured perpendicular to the door is maintained.

Good luck w/ ICC.

Absolutely terrific diagram :!:

I have several cardboard cut-outs of clear floor space areas like this to check things like this.

It is no different than making cardboard cut-outs of things like fire apparatus to check turning radii, string to check travel distance, etc.

Jeff, can we award an attaboy to Plans Approver?

 

[JBI]

Re: exit width measurement

From Plans Approver... "IBC 1008.1.1, ANSI 117.1, and ADAAG 4.13.5 all state "Clear openings of doorways with swinging doors shall be measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees""

Personally, I take that to mean the door must open to at least 90 deg in order to comply with 1008.1.1 and the standard(s). Anything less and it cannot be used as an 'exit'. 'Shall' means 'required', 'must', 'mandatory'.

P.S. and FWIW, I agree with Jake. This boards membership is far more reliable than ICC for answers.

 

[Plans Approver]

Re: exit width measurement

From Plans Approver... "IBC 1008.1.1, ANSI 117.1, and ADAAG 4.13.5 all state "Clear openings of doorways with swinging doors shall be measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees""Personally, I take that to mean the door must open to at least 90 deg in order to comply with 1008.1.1 and the standard(s). Anything less and it cannot be used as an 'exit'. 'Shall' means 'required', 'must', 'mandatory'.

I agree with you as well. I only made the drawings to try to understand why ICC would accept less than 90 degrees. Also at what point ICC's interpretation fails. It's not a good or accurate interpretation by ICC. I have had many of those.

 

[TJacobs]

Re: exit width measurement

P.S. and FWIW, I agree with Jake. This boards membership is far more reliable than ICC for answers.

Actually it was texasbo that said..."Based on my knowledge of the group that populates this forum, and my experiences with ICC, I would rely on the members of this board every time."

 

[brudgers]

Re: exit width measurement

From Plans Approver... "IBC 1008.1.1, ANSI 117.1, and ADAAG 4.13.5 all state "Clear openings of doorways with swinging doors shall be measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees""Personally, I take that to mean the door must open to at least 90 deg in order to comply with 1008.1.1 and the standard(s). Anything less and it cannot be used as an 'exit'. 'Shall' means 'required', 'must', 'mandatory'.

P.S. and FWIW, I agree with Jake. This boards membership is far more reliable than ICC for answers.

I disagree with your interpretation of 10081.1.

In my opinion, the purpose of the 90 degree clause is to disallow measurement with the door open more than 90 degrees not less.

This prevents someone from measuring with the door at 180 (and not surprisingly once the door is past 90 degrees it's no longer meaningful to measure between the face and the stop).

If you can meet the requirement at 85 degrees then the door meets the intent of Chapter 10...providing sufficient clear width for egress with normal operation (though I'm not suggesting that it meets accessibility requirements).

In short, I believe the code intent is to make sure that the leaf is accounted for in the measurement of egress width.

Once it provides sufficient egress width, it complies with that aspect of Chapter 10.

It's the diagrams for clear floor area that it cannot comply with.

 

[jar546]

Re: exit width measurement

The violation here is with manuevering clearance and not with the door itself since that part of the code is not well written.

404.2.3.1 of the ANSI would be what I would write on the violation since I can't really say much about the door.