This post was published in Doors & Hardware
What determines the direction in which a door must swing?
According to the International Building Code (2021-2015: 1010.1.2, 2012 and 2009: 1008.1.2), if a door is a required egress door, it generally needs to be a swinging door that is hung on hinges or pivots. A clarification was added in the 2021 edition addressing balanced doors. There are several exceptions to this requirement, which would allow a different type of door to be used in certain applications:
- Private garages, office areas, factory and storage areas with an occupant load of 10 or less.
- Group I-3 occupancies used as a place of detention.
- Critical or intensive care patient rooms within suites of health care facilities.
- Doors within or serving a single dwelling unit in Groups R-2 and R-3.
- In other than Group H occupancies, revolving doors complying with the applicable sections of the IBC.
- In other than Group H occupancies, horizontal sliding doors complying with the applicable sections of the IBC are permitted in a means of egress.
- Power-operated doors in accordance with the applicable sections of the IBC.
- Doors serving a bathroom within an individual sleeping unit in Group R-1.
- In other than Group H occupancies, manually operated horizontal sliding doors are permitted in a means of egress from spaces with an occupant load of 10 or less.
Several of these exceptions address horizontal sliding doors – including the sliding office doors that have become more common due to the high cost of square footage and the amount of floor space a typical swinging door requires. Sliding doors to individual bathrooms are also being used more often due to space constraints. The exceptions for power-operated doors, horizontal sliding doors, and revolving doors refer to additional requirements that include provisions for egress through these doors – revolving doors must “collapse”, sliders must be able to be opened with a force perpendicular to the door – commonly referred to as “breakout” or “breakaway”, and there are maximum force requirements for these operations.
This section of the IBC also addresses the direction of door swing. In high hazard (Group H) occupancies, all doors must swing in the direction of egress travel, regardless of the occupant load. In other occupancy types, the door must swing in the direction of egress travel when the door is serving 50 or more occupants.
“Doors shall swing in the direction of egress travel where serving an occupant load of 50 or more persons or a Group H occupancy.”
NFPA 101 – The Life Safety Code also requires doors to swing in the direction of egress travel when serving a High Hazard occupancy of any occupant load, or other occupancy types with an occupant load of 50 or more (with limited exceptions for horizontal sliding doors and smoke barrier doors in existing health care occupancies). In addition, NFPA 101 requires doors leading to an exit enclosure to swing in the direction of egress travel, except when the door serves an individual living unit that opens directly into the exit enclosure.
Depending on the code being enforced, other locations where doors are required to swing in the direction of egress travel may include refrigeration machinery rooms (IBC), certain electric rooms (NFPA 70 – National Electric Code, and the IBC), some stair doors in mercantile occupancies (NFPA 101), and doors in aircraft loading walkways (NFPA 101). Consult the applicable code or standard for more information on these requirements.
Encroachment
When a door swings in the direction of egress travel it may swing into a corridor that is part of an egress path, where a certain egress width must be maintained. The term “encroachment” refers to how far a door projects into the required egress width, and it is measured with the door in two different positions – with the door in its fully-open position, and with the door in the position where it encroaches upon the egress width to the greatest extent (often 90 degrees).
Egress width is determined by one of two methods – either the width prescribed by the IBC, or a calculation based on the number of occupants and a width factor (the greater of the two prevails). The minimum egress width allowed by the IBC is 44 inches, unless one of the following exceptions applies:
- For access to and utilization of electrical, mechanical, or plumbing systems or equipment – 24 inches
- When the required occupant capacity of less than 50 people – 36 inches
- Within a dwelling unit – 36 inches
- In Group E with a corridor having a required capacity of 100 or more – 72 inches
- In corridors and areas serving gurney traffic in occupancies where patients receive medical care, which causes them to be incapable of self-preservation – 72 inches
- In Group I-2 in areas used for the movement of beds – 96 inches.
To serve the occupant load of an area, a wider egress corridor may be required – based on the calculation. The IBC uses a factor of 0.2 inches per occupant for egress components other than stairways (0.3 inches per occupant for stairways). If a corridor is serving as a required means of egress for 300 occupants, the required egress width is 5 feet (300 occupants x 0.2 inches per occupant = 60 inches). This required egress width is greater than the minimum corridor width of 44 inches prescribed by the IBC.
