# Two doors in a series



## Rick18071 (Sep 7, 2021)

ICC/ANSI A117.1 Two doors in a Series. Distance between two hinged or pivoted doors in series shall be 48" Min. plus width of any door swinging into the space. The space between the doors shall provide a turning space complying with Section 304.

Usually i need to check vestibules for this. But does this rule also need to be for a bathroom door to a shower or toilet compartment door that are close together? 
Does a door from the top of an  exterior accessible lift to an entrance door need to meet this? Plans that I am reviewing show these two doors hitting each other when both are open.
How about doors across from each other in a 3' wide hall?


----------



## steveray (Sep 7, 2021)

No door in a 36" hall will be accessible....


----------



## Rick18071 (Sep 8, 2021)

OK make it a 4' hallway


----------



## mark handler (Sep 8, 2021)

The answer is no
besides the fact, Doors in a narrow hallway, cannot block the hallway
*1005.7.1 Doors*
Doors, when fully opened, shall not reduce the required width by more than 7 inches. Doors in any position shall not reduce the required width by more than one-half.


----------



## steveray (Sep 8, 2021)

Across from each other, no....Doors are not allowed to block egress, but are allowed to block some accessibility based on it not being "necessary" to go from one to the other if there are other options....Sort of....


----------



## Rick18071 (Sep 8, 2021)

steveray said:


> No door in a 36" hall will be accessible....


These doors do not go into the hallway, go into rooms.


----------



## Rick18071 (Sep 8, 2021)

We are getting off the subject. I am asking about ICC/ANSI A117.1 section 404.2.5  Two doors in a Series. Door are required to be at least 48" apart when open and a turning space between them is required.

 Usually i need to check vestibules for this. But what about besides vestibules?
1. Does this code section also need to be for: a bathroom door to a shower or toilet compartment door that are close together. Do  they need a turning space between them and at least 48" between the doors?
2. Does a door from the top of an exterior accessible lift to an entrance door need to meet this code section? Plans that I am reviewing show these two doors hitting each other when both are open on a exterior landing. Do  they need a turning space between them and at least 48" between the doors?
3. How about doors across from each other in a 4' wide hall (doors swing away from hall). Do they need a turning space between them?
4. A door on each end of a 4' wide hallway 10' to 100' apart. Do they need a turning space between them?


----------



## Sleepy (Sep 8, 2021)

That's a really good question.  I would say a literal reading would say "yes", but it seems pretty harsh.  

But, as a point of reference, the ABA standards (for federal facilities) have very similar language (ABA Standards 2015, para. 404.2.6) but omit the requirement for the turning space.  The illustrations in the ABA standards also don't really look like vestibules, they look more like hallways.  And the ADA Guidelines also have similar language (404.2.6), omitting the turning space requirement, but also adding "This allows users to clear one door or gate before opening the next and applies to those doors or gates that are opposite each other where travel through both doors is required."  ADA also has a recommendation that allows only a 30" by 48" space beyond the first door in cases where the two doors are at right angles to each other, like you might see in a toilet room vestibule.

So, I still don't know.


----------



## Rick18071 (Sep 9, 2021)

Help! I'm mostly concerned about a plan review I am doing where an exterior accessible lift goes to an entrance door at a right angle and that are very close together. Is the door at the top of a lift be considered a "gate" and not a door? The ones I seen are usually 4' high. If it is a gate then I don't need to worry about this code section. The IBC has different sections on gates than for doors. But I don't see any definitions to what the difference between gates and doors. Should I go by what the manufacturers installation instructions call it (door or gate)?
Please give me your opinions.


----------



## steveray (Sep 9, 2021)

Typically, the doors-in-series condition occurs in entry
vestibules that are used to reduce the infiltration of outside
air. It is important to realize that this requirement applies
only when the user *must* pass through two doors in succession.
The requirement would not be applicable if, instead
of a vestibule, the situation was a corridor and the two
doors were into offices located on opposite sides of the
corridor. A storm or screen door immediately in front of an
entrance door or communicating doors between two hotel
rooms are not considered doors in a series.

That help?

Compartments have their own little nuances and gimmies in ANSI....But I would hold them to some sort of in series/ maneuvering where applicable....Gates I would treat like doors although I know there may be differing opinions:

1010.2 Gates. Gates serving the means of egress system shall
comply with the requirements of this section. Gates used as a
component in a means of egress shall conform to the applicable
requirements for doors.

1109.13 Controls, operating mechanisms and hardware.
Controls, operating mechanisms and hardware intended for
operation by the occupant, including switches that control
lighting and ventilation and electrical convenience outlets, in
accessible spaces, along accessible routes or as parts of
accessible elements shall be accessible.


----------



## Rick18071 (Sep 10, 2021)

steveray said:


> Typically, the doors-in-series condition occurs in entry
> vestibules that are used to reduce the infiltration of outside
> air. It is important to realize that this requirement applies
> only when the user *must* pass through two doors in succession.
> ...


