• 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.

Means of egress question

Yankee Chronicler

Yankee Chronicler

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 17, 2023
Messages
3,310
Location
New England
This could go under accessibility codes or here. The project is an addition to an existing building and it's a means of egress issue, so I'm posting here. On the first round of plan reviews, we flagged that the entire warehouse portion of a large industrial building (roughly 600 feet long) had only one accessible means of egress -- through the office area at one end. Two means of egress are required, so two accessible means of egress are required.

They have responded by putting an enlarged landing at the exterior exit stair on the end opposite the offices and calling it an exterior area of rescue assistance. That's okay in theory -- except that the wheelchair parking space is neatly tucked behind the door. It's a 3-foot door and the landing is 5'-5" deep before deducting for the guard rail, so there's only about a 24-inch space between the door swing and the guard rail to sneak a wheelchair in there.

I don't think I can approve this. Does anyone agree? Disagree?

1748927097128.png
 
The minimum passage width for a wheelchair is 32 inches, for the reduced width exception. If the door only leaves 24 inches clear between the door and the guard rail, how do you gents see this as complying?
 
How do you get 24 inches? If drawn to scale, they clearly show 30 inches (i.e., 2'-6"), which is the required width for a wheelchair clear space.

The drawing shows a 32.25-inch (i.e., 2'-8-1/4") dimension to the outside face of the railing and the rough opening of the door. Add 2 inches for the door frame, but subtract 1.5 inches for the diameter of the railing, providing a total clear width of 32.75 inches -- 2.75 inches wider than needed. It's tight, but definitely not 24 inches.
 
Even if it were 24”, the door projection crap allows you to block up to half the required egress width so there it is good, plus I would argue the the wheelchair egress ends at the spot so there is no need to get them past the door anyway…or if they do, the firefighters will make sure the door is not in the way…
 
RLGA said:
How do you get 24 inches? If drawn to scale, they clearly show 30 inches (i.e., 2'-6"), which is the required width for a wheelchair clear space.

The drawing shows a 32.25-inch (i.e., 2'-8-1/4") dimension to the outside face of the railing and the rough opening of the door. Add 2 inches for the door frame, but subtract 1.5 inches for the diameter of the railing, providing a total clear width of 32.75 inches -- 2.75 inches wider than needed. It's tight, but definitely not 24 inches.
Click to expand...

Follow the line of the door when it's open 90 degrees. Where the text reads "Landing Support."

The landing depth is 5'-5" (65 inches) from the face of the wall to the outside edge of the platform. Allowing that the door frame is recessed maybe 1 inch, I subtract 35 from 65 and that leaves 30 inches.

Then I subtract however much the guardrail occupies -- call it 4 inches, so now the clearance between the latch stile of the door and the railing is reduced to 26 inches. (When I did it before I didn't allow for the door frame being recessed, and I also added in that the hinges will probably mean the 36" door won't start in the same plane as the face of the door frame.)

You are looking at the parking space behind the door, you're not looking at "How do I get there from here?"
 
Last edited:
steveray said:
Even if it were 24”, the door projection crap allows you to block up to half the required egress width so there it is good, plus I would argue the the wheelchair egress ends at the spot so there is no need to get them past the door anyway…or if they do, the firefighters will make sure the door is not in the way…
Click to expand...

The whole point of an exterior area of rescue assistance is to provide a safe place for a person in a wheelchair to park until the firefighters arrive.
 
The door does not stay in the open position, and there is no requirement that the wheelchair space be accessible when the door is open. There is sufficient maneuvering space at the door to allow the door to close, providing access to the designated clear space for waiting.

As we stated previously, it is not how we would design it, but there is nothing in the IBC that prohibits the configuration shown.
 
The entire point of an exterior area of rescue assistance is that there IS no way for the wheelchair occupant to get from the exit discharge door to the street or public way, so this provides a comparatively safe place for him/her to wait until the firefighters can show up and carry him/her down the stairs to grade.

What's the point of providing a compliant-size wheelchair parking space behind the door if the door is going to impede the wheelchair occupant from getting to the parking space?
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
The entire point of an exterior area of rescue assistance is that there IS no way for the wheelchair occupant to get from the exit discharge door to the street or public way, so this provides a comparatively safe place for him/her to wait until the firefighters can show up and carry him/her down the stairs to grade.

What's the point of providing a compliant-size wheelchair parking space behind the door if the door is going to impede the wheelchair occupant from getting to the parking space?
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying, but….either the people coming out the door will help the wheelchair user down the stairs if they are all egressing at the same time or, if not, the WC user will be able to go out the door, let it close, and get behind it and wait..
 
I would have the same reservations, but I see no citable code that would prohibit the design. The user waits behind the door, breathes open air, protected by the exterior wall and sprinklers from the hazard inside and is immediately visible to occupants egressing and rescue personnel....well semi-immediately visible. The door doesn't get prevented from opening, theoretically the chair would prohibit the user from getting smacked by the door.

Too bad the design provides a condition that could go wrong in a lot of ways, but seems to meet the min. code requirements.

What could go wrong:
Wheelchair user clogs the opening while maneuvering into the space behind the door
Wheelchair used doesn't pull over far enough and impedes the door from full opening
Building occupants don't feel the need to help the wheelchair user or just are running for their lives and don't see them
Rescue personnel and egressing occupants don't see the user because the immediately visible is semi-immediately visible.

The "immediately visible" part would be the issue for me if I pushed it, but that is not code, only commentary, and completely subjective.
 
Update:

The guy from ICC HQ called me back. He said he consulted with Kim Paarlberg, who is their long-time accessibility and means of egress guru. They agree that it's a very poor design, but they don't think it's a violation. We discussed the A117.1 provision regarding clear passage widths for wheelchairs. Since the width would be there when the door is closed, they don't think I should cite that.

I went over all that with the chief building official, and we decided it's not worth asking the architect to consider revising the design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top