I’m working on my next Decoded article, about the limitations of the codes and standards on the hardware that can project into the clear opening of a door. This is more complicated than it should be, because of some code language that could be interpreted a couple of ways. The Decoded article will include information on projections into both the clear width and the clear height, but in the meantime I wanted to break this post out separately where the upcoming change is easier to find. (Update: This actually became 2 Decoded articles – the first, on clear height is here.)
The International Building Code – 2018 edition and prior, requires doors to have a clear opening height of 80 inches. The code includes an exception: Door closers and door stops shall be permitted to be 78 inches (1980 mm) minimum above the floor. This means that a door closer arm can project down into the required clear opening height as long as there is at least 78 inches of clear height measured from the floor to the lowest part of the closer. But what type of “door stop” is the IBC referring to? An overhead stop? The stop on the frame?
The IBC Commentary includes a clarification which makes it seem like the code is referring to an overhead stop:
Allowance must be made for door closers and stops since their design and function necessitates placement within the door opening. The minimum allowable headroom clearance for door closers and stops is 78 inches. The 2-inch projection into the doorway height is reasonable since these devices are normally mounted away from the center of the door opening, thus minimizing the potential for contact with a person moving through the opening. This is consistent with the exception in Section 1003.3.1. Other items that are mounted at the top of the door opening, such as an electromagnetic lock on a door or a pair of doors, would still require an 80-inch minimum headroom.
However, a change has been approved for the 2021 edition of the IBC, which clarifies this further and contradicts the IBC Commentary. IBC change proposal E41 modifies the previous language to state:
Door closers, overhead door stops, power door operators, and electromagnetic door stops locks shall be permitted to be 78 inches (1980 mm) minimum above the floor.
This means that an electromagnetic lock mounted in the center of the opening for a pair of doors, or an automatic operator that spans a large portion of the opening, will be allowed by the 2021 IBC to project into the clear opening as long as the minimum clear height is 78 inches.
What do you think about this change? Does it clear things up nicely, or does it cause concerns regarding accessibility?
You need to login or register to bookmark/favorite this content.
The part of this I never understood was if you need 80″ of clear opening than no one would be able to supply 6/8 high doors because the clear opening is 79-3/8″.
That’s the first thing I thought when I read this! I’ve always heard of 2’8” clear width for ADA, and it makes sense; but 80” clear height? All of the 6/8 doors we sell don’t meet IBC requirements!!?? That’s crazy. Sounds like an RFI and possible CO for making all 6/8 become 7/0!!
Seems clear. IBC-2018 allows closers and overhead stops to be at 78″. Anything else needs to be 80″. IBC-2021 allows closers, OH stops, mags, and operators to be at 78″.
Question: are thresholds taken into consideration when measuring a clear opening height?
I always thought the measurement was from finished floor.
It seems to me that the nominal 2″ encroachment into the opening height (net 78″) is reasonable for overhead mounted closers, stops, and door operators. The inclusion of magnetic locks is a bad idea, both for the pair example you cite as well as for a single doors. Most mag locks will have their hinge-side end within the “center of a single door and since they are almost always more than 2″ tall would encroach on the 78” clear area.
I have encountered this a few times by AHJ’s on 6’8″ DOORS when an automatic door operator was installed. However because the arm is not centered or in the path of travel it was approved. But now I make sure all doors requiring an operator are 84″
Yes – 6-8 doors are the problem.
– Lori
Georgia defaults egress to the LSC, which is much clearer in allowing nothing in the 6′-8″ clearance. Almost every this we do has 7′-0″ doors.
I have been specifying nothing shorter than 7′-0″ doors in any of the common spaces in the buildings I design to insure I’ve got enough clear height to appease the AHJ and to account for any last minute Owner generated hardware or operation revisions.
As my projects tend to take years to complete, new technologies and options continue to become available and Owners are always wanting to add the most current products to their buildings, I think it’s cheap insurance to cover any circumstance that arises.
Joseph stated something in his reply that raises a question. He said he has “been specifying nothing shorter than 7′-0″ doors in any of the COMMON spaces”. I’m not sure Joseph intended his reply to only mean common areas but maybe he did.
Does the 78″ clearance only pertain to doors in common spaces? What about electrical/mechanical rooms, etc? I’m sure there are plenty of tall electricians out there. I don’t see where the location is clarified. Can someone clarify this?
Hi Eric –
There are some exceptions in the IBC section on clear opening size, but most of them relate to the width and not to the height. These are the two exceptions for height:
6. Door openings within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit shall have a minimum clear opening height of 78 inches (1981 mm).
7. In dwelling and sleeping units that are not required to be Accessible, Type A or Type B units, exterior door openings other than the
required exit door shall have a minimum clear opening height of 76 inches (1930 mm).
Other than those, I don’t know of anything that would allow a lower height or greater projection into the clear opening height.
– Lori
Eric,
Common Areas /Spaces is semantics.
The reason that i’m only concerned with Common Area doors is that no one ever puts a maglock or any other type of protruding hardware on a door inside a residential unit.
Bad idea…..for those of us blessed (or cursed) with generous height, even an 80″ opening with any hardware encroaching upon clear height is a hazard! Once while at a site survey at a senior living facility, I witness a low hanging (probably post-inspection installed….) electromagnetic lock take the hat off a tall elderly gentleman.
As for me, I will have to ditch the heels!
While someone at the height of 6’8″ is rare (even with a hat), someone hitting a height of 6’6″ is not unheard of. Closers and overhead stops that are mostly out of the way when opening the door, I understand. Having a friend that’s 6’5″, I would be concerned about him hitting the mag lock that’s right in the way or having to duck down to avoid it. I’m not sure this is the smartest thing IBC has done.
Seems to me a fairly clear requirement: we need our accessible openings to have a minimum 32″ clear width and 78″ clear height. I like this latest clarification — need to include all the hardware in the calculation.
Tall tale: I have a lanky friend who creased his scalp on a door closer. Of course, it was a pot closer on a corner bracket, but hey — that opening was definitely not accessible.
I’ll join the rest of the ‘tall’ lobby here – having closers and such close to the hinge side, no problem but having protrusions in the main walking path through a door is a bad idea, at least in the world of 6-8 doors. My brother and I have been victims of this for years with scars to match. Guess we need a better lobbying group. Don’t get me started on 34 inch countertop heights . .