Thanks so much for your help but this Does not help me.  Apparently you never saw a vestibule that is for more then one tenant space or with doors on more then just 2 sides. I can't find in the code that the requirement applies "only when the user must pass through two doors in succession". Is that in the commentary?
If you need to use two doors in succession that are in a hallway (or any where else ) 20' apart that you *must* pass through to get to the space you want to get to why would't this need to comply? It seems that the code's intent is to have a turn around space in case the other doors are locked which could be in a hall or any where else. What do you think the intent of the code is?  This section does not say if the doors needs to be only inside a building or a vestibule or I would think it would say it.

say building A has an entrance door to a corridor with three doors leading to offices.
building B has the same exact design except but instead of a corridor it has a vestibule with three doors leading to offices.
Are you saying only building B will have to comply to this code section?


----------



## steveray (Sep 10, 2021)

Not sure what you are going for Rick, if the doors are 20' apart, you have the 48" between?...Another pic from commentary....


----------



## John DeBruyne (Sep 10, 2021)

Rick, the verbiage that steveray provided is the commentary from ICC A117.1.  Even though the code does not come right out and say it, the commentary he has highlighted in red would be applicable.


----------



## Rick18071 (Sep 10, 2021)

John DeBruyne said:


> Rick, the verbiage that steveray provided is the commentary from ICC A117.1.  Even though the code does not come right out and say it, the commentary he has highlighted in red would be applicable.


Thanks John. So you are saying it doesn't matter if the space between the 2 doors in a series is in a vestibule or any other kind of space or how many doors go off to other spaces in the space between the 2 doors or how far the the doors are apart from each other (as long they are at least 48" apart when open) or if the space between them is outside, of if any of them are gates, toilet stall doors or shower compartment doors a turning space is required between 2 doors in a series when the user *must* pass through two doors in succession on an accessible route to get to a space?

 Of course small closet doors when the user *must not* pass through and only need to reach though would not applicable

I understand the the commentary says the requirement would not be applicable if, instead of a vestibule, two doors were into offices located on opposite sides of the corridor, but nothing about if they are on the same side of a corridor or opposite ends or any other way or any other space besides a corridor. I would think the commentary would just say or there would be an exception that the requirement not be applicable if not in a vestibule if that is what it meant. To me it doesn't make sense that if you had two entrances designed the exact same way and same size but one with a vestibule and the other with a corridor at the same place at the front entrance with doors on the opposite sides one would not be required to comply to this section but the other would.
.

I think saying that if the user must need to pass though two doors in succession is unnecessary because if there are two doors in any space someday a user will need to (*must)* pass through both doors in succession to get where they want to go. Even if there is another accessible way to go without needing for the user to *must* pass through both doors in succession this code section may still apply because of the following:
1104.5 Location. Accessible routes shall coincide with or be
located in the same area as a general circulation path. Where
the circulation path is interior, the accessible route shall also
be interior. Where only one accessible route is provided, the
accessible route shall not pass through kitchens, storage
rooms, restrooms, closets or similar spaces.

I  just want to be sure because I'm hearing different things from others but I am open minded and very much like to hear other opinions. I always checked this for vestibules before but never thought of it applying to other spaces before and might have missed it on some plan reviews I did before.


----------



## John DeBruyne (Sep 10, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> Thanks John. So you are saying it doesn't matter if the space between the 2 doors in a series is in a vestibule or any other kind of space or how many doors go off to other spaces in the space between the 2 doors or how far the the doors are apart from each other (as long they are at least 48" apart when open) or if the space between them is outside, of if any of them are gates, toilet stall doors or shower compartment doors a turning space is required between 2 doors in a series when the user *must* pass through two doors in succession on an accessible route to get to a space?
> 
> Of course small closet doors when the user *must not* pass through and only need to reach though would not applicable
> 
> ...


Oooof!  That's a whole lot of scenarios to unravel that I really can't (won't) do.  All I'm saying is that steveray was citing the specific and exact language in the commentary.  Granted, the commentary is not the code so it is up to the designer and CO to determine if two doors qualify as being "in series".


----------



## Yikes (Sep 10, 2021)

A toilet compartment door or a shower door is typically located in a room where there are other components, such as lavatories.
If a person was going to the bathroom to just use the lavatory, then that situation proves there's no "must use both doors in succession".

In those situations - for example, in an ADA residential bathroom - - there simply needs to be:
1.  A 30x48" space that's clear of the door that swings into the restroom.
2.  A 30x48" space that's clear of the shower door.


----------



## Rick18071 (Sep 13, 2021)

Yikes said:


> A toilet compartment door or a shower door is typically located in a room where there are other components, such as lavatories.
> If a person was going to the bathroom to just use the lavatory, then that situation proves there's no "must use both doors in succession".
> 
> In those situations - for example, in an ADA residential bathroom - - there simply needs to be:
> ...