When a door swings into the required egress width, the encroachment of the door into the required width must be considered. According to the IBC, a door may not reduce the required egress width by more than one-half at any point during the door’s swing. For example, if a corridor is 5 feet wide and the required egress width is 5 feet, a 3-foot door swinging into that corridor would encroach too far into the required egress width, because at 90 degrees the door will obstruct more than half of the required egress width. These restrictions do not apply to doors within individual dwelling units or sleeping units of R-2 and R-3 occupancies, which would include apartments, hotels, dormitories, and child/adult care facilities.
The IBC also states that when doors are fully open they may not reduce the required means of egress width by more than 7 inches. According to the IBC, the “surface-mounted latch release hardware” mounted on the corridor side of the open door is exempt from inclusion in the 7-inch projection when it is mounted between 34 inches and 48 inches above the finished floor. NFPA 101 contains very similar requirements.
One piece of hardware to consider with regard to encroachment is the door closer, because it may limit the fully-open position of the door. For example, a closer with a built-in stop (or a separate overhead stop) may have a maximum degree of opening of 110 degrees. The corridor must be wide enough to provide the required egress width with the door in this position – the door is only allowed to project 7 inches into the required width when it is fully open, 110 degrees in this case.
Graphic: International Building Code Commentary
In Summary
Doors must typically swing in the direction of egress travel when serving:
- A high-hazard occupancy of any occupant load.
- Any occupancy type with an occupant load of 50 or more occupants (consult the code for exceptions).
- Exit enclosure doors except when serving one living unit (NFPA 101 only).
Two measurements must be taken into account with regard to encroachment:
- The door may not extend more than halfway into the required egress width at any point in the door’s swing.
- The door may not extend more than 7 inches into the required egress width when in the fully-open position. According to the model codes, latching hardware on the corridor side of the open door is not taken into account if it is mounted between 34 inches and 48 inches above the finished floor.
Codes may vary depending on the edition adopted as well as local requirements. Consult the applicable codes for more information. The Authority Having Jurisdiction makes the final determination on matters related to code compliance.
You need to login or register to bookmark/favorite this content.
How loaded can I get before Single Operation Egress can be necessary?
…worried in Geneseo…
Not to worry…you will have single operation egress whether you’re loaded or not. 😀
Nice work, Lori! Well-written, nothing to edit, and it’s even California-legal, too. Now, if the rest of the continent would catch up with us regarding lever-handle return design (tongue-in-cheek).
Thanks Tom! I should have you and someone from NYC review all of my articles because those two places seem to have the “alternative” sets of code requirements.
Thanks for the post. I have one question regarding service or mechanical access doors. Are they also required to not block an egress path and fall under the same restrictions as normal doors?
Thanks
Hi Paki –
There are no special requirements regarding service or mechanical doors, other than the requirement for panic hardware on some electrical rooms. Maybe if you describe your specific situation I can be more helpful.
– Lori
Section 1005.2 states that “Doors in any position shall not reduce the required width by more than one half”. The diagram above where the door is at 90 degree swing, the distance at the edge of the door (latch side) and the corridor wall shouldn’t be “not less than one half”? Instead of “required width less 7 inches” as shown in the diagram?
Hi Al –
There are two measurements to take into consideration – one with the door fully open, and one where the door is extending into the required clear width to the greatest extent. The graphic is from the IBC Commentary, and in the example on the right they’re showing a door that can only open to 90 degrees because of the wall condition (I know it looks like the door can open past 90 but that’s what they’re trying to illustrate). In the fully-open position the door is allowed to encroach on the required clear width by 7″ so I think the diagram is correct.
– Lori
In the above example, the required width is 60″, what if the corridor provided is 84″ over width by 24″. Can the 36″ door swing into the corridor at 90 degree position? OR still the minimum required width applies in determining how much you can encroach into the corridor?
It’s the required corridor width that the code is trying to maintain – not the overall corridor width. If the required corridor width is 60″ and the overall corridor width is 84″, the two measurements would be as follows:
1) If the door can only open to 90 degrees because it is being restricted by the closer, stop, or wall condition, then (in round numbers) it will protrude into the required clear width (60″) by 12″, which is more than the 7″ allowable encroachment in the fully-open position.
