# IRC Required Exit Door Question



## Jobsaver (Dec 12, 2013)

It is my understanding that if a builder chooses to use a twin swinging door unit confiquration designated as the required exit door for a residence, that the primary door within the twin unit must have a minimum width of 36".

In other words, if a typical twin door unit is the required exit door for a home, the unit must be a minimum 6-0 width.

True or false? Exceptions?


----------



## mjesse (Dec 12, 2013)

I would tend to agree with you. The primary leaf should provide the required clearance (32") when opened.

I have seen and installed unequal width doors in a double (twin) configuration. E.g., a 36" and 12" panel

mj

2009 IRC - *R311.2 Egress door. At least one egress door shall be provided for each **dwelling unit. The egress door shall be side-hinged, and shall provide a minimum clear width of 32 inches (813 mm) when measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees (1.57 rad). The minimum clear height of the door opening shall not be less than 78 inches (1981 mm) in height measured from the top of the threshold to the bottom of the stop. Other doors shall not be required to comply with these minimum dimensions. Egress doors shall be readily openable from inside the **dwelling without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. *


----------



## zigmark (Dec 12, 2013)

True

Exceptions- None

ZIG


----------



## fatboy (Dec 12, 2013)

I might allow the unequal pair, as long as the door that did NOT meet the 32" clearance, did not have hardware on the interior, so that in a panic situation, one does do try and use the non-compliant side.

But that is my thinking, code does lead you to believe that both leaves would have to comply.


----------



## Glenn (Dec 12, 2013)

fatboy said:
			
		

> I might allow the unequal pair, as long as the door that did NOT meet the 32" clearance, did not have hardware on the interior, so that in a panic situation, one does do try and use the non-compliant side.But that is my thinking, code does lead you to believe that both leaves would have to comply.


I understand your point, but the whole "one egress door" thing is ridiculous.  I could have that "one" door as a door from my master bedroom closet on the second floor, accessing a deck with stairs to grade.  I could then have every other exterior door in the house as a 1-0/3-0 door.  Heck...they could all be dog doors.  Heck...I could have NO other doors.  The "one egress door" could also be from my unfinished basement in the back corner behind the furnace, leading to an area well with stairs to grade.

My point...in an emergency, people will run to whatever door they can.  The idea of this one single safer door that everyone is going to head to is just not reality.  Enforce the minimum required clear opening width and height and the style of door swing.  We are not provided authority from the IRC to expect anymore.

My opinion...the IRC provisions for egress doors do not provide save egress from a home.  The market is what provides it.  No one wants a house with only a single door from the master bedroom closet, but I can build it if I wanted to.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 12, 2013)

There is no requirement to "designate" an exit door in a residence. You could have any door that does not access through a garage meet the exit door requirements.

So yes you could have the twin doors at the main entrance with leafs smaller than 36 inches as long as there is an additional door that is a minimum 36 inch door located as described in R311.1 and R311.2


----------



## High Desert (Dec 12, 2013)

what mtlogcabin said.


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 13, 2013)

Glenn said:
			
		

> I understand your point, but the whole "one egress door" thing is ridiculous.  I could have that "one" door as a door from my master bedroom closet on the second floor, accessing a deck with stairs to grade.  I could then have every other exterior door in the house as a 1-0/3-0 door.  Heck...they could all be dog doors.  Heck...I could have NO other doors.  The "one egress door" could also be from my unfinished basement in the back corner behind the furnace, leading to an area well with stairs to grade.My point...in an emergency, people will run to whatever door they can.  The idea of this one single safer door that everyone is going to head to is just not reality.  Enforce the minimum required clear opening width and height and the style of door swing.  We are not provided authority from the IRC to expect anymore.
> 
> My opinion...the IRC provisions for egress doors do not provide save egress from a home.  The market is what provides it.  No one wants a house with only a single door from the master bedroom closet, but I can build it if I wanted to.


I do not know if this is true, but I do believe in the logic of an explanation that was offered to me. It was explained to me that the purpose of the egress door was to enable a wheelchair bound person to exit the interior of the structure to avoid smoke inhalation in case of fire. The logic still somewhat follows in the case of your choosing to place the required egress door in the master bedroom closet;

A wheelchair bound individual would enter the structure through the closet . . . and . . . being unable to enter other rooms because of the narrow door openings ... would remain in the closet until departure.


----------



## cda (Dec 13, 2013)

I love to hear "codes of the old west tales"

Especially when they start " once upon a time three inspectors walk into a bar"


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Dec 13, 2013)

As a reminder the commercial (IBC) provisions of clear opening for two door leaves without a mullion and obstructions such as hardware and screen or storm doors are not addressed in the IRC.