True, but what if that person does not want to use the lavatory before using the shower or toilet compartment. Most people use a lavatory after they use the toilet compartment.

So if there is other components (such as vending machine, phone, etc.) that a person can use in a vestibule between the doors this would be the same scenario as what you described so a turn around space would not be needed between the vestibule doors?


----------



## steveray (Sep 13, 2021)

Rick, a 5' hall/ corridor takes care of most doors for access/ maneuvering...And as you typically one have 1 accessible stall in most bathrooms it is generally not within 48" of the door. Anything not single user would have a turning space beyond the door that should make that one mostly moot....


----------



## Yikes (Sep 13, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> True, but what if that person does not want to use the lavatory before using the shower or toilet compartment. Most people use a lavatory after they use the toilet compartment.
> 
> So if there is other components (such as vending machine, phone, etc.) that a person can use in a vestibule between the doors this would be the same scenario as what you described so a turn around space would not be needed between the vestibule doors?


Operative word is "must", i.e. has no choice but to go into the shower upon entering the room.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Sep 13, 2021)

The intent is that somebody in a wheelchair isn't able to get trapped in a space. 

If 2 single doors in series don't have the 48" clear of door swing somebody can push the first door open and the wheelchair will keep it from closing while he pushes the second door open.  However going the other way and having to pull the doors open the first one might close behind him and not leave enough room in the space to pull the second door open.

The way the code is written this appears to also apply to double doors.  However, if someone comes through one leaf and there isn't room to open the leaf directly in front of them, what would be wrong about having to open the opposite leaf?  This shouldn't be an issue in new construction, but I've run into cases in existing pre-ADA buildings where there was a 5 or 6 ft. deep alcove off a corridor with an outside door.  I had to use sliding doors on the inside along the corridor because I couldn't get the 7 ft. that the letter of the code required without extending the slab and roof to make the alcove deeper.  Now the inside doors open every time somebody walks down the corridor.


----------



## Rick18071 (Sep 13, 2021)

Yikes said:


> Operative word is "must", i.e. has no choice but to go into the shower upon entering the room.


So you are saying if go through an entrance door and there is 2nd door besides the one door you want to go through even if the 2nd door goes someplace you don't want to go to it counts as a choice of doors and so you don't "must" go through just one door you want to go through and you don't need to comply with ICC/ANSI A117.1 section 404.2.5 like my drawing below? But if the 2nd door leads to different tenant space the 2nd door could be locked.


----------



## Rick18071 (Sep 13, 2021)

Paul Sweet said:


> The intent is that somebody in a wheelchair isn't able to get trapped in a space.
> 
> If 2 single doors in series don't have the 48" clear of door swing somebody can push the first door open and the wheelchair will keep it from closing while he pushes the second door open.  However going the other way and having to pull the doors open the first one might close behind him and not leave enough room in the space to pull the second door open.
> 
> The way the code is written this appears to also apply to double doors.  However, if someone comes through one leaf and there isn't room to open the leaf directly in front of them, what would be wrong about having to open the opposite leaf?  This shouldn't be an issue in new construction, but I've run into cases in existing pre-ADA buildings where there was a 5 or 6 ft. deep alcove off a corridor with an outside door.  I had to use sliding doors on the inside along the corridor because I couldn't get the 7 ft. that the letter of the code required without extending the slab and roof to make the alcove deeper.  Now the inside doors open every time somebody walks down the corridor.


Thanks but I am more concerned about the *turn around space* between doors that are 10' to 50' apart in a 4' wide hallway.


----------



## Yikes (Sep 13, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> So you are saying if go through an entrance door and there is 2nd door besides the one door you want to go through even if the 2nd door goes someplace you don't want to go to it counts as a choice of doors and so you don't "must" go through just one door you want to go through and you don't need to comply with ICC/ANSI A117.1 section 404.2.5 like my drawing below? But if the 2nd door leads to different tenant space the 2nd door could be locked.


I'm saying that when you can (1) enter through door "A" into a space, and (2) get a 30x48" space clear of door "A" so that it can close, and you can use the space without needing to go through door "B" into another space, and you can (3) turn around and (4) exit door "A" again, then the space is not a "vestibule" that needs 48" clear between doors "A" and "B".

Take a look below at the image of an accessible hotel room (below), as published by the USDOJ in section 806 of https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/Guidance2010ADAstandards.htm

In this example, the hotel guest may want to rush into the bathroom the moment they check into their hotel room.  But there's no clearance between the doors, and the various door swings even overlap each other!  
In fact, the way it's been drawn. it graphically looks like you would have to go all the way to the space between the beds in order to turn around and then do a side-approach in order to open the bathroom door.


----------



## steveray (Sep 14, 2021)

I think what Rick is saying is that there may be no viable turnaround space in a 48" wide hallway...Rick? Which is why I mentioned the 60" hall in post 18...


----------



## Yikes (Sep 14, 2021)

steveray said:


> I think what Rick is saying is that there may be no viable turnaround space in a 48" wide hallway...Rick? Which is why I mentioned the 60" hall in post 18...


