# Upper Landing, ramp landings



## tbz (Mar 30, 2011)

for the record the yours and mine, is the architect and contractor, not me.

Anyway, here in lies the project, besides there not being enough room for the handrail extensions at the top and bottom of the ramp my concern is the outward swinging door blocking the direction of the ramp.  This is an exit only so no one should be walking up, but in an emergency does this not become a problem?

door swings are not my bag, but this just seems wrong, can someone flip me a code section to look at for this.

Thanks


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 30, 2011)

2009 IBC

1005.2 Door encroachment.

Doors, when fully opened, and handrails shall not reduce the required means of egress width by more than 7 inches (178 mm). Doors in any position shall not reduce the required width by more than one-half. Other nonstructural projections such as trim and similar decorative features shall be permitted to project into the required width a maximum of 11/2 inches (38 mm) on each side.

1010.6.5 Doorways.

Where doorways are located adjacent to a ramp landing, maneuvering clearances required by ICC A117.1 are permitted to overlap the required landing area.


----------



## tbz (Mar 30, 2011)

Thanks MT,

So that 7" reduction is on the 36" or is it on the 60" since it is a landing?

Tom


----------



## steveray (Mar 30, 2011)

MT beat me to it....it should be the 36" IMO...that is the required egress width....the landing size is a different requirement...another thing I have run into is the ramp(egress) construction has to be compatible with that of the building type... non combustible for non combustible...   don't know what the case is there, but another thing to look out for...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 30, 2011)

It would apply to the ramp and the stairs as they are both part of the means of egress until they reach ground level.


----------



## steveray (Mar 30, 2011)

Looks like the 7" and the half the required width will both be problems....


----------



## brudgers (Mar 30, 2011)

steveray said:
			
		

> MT beat me to it....it should be the 36" IMO...that is the required egress width....


Without knowing the occupant load, one cannot determine the required egress width. Double doors correlate with a required egress width greater than 36"


----------



## steveray (Mar 30, 2011)

Yes Brudgers.....I am assuming the 36" from info above, they could be 24"(clear) door leafs...


----------



## syarn (Mar 30, 2011)

tbz

don't forget....

NJ has the rehabilitation subcode which may offer some State level relief....assuming ur project is in NJ...

http://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/codes/codreg/pdf_regs/njac_5_23_6.pdf


----------



## tbz (Mar 30, 2011)

Thanks Everyone,

I am not sure on the required width just yet, just received the drawing from the contractor asking for my comments because he felt some of the other item designs were a bit out of place.

syarn, not NJ this is NYS and I am still trying to figure out why they are doing what they are doing.

Retail outlet store currently when you walk in you are at curb level, then halfway across the store there is a ramp going up 10 inches to the upper level.  Store wants to raise the entire interior floor up to the same height as the upper level and add the exterior ramp at the exit.

I am kinda treating this like the military don't ask don't tell.

I had already told the contractor to ask the architect for the occupancy loads and egress width requirements to compare for the exit ramp width before posting.

But the door swing really jumped out at me besides the handrail extensions.

Thanks


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 30, 2011)

With that much renovation I suggest recessing the doors


----------



## brudgers (Mar 30, 2011)

steveray said:
			
		

> Yes Brudgers.....I am assuming the 36" from info above, they could be 24"(clear) door leafs...


Not as an egress component in anything other than a dwelling.


----------



## jeharrarch (Mar 30, 2011)

If they're showing a curb ramp from the parking lot to the lower landing (assuming about 4" up, by the looks of the sketch) and then a ramp to the upper landing, the second ramp would have only 6" rise and not require handrails - and the handrail extension would be moot... (although, I guess you could say that it's all part of a single ramp). It looks like they have plenty of room to make the second ramp a sloped walking surface and avoid the "ramp" designation all-together. All in all, either solution is kind of awkward.

Brudgers has it right, though - you can't adequately assess the door swing intrusion into the "required" width without knowing the occupant load. And MT also is right, why not spend a bit more to protect the doors from weather and make the condition less awkward...


----------



## steveray (Mar 31, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Not as an egress component in anything other than a dwelling.


From the OP....we do not know that it is not a dwelling....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 31, 2011)

steveray said:
			
		

> From the OP....we do not know that it is not a dwelling....


It is a retail store see post #10


----------

