2003 building code won't allow sliding glass or double doors

I am bringing up a problem in reference to sliding glass doors and double doors. This is in reference to the 2003 IBC. It is damaging to my design, and is potentially damaging to others designs if my assumptions are correct. I can not say that I am 100% positive that this is the case because in the code book there are so many if, ands, thens, if:then, etc... It was way over my head, but I left it up to my architect to properly interpret and send me on the right path. First, Sliding glass doors: I have found that sliding glass doors can not be the primary means of egress from a room. For instance, in a control room... The sliding door can't be the only means of egress from that room. Same would go for an iso room. The only exception is if a sliding glass door is motorized. Second, There must be a minimum distance of 48" between any door. So this means no double sliding glass door and no double entrance door unless the door is 48" apart from the other door. Can anyone verify this... Like I said, this is the way my architect is reading the code book. I am curious to know if anyone has built in a commercial building while using sliding glass doors as primary means of egress. And if anyone has installed double doors without having 48" in between.

This is an interesting question. Regarding the 48" for double doors. It appears to apply when the doors are both opening in the same direction. Yet when they open in the opposite direction it's not a problem apparently as we have done just that in Meow Mix and it's been approved - Massachusettes has the most stringent building regulations I've experienced so far. Meow Mix also has double opening doors in an out of the Drum room and the vox booth. Both have been approved. It also has double sliders between the vox booth and the control room - again no problems.

Good to know John. Thanks for the info... Regarding the vox booth at meow mix: is the sliding door the primary means of egress from the booth? Meaning, is there another exit path for a person to get out of the booth? I think you are dead on about the swinging path of the double doors. It seems as though the IBC says sliding doors or okay just as long as they aren't primary means of egress.

Folks - I had to edit this post because I grabbed the wrong code book off my shelf last night when I first responded. Vicks, John is mistaken about the swinging doors - and your architect is correct about the sliders - although that isn't the biggest reason they are verboten. Understand that Jon's state is not using the 2003 IBC - and the code requirement there does allow non-motorized sliders in a means of egress, but residential exterior sliding doors are still not allowed. He can (however) use an interior comercial slider (with no motorization) while you can't. This is different depending on the particular state and building code they are using. IN YOUR CASE The 2003 IBC clearly states as follows:

Section 108.1.2 Door Swing Egress doors shall be side-hinged swinging.

However - sub-section to that - specifically ss 5. under exceptions states:

5. In other than Group H occupancies, horizontal sliding doors complying with section 1008.1.3.3 are permitted in a means of egress.

It is when you finally go to section 1008.1.3.3 that the requirement kicks in - where it gives you a list of 8 items (all of which must be met) in order for means of egress doors to be sliding - and it is the first item that effects you:

1008.3.3 Horizontal sliding doors. In other than Group H occupancies, horizontal sliding doors permitted to be a component of a means of egress in accordance with Exception 5 to Section 1008.1.2 shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. The doors shall be power operated and shall be capable of being operated manually in the event of power failure.

However - let's suppose (for a moment) that you were able to motorize a standard sliding glass door you now have a problem with the manner in which the door bottom and threshold passageway of these doors are constructed. Exterior Sliders: The problem with a standard (exterior) slider is that the way they are manufactured creates a barrier at the door base that is not in compliance with either the American's With Disabilities Act or ANSI A 117.1 These doors always exceed the maximum 1/2" variance allowed for an interior door threshold. Only exterior sliders can have up to a Max 3/4" variance. The Code:

26.10.1 Thresholds shall not exceed 1/2” (1/2” = 13mm) in height and shall be beveled on both sides with a slope no greater than one in two (1:2)(50%). 26.10.3 Exterior sliding door thresholds shall note exceed 3/4 of an inch (3/4” = 19mm) and shall be beveled both sides with a slope no greater than one in four (1:4) (25%).

Swinging Doors: The Code:

26.7 TWO DOORS IN SERIES. The minimum space between 2 hinged or pivoted doors in series shall be 48” (48:= 1219mm) plus the width of any door swinging into the space. Doors in series shall swing either in the same direction or away from the space between the doors.

Please review the PDF files I have provided below - the Andersen slider base detail is per Andersen as modified by me to focus on the issue/ The remaining details were taken directly from the American's With Disabilities Act current enforced through the Department of Justice. John, I made Jon, aware of the issue with the doors when I did an ADA accessibility review (coupled with his state's disability act) and offered him a compliant soulution through the use of some commercial sliders made for storefront operations. I do know that it was the building owner's architect who approved his drawings (not the local building official) - and who told him (with me present) that he would sign off on the work - so the building official would never see it. AND He further stated that Jon would never have to worry about it unless someone who had a disability made a complaint - and then he would have to fix it. So in the end he did acknowledge that it was not code compliant using standard exterior sliding glass doors. Should a complaint be made the fines for non-compliance are up to 10,000 USD per Occurance - and the Federal Govt made the Justice Dept. self funding through the fines - so they tend to take them seriously. The last I knew Jon was considering commercial sliders for those openings with sliders - and changing to a single swinging door to resolve the other issue. I do not know if that changed or not. I also do not know of any way around the ADA requirements - they are very stringent. Sincerely, Rod