OK.  My comments in post #23 were responding to Rick's post #7, where he asked:

_"But what about besides vestibules?
1. Does this code section also need to be for: a bathroom door to a shower or toilet compartment door that are close together. Do they need a turning space between them and at least 48" between the doors?"_


----------



## Rick18071 (Sep 14, 2021)

Thank Yikes, Steveray and everyone else. I understand now that ICC/ANSI A117.1 section 404.2.5  is for all spaces including outside, not just for vestibules. And the turn around space does not need to be directly between the two doors in a Series but could be somewhere else in the same space that is between the doors.
A 4' wide corridor with 20 doors would only need one turning space anywhere in the corridor.


----------



## steveray (Sep 15, 2021)

One more thing that is still allowed to be discriminatory in accessibility...


----------



## Rick18071 (Sep 16, 2021)

steveray said:


> One more thing that is still allowed to be discriminatory in accessibility...


What does this mean?


----------



## steveray (Sep 16, 2021)

The person in the wheelchair needs to go 100' down the hall to turn around or "backup" in some cases...Where everyone else doesn't...


----------



## JPohling (Sep 29, 2022)

In the condition regarding the lift and the primary entrance I would say yes they need to comply with doors in series as that is how they will be used


----------



## Genduct (Oct 1, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> ICC/ANSI A117.1 Two doors in a Series. Distance between two hinged or pivoted doors in series shall be 48" Min. plus width of any door swinging into the space. The space between the doors shall provide a turning space complying with Section 304.
> 
> Usually i need to check vestibules for this. But does this rule also need to be for a bathroom door to a shower or toilet compartment door that are close together?
> Does a door from the top of an  exterior accessible lift to an entrance door need to meet this? Plans that I am reviewing show these two doors hitting each other when both are open.
> How about doors across from each other in a 3' wide hall?


Rule sounds like it is for hallways and not for a room where a clear, unobstructed path is required


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 3, 2022)

What makes the rule sound like it's for halls and not for rooms? It does not even say it's only for indoors.


----------



## Yikes (Oct 3, 2022)

Per the illustration in post #23 from the US Department of Justice, it appears that the implied definition of what makes two doors *"in series"* is when *operation of both doors is the only way to pass through that space to get in and out, without getting stuck between the doors*. 

To do that, you need to first complete operation (opening and closing) of door #1, then have some method of successfully operating door #2.
In the ADA-compliant hotel room illustration from DOJ (below), you can enter the room, close the entry door behind you, go further into the room, then turn around and go back towards the bathroom.  thus the entry door and bathroom door are NOT "in series".

The 48" minimum clearance in 404.2.5 is not about convenience between doors; it's about not getting stuck with zero options in a space between doors.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 3, 2022)

Yikes said:


> Per the illustration in post #23 from the US Department of Justice, it appears that the implied definition of what makes two doors *"in series"* is when *operation of both doors is the only way to pass through that space to get in and out, without getting stuck between the doors*.
> 
> To do that, you need to first complete operation (opening and closing) of door #1, then have some method of successfully operating door #2.
> In the ADA-compliant hotel room illustration from DOJ (below), you can enter the room, close the entry door behind you, go further into the room, then turn around and go back towards the bathroom.  thus the entry door and bathroom door are NOT "in series".
> ...


So by this drawing if a vestibule was the same shape and size as this room and the entry door and the bathroom door were the means of egress this would be ok even when the doors are closer than 48" when open?


----------



## Yikes (Oct 3, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> So by this drawing if a vestibule was the same shape and size as this room and the entry door and the bathroom door were the means of egress this would be ok even when the doors are closer than 48" when open?


Yes, per IBC 1005.7.1, there are no restrictions on door swing encroachment into the minimum required egress width inside a dwelling or sleeping unit.

If it was a hypothetical nonresidential space, then 1005.7.1 would require at least 1/2 the egress width to be maintained, and that bathroom door would probably also have to be shifted down slightly to allow a 180 degree swing so that its fully open position does not reduce the egress width by more than 7".

In the photo below, should there be 48" between the doors when you travel in from the left door and out through the right?




I would say no, because they are not in series.  You enter from the door on the left, come towards the camera while the left door closes behind you; then you turn around and enter the door on the right.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 4, 2022)

Yikes said:


> I would say no, because they are not in series.


I don't agree with your definition of two doors next to each other is not a series. If you use one door then another, you used the doors in a series no matter where the doors are.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 4, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> I don't agree with your definition of two doors next to each other is not a series. If you use one door then another, you used the doors in a series no matter where the doors are.


It is clear that the ADASAD defines doors in a series  by example. Doors next to each other are not doors in a series.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 4, 2022)

I don't inspect to ADASAD. I inspect to ICC 117.1 for Accessibility. 
Are you saying if doors are not exactly parallel too each other when closed and exactly across from each other in a vestibule, in a hallway, or anywhere else as shown on the drawing, we don't need the 48" between doors or the turning space rule (both rules are in the same section).