2) If the door can open past 90 degrees, to the point where it is only protruding into the required clear width (60″) by 7″, then it’s acceptable because at the point where it encroaches to the greatest extent (90 degrees) it still leaves half the required width clear. The required clear width is 60″ – half of that is 30″, and you’d have 48″ clear.
Keep in mind that the required clear width depends on the “corridor width” section of the IBC and the required egress capacity.
Lori I believe the code intends that the required width of the MOE not be reduced more than 50% by the door swing, regardless of whether or not it is restricted by a closer. If at any point during the swing the encroachment of the door reduces the required MOE width to less than 50%, the door is not compliant.
Keep up the great work, google has sent me here many times!
Tim in NY
Hi Tim –
I agree – the door can’t reduce the clear width to less than half of the required width at any point during its swing, but there is also a limit of 7″ of encroachment with the door in the fully-open position. If a closer or overhead stop limits the degree of opening to 90 degrees, for example, the door in that position can’t project more than 7″ into the required clear width. Many doors swinging into a corridor can open to 180 degrees, but not always.
– Lori
I looking to see if there is a code exception to the FBC 2010 in that we can used a sliding “barn” door for emergency department exam rooms that do not need to be powered?
Hi Betty –
I think the exception you’re looking for is here:
1008.1.2 Door swing. Egress doors shall be of the pivoted or side-hinged swinging type.
Exceptions:
1. Private garages, office areas, factory and storage areas with an occupant load of 10 or less.
2. Group I-3 occupancies used as a place of detention.
3. Critical or intensive care patient rooms within suites of health care facilities.
4. Doors within or serving a single dwelling unit in Groups R-2 and R-3.
5. In other than Group H occupancies, revolving doors complying with Section 1008.1.4.1.
6. In other than Group H occupancies, horizontal sliding doors complying with Section 1008.1.4.3 are permitted in a means of egress.
7. Power-operated doors in accordance with Section 1008.1.4.2.
8. Doors serving a bathroom within an individual sleeping unit in Group R-1.
9. In other than Group H occupancies, manually operated horizontal sliding doors are permitted in a means of egress from spaces with an occupant load of 10 or less.
Doors shall swing in the direction of egress travel where serving a room or area containing an occupant load of 50 or more persons or a Group H occupancy.
How do you feel about having an entrance door swing opposite of the security door on a single dwelling?
Does it meet code for life safety?
Hi Gordiz –
It’s probably fine, but if you want to send me a photo or partial plan I can take a look (lori.greene@allegion.com). Here is an article about what I think you’re describing, except in a non-residential application: http://idighardware.com/2015/05/decoded-screen-doors-and-doors-in-a-series/
– Lori
Its really too bad that a sliding barn type door isn’t allowed for more application. The swing would be of less importance and a safety factor as well as a space saving factor as well. I think using modern DIY barn door hardware would make the installation and operation totally safe as well.
Hi! Great article.
I am having a sticking point with a colleague over the definition of “Required Width”. The corridor itself is required to be 60″ to allow for accessibility. However, the calculation of .2 x Occupant Load is much smaller (10″). With doors open, is the minimum clearance 5″ or 30″? I have seen this accepted with the smaller number (5″) in the past. Your thoughts?
Hi Callie –
The minimum clear opening width for a door is typically 32 inches, although it is usually 41 1/2 inches for doors in a health care facility that must accommodate the movement of beds. There’s an article here that might help: http://idighardware.com/2014/01/decoded-clear-opening-width-and-height-february-2014/.
– Lori
Thanks Lori… I guess I wasn’t clear in my question though!
What we’re really looking at is the encroachment of an open door into the “required exit width” of the corridor. And what the exact definition of required exit width is. My colleague and I are batting this around… In a 44″ corridor with an exiting load of 100 (so, 20″ required) would the remaining clear exit width of the corridor when the door is fully open need to be 22″ or would 10″ suffice? (I say 10″, he says 22″).
Thanks for your forum!
