# Panic Hardware eliminates strike side clearances?



## JPohling (Feb 12, 2014)

I am looking at an exterior exit door that does not have the ability to provide 12" strike side clearance on the push side of a door equipped with a latch and closer.  I seem to recall someone mentioning that if you provide panic hardware on the door it would eliminate this requirement.  I cannot find any language in the code that would support this.  My gut feeling is that it is a no, but it sure would solve this problem.  2013 CBC  What do you think?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 12, 2014)

Not in the Code, alternate means.....


----------



## JPohling (Feb 12, 2014)

So I assume that is a case by case approval from the AHJ?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 12, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> So I assume that is a case by case approval from the AHJ?


Yes . .  . .


----------



## JPohling (Feb 13, 2014)

Told them to move the wall!


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 13, 2014)

If an exterior exit door I assume your concern is with the interior "push" side?


----------



## JPohling (Feb 13, 2014)

That is correct,  interior push side clearance front approach with latch and closer.  Funny thing is based upon the new CBC diagrams if I construct a wing wall 48" from the door and force a hinge approach it seems as if the 12" strike clearance is eliminated.  That just does not seem right.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 13, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> That is correct,  interior push side clearance front approach with latch and closer.  Funny thing is based upon the new CBC diagrams if I construct a wing wall 48" from the door and force a hinge approach it seems as if the 12" strike clearance is eliminated.  That just does not seem right.


Is there a closer on the door?


----------



## JPohling (Feb 13, 2014)

Yes,  latch and closer.  I am referring to  2013 CBC Figure 11B-404.2.4.1  "g"  page 555.  indicates no 12" needed!!  error?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 13, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> Yes,  latch and closer.  I am referring to  2013 CBC Figure 11B-404.2.4.1  "g"  page 555.  indicates no 12" needed!!  error?


Refer to 11b 2.4.3 if you have the closer you still need thev12 in.


----------



## JPohling (Feb 13, 2014)

That diagram is specifically for a front approach and matches up with 2.4.1 ©.  The diagrams appear to remove the 12" requirement if it is a hinge approach as illustrated in 2.4.1 (g).  So that would mean I could install a wing wall and force a hinge approach and not provide the 12" strike side clearance.  does not seem correct, but it is there in black n white.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 13, 2014)

Careful, the illustrations are diagramatic. The text governs


----------



## JPohling (Feb 14, 2014)

There is no text that specifies the 12" clear in this situation.  The 11B-404.2.4 Maneuvering Clearance text refers you to Table 11B-404.2.4.1  and the table confirms the diagram.  A hinge approach to the push side of a door that has both a latch and a closer is only requiring a 22" clearance on the HINGE side, a minimum of 48" wide.  There is no 12" clearance required on the strike side of this door.   I do not agree with this, but it is clearly illustrated this way in the code.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 14, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> There is no text that specifies the 12" clear in this situation.  The 11B-404.2.4 Maneuvering Clearance text refers you to Table 11B-404.2.4.1  and the table confirms the diagram.  A hinge approach to the push side of a door that has both a latch and a closer is only requiring a 22" clearance on the HINGE side, a minimum of 48" wide.  There is no 12" clearance required on the strike side of this door.   I do not agree with this, but it is clearly illustrated this way in the code.


TABLE 118-404.2.4.1 and the figures are the only locations in 11B.

11A still has the old text.....


----------



## JPohling (Feb 14, 2014)

1126A.3.2.2 Hinge side approach.  #2) text does not mention 12" strike side clearance.  reference diagram  Figure 11A-8B indicates no strike side clearance required.  It is clearly required for a front approach, but disappears for a latch side approach.


----------



## JPohling (Feb 18, 2014)

So?  do you still stand by your thinking that the text governs over the illustration in this case?  I do not find any text that supports a 12" strike side clearance on a hinge approach door with a latch and closer.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 18, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> So?  do you still stand by your thinking that the text governs over the illustration in this case?  I do not find any text that supports a 12" strike side clearance on a hinge approach door with a latch and closer.


Why are you exerting so much effort on this It is required From front approch

IIB-404.2.4.1 Swinging doors and gates. Swinging doors and gates shall have maneuvering clearances complying with Table 11B-404.2.4.1.

TABLE IIB-404.2.4.1

MANEUVERING CLEARANCES AT MANUAL SWINGING DOORS AND GATES

1. Add 12 inches  if closer and latch are provided.


----------



## JPohling (Feb 18, 2014)

I am trying to understand why the 12" strike side requirement has been removed for a *hinge approach* door.  I have a non complying exit (no 12" strike clearance on push side, door has latch and closer) that with the construction of a wing wall forcing a hinge side approach to the door magically makes it code complying.  This is by far the easiest and cheapest solution to the problem, yet does not feel correct.  But the code *text and diagrams* indicate that this is a code acceptable configuration.

Same table 11B-404.2.4.1

"From hinge side" + "push" =  2.  add 4" to increase dim. perpendicular to doorway to 48".  22" required beyond hinge side.

just trying to provide the most cost effective code complying solution to this existing condition.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 18, 2014)

See figure C and read TABLE 11B-404.2.4.1, text matches figure


----------



## mark handler (Feb 18, 2014)




----------



## JPohling (Feb 18, 2014)

Check figure (g)  Figures 11B-404-2-4-1  page 555.  Clearly shows no 12" strike side clearance for HINGE approach.  I am fully aware of the requirement for FRONT approach.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 18, 2014)

No strike AND Closer, No 12"


----------



## JPohling (Feb 18, 2014)

Arghhhhhhhhh  I am fully aware of the must have both language for a FRONT approach.

figure (g) specifically states "hinge approach, push side, door provided with* both* latch and closer."

Not trying to beat a dead horse, just trying to obtain a consensus.  Its either an error in the code text and figures, or it is now acceptable to eliminate the 12" requirement when it is a hinge approach door with a latch and a closer.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 19, 2014)

contact a casp.


----------



## DonaldsonR (Feb 19, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> I am looking at an exterior exit door that does not have the ability to provide 12" strike side clearance on the push side of a door equipped with a latch and closer.  I seem to recall someone mentioning that if you provide panic hardware on the door it would eliminate this requirement.  I cannot find any language in the code that would support this.  My gut feeling is that it is a no, but it sure would solve this problem.  2013 CBC  What do you think?


Back to your basic question about panic hardware eliminating the requirement.  In ANSI 117.1-2003, Not panic hardware, but Automatic doors might not require the clearances.  Power assisted doors still require it though 404.3.2.


----------



## jar546 (Apr 1, 2014)

Update from OP.  A wing wall was the answer to this issue.  Hopefully the OP JPohling can elaborate.  Thanks JP!


----------



## JPohling (Apr 1, 2014)

I was able to get approval by constructing a wing wall 48" from the door forcing a hinge approach + side approach.  This eliminates the need for a 12" strike side clearance.  Took several rounds with the BO but it is clearly shown in the code.  Once he realized this he was contemplating allowing the condition to remain and not requiring the wing wall, since in reality I have made the exit path less direct.  I was already getting pressure back from the field inspector who could not believe it either so I just had them keep the wing wall and all is good.  This was one instance where I did not feel like I was increasing accessibility, but I was complying with the code and my client was very happy because the impact to the plan was minimal.


----------



## ADAguy (Apr 1, 2014)

Why not just add a self opener and call it good?


----------



## JPohling (Apr 1, 2014)

This was a second exit *only* doorway.  auto operators are an ongoing maintenance nightmare and in this case I believe would also need to be on emergency power.


----------