----------



## Yikes (Oct 4, 2022)

mark handler said:


> It is clear that the ADASAD defines doors in a series  by example. Doors next to each other are not doors in a series.



I think the fundamental issue is: what makes two or more doors "in a series"?  
(a) It it merely that the doors happen to be 180 degrees directly across from each other?  What if the doors are offset/staggered?
(b) Is it the nature of the use behind the doors?  Example: A dwelling unit entry door with a coat closet door on the opposite wall require 48" clear between door swings.
(c)  Or is it (as I contend) because having doors next to each other enables you to enter the room, close the door behind you, turn around, and use the next door?

If (c), then it supports my thesis that doors are only "in series" when you don't have other circulation/maneuvering options.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 5, 2022)

Yikes said:


> If (c), then it supports my thesis that doors are only "in series" when you don't have other circulation/maneuvering options.


If true the code would say that.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 5, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> I don't inspect to ADASAD. I inspect to ICC 117.1 for Accessibility.
> Are you saying if doors are not exactly parallel too each other when closed and exactly across from each other in a vestibule, in a hallway, or anywhere else as shown on the drawing, we don't need the 48" between doors or the turning space rule (both rules are in the same section).


It is clear that the ANSI 117.1 defines doors in a series by example. Doors next to each other are not doors in a series.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 5, 2022)

Yikes said:


> I think the fundamental issue is: what makes two or more doors "in a series"?
> (a) It it merely that the doors happen to be 180 degrees directly across from each other?  What if the doors are offset/staggered?
> (b) Is it the nature of the use behind the doors?  Example: A dwelling unit entry door with a coat closet door on the opposite wall require 48" clear between door swings.
> (c)  Or is it (as I contend) because having doors next to each other enables you to enter the room, close the door behind you, turn around, and use the next door?
> ...


(a) If there is a door 90 degrees, and  a door 180 degrees and you must use one, they are both in series
(b) Function is not a factor (closet), if you must enter the space, it needs clearances.
(c) Do not understand what you are saying, it appears to be counter to the requirements set forth in the code.


----------



## Yikes (Oct 5, 2022)

Mark, in your post to Rick you showed illustrations from ANSI 117.1 that are not in the ADA standards.  I appreciate these illustrations because they (a) show side walls and (b) show a turnaround.
The enclosing side walls and turnaround make it clear that the defining feature of doors "in series" is that the space Is so small that there is no other path of travel other than either through door # 2 or to turn around and go back out door #1.
‘To put it another way, if (for example) the ANSI illustration had one side wall removed and a 10’x10’ space off to one side, then the 10’x10’ space affords maneuverability, functionality and options other than mere transit from door #1 through door #2.  Therefore the doors in that situation are not “in series".


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 5, 2022)

These drawings shown here that are taken out of the ICC A117.1 code book are not referenced in section 404.2.5 (Two Doors or Gates in Series) or anywhere else in the book. They are not code.  So how can you use it to explain what is meant by a series or anything else?.

You are saying if a vestibule has more then 2 doors 404.2.5 does not apply? I seen many vestibules with more then two doors, mostly in movie theaters, malls and big box stores. I see double doors too (two doors in a doorway). I also seen vestibules that have one exterior door but two inside doors that go to two different tenant spaces. Are you saying these vestibules  doors would not need to comply with 404.2.5 but only need the door maneuvering clearance if they are accessible with no turn around space or no 4' between doors?


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 5, 2022)

I just sent this to the ICC for a written opinion, I will post it when I get it:

What does it mean "two doors in a series".  Is this for 2 doors or more across from each other or next to each other or 90 degrees from each other in a hall, vestibule, toilet room (entry door and toilet compartment door) or any other room on an accessible route?


----------



## Yikes (Oct 5, 2022)

Sorry for the crude drawing, but I'd like to ask you all:

1.  Are doors A and B "in series"?  If so, why?
2.  Are doors C and D "in series"?  If not, why not?
3.  If your answer to #1 is yes and #2 is "no", then how much of an offset  is needed for doors on opposite wall to not be considered "in series?




Next:
4.  Are doors F and G in series?
5.  Are doors F and H in series?
6.  Are doors F and J in series?


----------



## JPohling (Oct 5, 2022)

With the information you have provided, I would say none of the doors are in series.