Hi Lori –
Is there any specific code that prohibits/restricts the swing of a restroom stall door inside stall and possibly hitting an accessory when it’s in an open-position (i.e. baby-changing station inside stall). This is for single-use and I would argue that baby changing station is not always in an open-position. Theoretically, if someone is inside the stall, then door would be locked and no one can enter. I would have included a sketch to illustrate exact condition but this platform does not allow that option. Appreciate any feedback.
David
Hi David –
There are accessibility requirements for clear floor space around bathroom fixtures in accessible restrooms and stalls, but I haven’t seen anything in the codes or standards about something like a baby changing station which has an open position and a closed position. If you’d like to send me the sketch I can ask the ICC for staff opinion. My email is lori.greene@allegion.com.
– Lori
Hi David,
My boss, one of the the principals of our company and I are engaged in the same debate right now. I see that your question was never answered. I say the ‘required width’ in my case is the 44″ and he says that is is the 0.2 exit load factor. I was taight by my mentor that ‘required width’ refers to corridor width. I even found a commentary in the IBC (I’m in CA and we use the CBC but it similar) from 2016 that clearly uses the term corridor in relation to this particular code issue. Did you and you colleague ever discove the correct answer to this issue. What did the Building Official determine regarding in their intrepation. I am curious to know. I’m being told to ‘correct’ the plans and unfortunately, this project has zero time for multiple responses to the building department. Last, in your opinion (I’m not signing these drawings) is this a possible lawsuit from someone getting beamed by the door (there are several like this all on the exit route)? I would really appreciate your thoughts about this and hope that you will be able to respond to this dated post…
Lori,
I’m an architect working on an optometrists’ office. I’ve discouraged them from trying to use sliding barn doors for their small exam rooms because of the normal code requirement of side-hinged winging doors in any means of egress. You have a great article but can you be more specific about this exception in 1008.1.2 ?
“9. In other than Group H occupancies, manually operated horizontal sliding doors are permitted in a means of egress from spaces with an occupant load of 10 or less.” So, since no other specifics are given there, can we take it that no horizontal applied force perpendicular to the door is necessary? (like would be in the break-sway commercial powered auto-sliding doors). The owner wants to use basic sliding barn door tracks applied to the wall and so obviously it is not a break-away engineered system. Do you think that meets the definition of manually operated horizontal door? Thankfully the occ. load from these spaces is less than 10, and the bldg is fully sprinklered and my hall is non-rated. Thanks.
Hi Dan –
My understanding is that the breakaway/breakout feature is not required for manual sliding doors serving an occupant load of 10 or less. So for these exam rooms, you could use manual sliders on standard track and they would not have to swing in the direction of egress – they could slide horizontally.
– Lori
I hate to disagree with Tom, but for OSHPD projects (medical projects) in California they are still including both levers in the 7 inch rule.
Hello Lori,
Thank you for this post! I was wondering if you would know of any exceptions pertaining to encroachment resulting from the use of large access doors or panels, functioning only to reach equipment, and do not allow someone to move from one room to another. Thanks.
Hi Abi –
I haven’t seen anything in the model codes that is specific to this application, but the code official may allow it based on the usage.
– Lori
I have a space that is less than 50 occupants with only one exit. If I have to add a second exit due to exceeding the common path of egress distance, then do both exit doors need to swing out since there are two now, or can they both swing in since the space is still less than 50 occupants.
Hi Barry –
Since the door swing is tied to the number of occupants, I think they can still swing in because you have not increased the occupant load.
– Lori
I am doing code review for R2 where the design has a mechanical closet door swinging into the corridor. It encroaches only one apartment’s means of egress but I still flag this as a code violation. My boss said no since it is not a door normally used. I tried to argue, but I finally said “I respectfully disagree”. Your thoughts?
Hi Lauri –
It depends on which code is being enforced, I think. I found this in Annex A of NFPA 101: “A.7.2.1.4.3 The requirements of 7.2.1.4.3 are not intended to apply to the swing of cross-corridor doors, such as smoke barrier doors and horizontal exits. Neither are the requirements intended to apply to doors from rooms that are typically unoccupied, such as janitor’s closets, electrical closets, or telecommunications closets.”
I don’t see anything like this in the IBC.