Depending on the edition of the code enforced one requires a 36 inch wide door the other  32 inches of opening measured between the door face and stop.  For the latter code edition is the opening between double doors in a single opening any less compliant than a single door provided with obstructions that are not prohibited in the IRC?


----------



## Yankee (Dec 13, 2013)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> I do not know if this is true, but I do believe in the logic of an explanation that was offered to me. It was explained to me that the purpose of the egress door was to enable a wheelchair bound person to exit the interior of the structure to avoid smoke inhalation in case of fire. The logic still somewhat follows in the case of your choosing to place the required egress door in the master bedroom closet;A wheelchair bound individual would enter the structure through the closet . . . and . . . being unable to enter other rooms because of the narrow door openings ... would remain in the closet until departure.


Not sure where the wheelchair info came from. So, what does that wheelchair bound person do with the step down at that egress door?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 17, 2013)

cda,

Once upon a time,

A building inspector walks by a bar...it could happen

pc1


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 20, 2013)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> As a reminder the commercial (IBC) provisions of clear opening for two door leaves without a mullion and obstructions such as hardware and screen or storm doors are not addressed in the IRC.Depending on the edition of the code enforced one requires a 36 inch wide door the other  32 inches of opening measured between the door face and stop.  For the latter code edition is the opening between double doors in a single opening any less compliant than a single door provided with obstructions that are not prohibited in the IRC?


I have been taught, perhaps incorrectly, that the difference is that the stationary leave of the twin door typically has a headbolt and footbolt requiring special knowledge to operate. Also, a short person may not be able to reach the headbolt on an 8' high door.


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 20, 2013)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Not sure where the wheelchair info came from. So, what does that wheelchair bound person do with the step down at that egress door?


I do not know, but it seems a single riser dropping to a landing or grade would in many cases be significantly easier to negotiate than a flight of stairs.


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 20, 2013)

cda said:
			
		

> I love to hear "codes of the old west tales"Especially when they start " once upon a time three inspectors walk into a bar"


I would welcome your insight as to the origin and original intent of the required exit door code provision. I was simply explaining something I had been taught that seened plausible to me.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Dec 23, 2013)

Back to the OP is there another door that can be "designated" as the required egress door then this double door can be considered as an entrance?

I like ICE explanation here about the requirement of egress doors: http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9980

Edit; not to condone noncompliance; what's to prevent the installation of storm doors having smaller openings in accordance with the IRC?


----------



## peach (Jan 11, 2014)

Only one leaf needs to be meet the 3-0 requirement; the other leaf can be fixed.  The 36" came into the code from the furniture moving industry.. nothing to do with accessibility.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 11, 2014)

The voice of reason, nice to hear from you peach...........


----------



## C Bar (Oct 29, 2018)

Can someone plz show me where the IRC code reads 36 inches. Because I don't see it. But I am reading R 311.2 Egress door: At least one egress door shall be side-hinged, and shall provide a minimum clear width of 32 inches when measured between the face of door and the stop, with door open 90 degrees. The minimum 78 inches in height measured from the top of the threshold to the bottom of the stop. Other doors shall not be required to comply with these minimum dimensions. Egress doors shall be readily openable from inside the dwelling with out the use of a key or special knowledge or effort.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 29, 2018)

The code does not specify a minimum 36" door as you noted but a 34" door would not be "standard" and would require additional notes to make it code compliant
Example
A 36" door mounted on a standard side hinge will protrude into the opening width 2.25" (1.75" door thickness" plus .5" hinge protrusion plus the .25 minimum standard door stop means you will have 33.5 clear width measured at 90 degree opening. To get a 34" door to comply will take special offset hinges to maintain the 32" minimum clear opening.


----------



## C Bar (Oct 29, 2018)

Thank you for clarifying


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 13, 2018)

Yankee said:


> Not sure where the wheelchair info came from. So, what does that wheelchair bound person do with the step down at that egress door?


Just as they have done in the past, fall over, call for help, etc. ADA does to address SFRs, a "person's home is their castle.


----------



## HForester (Nov 13, 2018)

How are you going to move the range, W/D and refrigerator and that BIG recliner, in and out of the building w/o that one large opening?  Just because the code is supposedly all about safety doesn't mean that decisions are not made in the "light of practicality....."


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 14, 2018)

There you go, "Best Practices" vs code minimums.


----------



## Sifu (Nov 15, 2018)

Pcinspector1 said:


> cda,
> 
> Once upon a time,
> 
> ...


This is just not practical..........I HAVE NEVER WALKED BY A BAR!


----------



## cda (Nov 15, 2018)

Sifu said:


> This is just not practical..........I HAVE NEVER WALKED BY A BAR!



Crawled??


----------