----------



## JPohling (Oct 5, 2022)

Well, none of the door combinations you asked about.  Doors a,b,c,and d are in series with e in the manner in which they are used


----------



## brokenkeys (Oct 6, 2022)

I agree with JPohling in practice, but putting on my literal reading glasses and ignoring other codes:

My code (Florida Building Code) has the language and graphics mark handler posted in post #37, and the scoping part 404.1 says; "doors, doorways, and gates that are part of an _accessible_ route shall comply with 404." Accessible route is not a defined term (just the accessible part). Accessible Routes 402 also says something similar; all components of an _accessible_ route shall comply with Ch4. And upon a quick skim of Ch2 I'm not finding anything limiting doors in a series to specific situations or excluding them from _circulation paths_. So, unless I'm missing something, that means doors A & B should be 48" apart, so that there is an accessible route between rooms 3 & 4.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 6, 2022)

Yikes said:


> Sorry for the crude drawing, but I'd like to ask you all:
> 
> 1.  Are doors A and B "in series"?  If so, why?
> 2.  Are doors C and D "in series"?  If not, why not?
> ...


This conversation is going down a rabbit hole


----------



## JPohling (Oct 6, 2022)

This really is not that difficult.  In the first plan that Yikes posted if the areas 2,3,4,5 are individual suites, then like I mentioned none of the doors he asked about are in series.  Only each one's individual entry/exit door to those spaces is in series with E.  Now if space 1 is a gowning vestibule and 2 and 3 are labs and 4 and 5 are clean rooms then by the nature of how the spaces and doors are used they would be in series.


----------



## Yikes (Oct 6, 2022)

JPohling, you are saying that the nature of the use, not the positions of the doors, is what defines doors as being "in series" or not.
You may be right.  But I would posit that the USDOJ image of the hotel room entry door+ bathroom would qualify as “in series" as the bathroom is a related function to the hotel room - - and yet USDOJ has no problem with those doors being so close to each other.
That’s what leads me to believe that have a room that is big enough that it serves as other functions - - even if that function is to simply turn around - - makes the doors no longer "in series".


----------



## JPohling (Oct 6, 2022)

Yikes,  Correct.  It is how the doors are used, not just the placement.  I also do not believe the hotel room entry door and RR door are in series.  That is not typically how you use these doors.  You may have to take a pee the moment you get your room, but that is not typically how they are used and they are typically placed to access the RR coming from the sleeping area.


----------



## Jay Smith (Oct 7, 2022)

Suppose I have a corridor 15 feet long, with a door from a private suite on each end. On one side of the corridor are two toilet rooms. There is no intent for an occupant to go through both ends of the corridor. This is a shared access to the toilets. Are the two suite entry doors in series for A117.1 purposes?


----------



## Yikes (Oct 9, 2022)

Jay Smith said:


> Suppose I have a corridor 15 feet long, with a door from a private suite on each end. On one side of the corridor are two toilet rooms. There is no intent for an occupant to go through both ends of the corridor. This is a shared access to the toilets. Are the two suite entry doors in series for A117.1 purposes?



Jay, I'm saying "no", they are not in series. 
I would also say if there's a men's restroom and a women's restroom with out swinging doors opposite each other in a 5’ wide hall, those restroom doors are not "in series" (contemporary notions of gender fluidity notwithstanding).

In my earlier posts, I'm taking it a step further, and stating my interpretation that if there is ANY option or ability to use the space other than for just going through the two doors like a vestibule or air lock, and if you have provided the ability to turn a wheelchair around in the space after having closed one of the doors, then I do not consider the doors to be "in series".

I think the ANSI illustrations show an "airlock"/vestibule configuration and THAT's what makes it "in series".


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 10, 2022)

Yikes said:


> In my earlier posts, I'm taking it a step further, and stating my interpretation that if there is ANY option or ability to use the space other than for just going through the two doors like a vestibule or air lock, and if you have provided the ability to turn a wheelchair around in the space after having closed one of the doors, then I do not consider the doors to be "in series".


Why wouldn't the code have an exception that says that. So if a vestibule has more than two doors like a large movie theater or a vestibule that is used by two different tenants (3 doors) this code section doesn't apply?


----------



## Yikes (Oct 10, 2022)

I’m saying that the code as published does not have a clear definition of what "in series" means.  Unless someone who was on that original code development committee can enlighten us into the background thinking, all we have are the ANSI illustrations, and our interpretation of them.

Mark Handler looks at it, sees two doors opposite each other, and says that’s what makes them "in series":  Physical location of the openings relative to each other.
JPhohling looks at it on the basis of use and function.  If the intended use of the rooms is sequential, then they are "in series".  Under this scenario, if the functions of the rooms change over time, they could go in or out of compliance.
I look at the ANSI illustrations, see the surrounding walls and tight maneuvering space and - especially this - no other option except to travel from one door through the other, and that’s what I think makes the doors "in series".

Maybe one of us is right, or maybe all of us are wrong.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Oct 10, 2022)

Years ago at a seminar shortly after ADA was passed they told us that the intent was to prevent somebody in a wheelchair from being trapped in a vestibule when the door behind them closed and there wasn't adequate space in front of them to open the door in front of them.


----------



## Yikes (Oct 10, 2022)

Paul Sweet said:


> Years ago at a seminar shortly after ADA was passed they told us that the intent was to prevent somebody in a wheelchair from being trapped in a vestibule when the door behind them closed and there wasn't adequate space in front of them to open the door in front of them.