– Lori
Exception 2 of of 1005.7.1 of IBC 2015 states an exception for individual dwelling and sleeping units for R-2 and dwelling units of R-3. This itself doesn’t apply to this situation, but the commentary contains the explanation: “Based on the intent of this section other situations that could be approved by the official having jurisdiction would be situations where the opening door would not block egress, such as the end of a corridor , or the room was not typically occupies, such as a janitor’s closet.
Like most situations, the commentary is not enforceable, so if the AHJ flags this situation (in an IBC controlled project) they are technically in the right.
Great to know – thanks Stephen!
– Lori
Hi Lori,
Are restrooms considered unoccupied spaces?
Kind regards
Nalan
Hi Lori,
I have a space with more than 50 occupants with two exits; the client wants these two doors that open out to a hallway to open 180 degrees. Is there a code requirement for closers to be installed or can the doors open a full 180 degrees?
Hi Lalo –
There is no code requirement for a closer if the doors are not fire rated or in a smoke barrier, but if the doors happen to have panic hardware you would want closers. There are some door closers that can open to 180 degrees if you need one.
– Lori
Hi Lori,
Just following up on this wonderful discussion on both doors in series as well as encroachment into the path of egress and have had many discussions relating to these items!
Currently I am working on a Core and Shell building where we have been in discussion with the tenant interiors design teams verifying that their tenant exits do not impede on the minimum required egress width. One location that we are still unsure about is where we have an out swinging tenant door across from an in-swinging patio door so both of the 90 degree max – double doors swing into the corridor that connects both these elements to the egress stair. Per section 1005.7 I believe we are good since they are each studied independently (at least that how commentary reads) and independently they do not decrease the required egress width by more than 7″ However reading on the doors in series I have not found one distinct definition that explains how code interprets doors in a series and if these doors were considered in series we would have to provide a much larger separation than what currently exists. Do doors across from one another that someone may walk through both in a row but are not required to for egress count as doors in a series or since they are separated by a corridor that services much more than those two doors take away the possibility of these being considered in series?
Hopefully this makes sense!
Hi Dana –
I’m happy to take a look at the plan if you want to send it to me (lori.greene@allegion.com), but doors in a series are usually doors where you must walk through both – like in a vestibule. It’s an interesting question though. On the encroachment, I agree that each door is studied independently so you should be ok there.
– Lori
Hi Lori,
Because I’m always mining your old posts… I’d love to see an update to this one with comments on the 2015 edition of the IBC handbook. The far right notation on the diagram (now 1005.7.1) has been modified to read “Minimum width is equal to the required width minus 7″ and 1/2 required width”. My first read is that a 44″ required corridor width then allows for a (7″+22″) reduction and thus only 15″ is required to be clear if the door is stopped at 90 degrees. After more reading, I think they intend that to be “or” so that the limit is a 7″ if the door stops at 90 degrees (37″ minimum) and 22″ is still the absolute minimum. If so, it seems they’ve just added confusion with the new note because there is no case where 7″ is greater than 1/2 the required width. I don’t have the 2018 edition yet to see if it’s still written that way.
George
what about a non occupied space like a water entry room, seldom used. Is there an exception for extending further into egress for that condition than the usual 1/2″ +7″?
Hi Jenny –
There isn’t a specific exception, but an AHJ might allow it.
– Lori
Hi Lori,
What are your thoughts on an overhead door used in a small flammable storage room. The room is normally unoccupied unless dropping off or picking up and the door is raised while in use. The problem is in the event of a fire the fusible link would melt and close the door. The door can be raised manually. Is this permissible with the storage exemption and load occupancy under 10?
Hi Aaron –
I would check with the AHJ on that one. It sounds a bit questionable to me.
– Lori
What prohibits a door from swinging over a property line?
Hello Lori, I have a office space with only 1-2 occupants and there has been a request to change the swing of the door . It is now a left hand inswing up against a wall ,very typical.. The client wants to change the door to a right hand inswing but it will now be into the room space. Light switches will now be on the wrong side of the door and its seems to go against emergency egress. This is in a hospital setting in Ontario Canada
Hi Craig –
I’m guessing it’s probably not a code issue, but I’m not as familiar with the Canadian codes. If you click on the orange ball in the right sidebar, you will find the email addresses for our Canada code experts, and they should be able to help.
– Lori
[…] Life Safety Code requires doors to swing in the direction of egress travel when serving a High Hazard occupancy of […]