Exactly.  If you can enter the space through door #1 and do a full turnaround somewhere in that space, then you aren’t forced to go through door #2 "in series".  You have the option to turn around and exit through door #1.  You are not trapped.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 10, 2022)

I would think if it is only for vestibules the section would be titled "Vestibules" instead of "2 doors in a series" then we would not be debating this. I would be sure that the all the doors would need to comply to this section not matter if they are directly across from each other or at 90 degrees from each other but not next to each other
But you had 3 doors coming from outside and 2 interior doors would only one outside and one inside need to comply or 2 outside and 2 inside or all of them?
Still waiting for ICC for a written opinion, I will post it when I get it:


----------



## Yikes (Oct 10, 2022)

Another crude example - this time a one-bedroom public housing unit that is required to be ADA accessible.
If I put a closet door across from the unit entry door in the entrance foyer, does that mean that it's "in series" and my foyer needs to be at least 10' deep instead of the usual 5' clearance?  Notice I'm still able to freely circulate into the living room, turn around, etc.
10' sounds really excessive to me, like it's an entry hall for a McMansion, not for a one-bedroom public housing unit.
This leads me to believe that the definition of "in series" is more about limited, constrained options for travel that might make a wheelchair user get stuck between the doors, with no other way out.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 11, 2022)

Yikes said:


> Another crude example - this time a one-bedroom public housing unit that is required to be ADA accessible.
> If I put a closet door across from the unit entry door in the entrance foyer, does that mean that it's "in series" and my foyer needs to be at least 10' deep instead of the usual 5' clearance?  Notice I'm still able to freely circulate into the living room, turn around, etc.
> 10' sounds really excessive to me, like it's an entry hall for a McMansion, not for a one-bedroom public housing unit.
> This leads me to believe that the definition of "in series" is more about limited, constrained options for travel that might make a wheelchair user get stuck between the doors, with no other way out.
> ...



This just makes it more confusing. of course a quick fix is to turn the doors around or a sliding door.
In ICC A117.1 Accessible Units 1102.5 Exception 3 says a turning space between doors in a series as required by section 404.2.5 is not required.
Which seems to say you still need the 4' space between doors. I still wonder if this has to do with vestibules because I never saw one in an apartment.
But then 1102.3.1 says that a turning space is required in each room in the accessible unit except bathrooms and small closets. Isn't a vestibule a room?

I can't find a definition of vestibule in any of the ICC code books so I don't know if it needs to be a enclosed room or if it could be open to other rooms.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 11, 2022)

Yikes said:


> Exactly.  If you can enter the space through door #1 and do a full turnaround somewhere in that space, then you aren’t forced to go through door #2 "in series".  You have the option to turn around and exit through door #1.  You are not trapped.


Not sure if the turn around space can be anywhere in the room, the code says it is to be between the doors. Would a turning space off to the side and not directly between the doors comply?

In my state it's important to get it just right because the inspectors get audited and get written up if a grab bar is a 1/4" off or even if someone hangs a mirror to low in a rest room after the C. O. is issued.


----------



## steveray (Oct 11, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> Why wouldn't the code have an exception that says that. So if a vestibule has more than two doors like a large movie theater or a vestibule that is used by two different tenants (3 doors) this code section doesn't apply?


The same reason that the ambulatory stall depth still does not line up with the rest of the stall depths...it is an imperfect system with imperfect people and not enough good ones trying to fix stuff.....


----------



## Yikes (Oct 11, 2022)

I just found this explanation on the US Access Board website.
There are TWO criteria that must be true for a door to be "in series";
1.  Opposite each other, AND
2.  The only function of the space is to use both door #1 AND door #2, i.e. "travel through BOTH doors is REQUIRED".  So if there is a possibility of using the space for any purpose that does not REQUIRE travel through both door #1 and door #2, then the doors are not "in series".

Note that the stated purpose of additional doors in series is to "allow users to clear one door before opening the next".  The additional "recommendation" further clarifies that wheelchair clearance is the key purpose.

https://www.access-board.gov/ada/gu...es-doors-and-gates/#doors-and-gates-in-series


----------



## JPohling (Oct 11, 2022)

That is precisely what I was saying and how it is enforced.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 14, 2022)

Still waiting for ICC for a written opinion, I will post it when I get it. See if says the same thing. As we know the ICC codes do not match the ADA requirements exactly. ICC really makes things hard to understand sometimes.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 23, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> We are getting off the subject. I am asking about ICC/ANSI A117.1 section 404.2.5  Two doors in a Series. Door are required to be at least 48" apart when open and a turning space between them is required.
> 
> Usually i need to check vestibules for this. But what about besides vestibules?
> 1. Does this code section also need to be for: a bathroom door to a shower or toilet compartment door that are close together. Do  they need a turning space between them and at least 48" between the doors?
> ...


Maybe you can post a dwg?


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 24, 2022)

ADAguy said:


> Maybe you can post a dwg?



See post #46


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 24, 2022)

Two doors across from each other in a vestibule do not need to comply with this section if there is a third door in the side of the vestibule (or anywhere else)  because they don't have to use the door directly across from the first one to get to the same place. The third door makes it not a series?


----------



## Yikes (Oct 24, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> Two doors across from each other in a vestibule do not need to comply with this section if there is a third door in the side of the vestibule (or anywhere else)  because they don't have to use the door directly across from the first one to get to the same place. The third door makes it not a series?


Yes, that’s my opinion - - the 3rd door gives you a "not in series" because travel through door #2 is no longer REQUIRED (see post #65).  The option exists to use door #3 instead of door #2.

But it does make sense that somewhere in the vestibule there should be a 30x48 space free of the door #1 swing arc, so the wheelchair user is able to close door #1 before using either door #2 or door #3, or else turning around and exit out through door #1.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 25, 2022)

Yikes said:


> Yes, that’s my opinion - - the 3rd door gives you a "not in series" because travel through door #2 is no longer REQUIRED (see post #65).  The option exists to use door #3 instead of door #2.
> 
> But it does make sense that somewhere in the vestibule there should be a 30x48 space free of the door #1 swing arc, so the wheelchair user is able to close door #1 before using either door #2 or door #3, or else turning around and exit out through door #1.





Yikes said:


> Yes, that’s my opinion - - the 3rd door gives you a "not in series" because travel through door #2 is no longer REQUIRED (see post #65). The option exists to use door #3 instead of door #2.
> 
> But it does make sense that somewhere in the vestibule there should be a 30x48 space free of the door #1 swing arc, so the wheelchair user is able to close door #1 before using either door #2 or door #3, or else turning around and exit out through door #1.



So would it be different if the 3rd door went to a different tenant space?

Would double doors count as two doors in a vestibule? One of the 2 doors in a vestibule is a double door so it would count as 3 doors in a vestibule and then it would not be two doors in a series.


----------



## Yikes (Oct 25, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> [1] So would it be different if the 3rd door went to a different tenant space?
> 
> [2] Would double doors count as two doors in a vestibule? One of the 2 doors in a vestibule is a double door so it would count as 3 doors in a vestibule and then it would not be two doors in a series.



I believe the intent of the code is that a wheelchair user is not compelled to operate 2 doors simultaneously (holding open one door while attempting to open another door).  The 48" dimension matches the length of the clear floor space in ADA 305.3.
One solution is to have the "vestibule" so large (wide) that it has other functions as a real room, instead of just being a vestibule.  I've recommended a turnaround space.

If door #3 is a secured space not available to all users, then it becomes even more important to either have the 48" between doors or have a larger room with other functions (including turnaround space).

Again, this is just me interpreting code intent and the narrative info from the US Access Board.


----------



## steveray (Oct 25, 2022)

I may have to submit a code change so I can never be part of this conversation again.....


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 26, 2022)

steveray said:


> I may have to submit a code change so I can never be part of this conversation again.....


I'm sure everyone would appreciate it. Would you put "Two doors in a series" in the definitions or how would you write it?


----------



## steveray (Oct 26, 2022)

I would try to use the language from ANSI 117 603.2 EX#2 as I think it sort of makes sense......The indiv use complicates it a bit, but I would start there...

Exceptions:
1. Doors to a toilet or bathing room for a single
occupant, accessed only through a private office
and not for common use or public use shall be
permitted to swing into the clear floor space, provided
the swing of the door can be reversed to
comply with Section 603.2.2.
2. Where the room is for individual use and a clear
floor space complying with Section 305.3 is provided
within the room beyond the arc of the door
swing, the door shall not be required to comply
with Section 603.2.2.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 27, 2022)

steveray said:


> I would try to use the language from ANSI 117 603.2 EX#2 as I think it sort of makes sense......The indiv use complicates it a bit, but I would start there...
> 
> Exceptions:
> 1. Doors to a toilet or bathing room for a single
> ...



I don't think we are talking about doors swinging into plumbing fixture clear spaces in toilet rooms.


----------



## steveray (Oct 28, 2022)

steveray said:


> I would try to use the language from ANSI 117 603.2 EX#2 as I think it sort of makes sense......The indiv use complicates it a bit, but I would start there...





Rick18071 said:


> I don't think we are talking about doors swinging into plumbing fixture clear spaces in toilet rooms.


Correct...I was stating that where possible, it makes sense to use existing language as it relates to a similar situations when making code changes as it alleviates confusion...

603.2 is about the user negotiating the door around themselves and the environment....So is the vestibule crap....


----------



## tmurray (Oct 28, 2022)

I think more than anything, this discussion points to the value of having written intent statements that officials can reference.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 1, 2022)

Genduct said:


> Rule sounds like it is for hallways and not for a room where a clear, unobstructed path is required


unintended consequence of the verbage?


----------