Folks, One of the difficulties with this is the fact that the US does not have a standard building code. Each state adopts their own codes - and their own methods of ensuring compliance. Add to that the faxt that each state has different codes for residential than for commercial and it can get even more confusing. For example - what the poster asked about in this post is nt allowed for commercial facilities - but is permitted in every residential code I know of. So in the state that this poster lives in - he can do it in his house - but not his office. In some states - the state adopts a general code - but then each municipality within the state has the right to either adopt that code for their area - or not. If not - they have a list of different codes to choose from for their urisdiction. And they are all different in a lot of respects. There are also states where inspection are not performed on construction projects outside of certain lines of the municipality - In those cases the builders are obligated to construct according to code - but they only have to sign an affidavit certifying that they did......... only upon complaint from the owner would the state send an inspection team in to determine compliance. Add to this the Federal Government's American's with Disabilities Act - (which has been adopted by only 17 states last time I check) which was enacted in it's current form in 1994 - with only 2 modifications to date - the fact that the Justice Department releases each year the current ADADG (American's with Disabilities Act Design Guildeline) which is NOT code - but has major modifications where conformance is not required (sort of their wish list of where things would go) PLus each state that has not adopted the exact wording of the ADA has enacted their OWN Handicapped Access Code - A lot of those States have referenced ICC/Ansi A 117.1 as their handicapped guuidelines. Then you have the Life Safety Fire Codes, and (in some states) the adoption of local ordinances that affect the codes. I hope that you can begin to see the difficulty in designing so that everything is in compliance. Also understand that the adoption of a refernced material by the codes do not adopt that in it's entirety unless it is stated so. Most adoptions are as stipulated by reference - and then any differences between the referenced standard and the code shall be driven by the code. Now - take all of this in one state - You have the State Building Code, The State Fire Safety Code, The Federal ADA - The State Handicapped Accessibility Code - and Perhaps a set of local Codes. As design progresses each aspect of the design has to be in accordance with whatever is the most stringent of ALL of those codes. So for each step you are trying to review 4 (perhaps 5) sets of codes to see what the eventual outcome is to be. What I do is to purchase all of the books - and make a set for each state I work in that is completely cross referenced so I create a map leading me through it all. And no 2 states are the same. The last part of the puzzle has to do with deisgn review for permit - the issuance of a permit - and the acceptance (even with issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO or C of O ) and code violations. In all instances - design review by local officials and the issuance of a permit does NOT create a modification of the code requirements and release you from your responsibility to comply with the code. That responsibility lies first with the permit holder - and secondly to the Owner of the Property. Stating (upon someone realizing that work in pklace is not code compliant even though it is in compliance with the construction drawings) that you were issued a permit for the work to be done like that will not stop the officials from forcing you to correct the work to meet compliance. All on your nickle - it doesn't cost them a thing. On the federal level - an architect can be fined for issuing a design stamped :"for permit" or " for construction" for just having design flaws that do not comply with the ADA even if the construction hasn't taken place yet. And on both a state and federal level - you can be forced to correct defficient work to make comply with the code used at the time of the issuance of the permit - even years after the work is completed and you have the "C of O". I hope that helps you understand just what a juggling act this all is......... Sincerely, Rod

This is a great section of information, Rod. It inspired me to get a copy of the IBC (2006 version, although my local authority uses 2000) and study it. I do have one question though. Recording studios are not specifically called out in the Use and Occupancy Classification section (no direct reference to recording studios in the IBC at all that I can find, for that matter). So I guess the powers that be would use the nearest fit. What would that typically be? I'm assuming there are different fits for comercial studios versus 'hobby' or non-commercial studios. And I know (as you clearly stated) that it will depend completely on which variant of code relative to the location and underlying jurisdiction rules we are talking about. Even so, I am struggling to determine what classifications are typically used. Any thoughts or opinions would be appreciated.

brianrcdd wrote:

This is a great section of information, Rod. It inspired me to get a copy of the IBC (2006 version, although my local authority uses 2000) and study it. I do have one question though. Recording studios are not specifically called out in the Use and Occupancy Classification section (no direct reference to recording studios in the IBC at all that I can find, for that matter). So I guess the powers that be would use the nearest fit. What would that typically be? I'm assuming there are different fits for comercial studios versus 'hobby' or non-commercial studios. And I know (as you clearly stated) that it will depend completely on which variant of code relative to the location and underlying jurisdiction rules we are talking about. Even so, I am struggling to determine what classifications are typically used. Any thoughts or opinions would be appreciated.

Brian, A commercial venture (such as a recording studio) is considered to be defined by the Business Use Group. It becomes that by default if you just think the use groups through logically. It is not a Place of Assembly - not open to the general public for their purposes to join together and congregate. Neither if it residential in nature - nor a Hospital or merchantile(it is not for the selling of goods). Not storage nor an institution......... It is a business - it sells a service (where-as in mechantile one sells a product). A personal Studio located in your residence is considered R-3 - covering One and 2 family dwellings. When ytou refer to "HObby" that is great as long as you never ever change anyone a penny - if you charge then it is commercial - and as such would require you to comply with all codes including accessibility. Also - your state probably uses a special residential code for 1 and 2 family dwellingfs that is less restrictive than the standard code - you should ask the building official that question as well. I would however caution you - if your state is using the 2000 version - you should go out of your way to purchase that version - there can be vast differences between versions - that could lead you to some very bad places. The older versions are always available. In every update there are changes - and these changes do not apply to your state. In qaddition - you shold contact your local official to verify that your state does not have an ammendment to the code that modifies what you are reading - the CT Ammendment is (for example) 115 pages long and modifies the IBC in many respects. It is the 2 of them together - along with what ever they are using for an Accessibility Code - the Federal ADA and whatever they have adopted as their Life (Fire) Safety Code that ends up determining what the real building code is. You have to read them all - and then - whatever is the most stringent shall apply. An example of this would be that the IBC allows a handrail to be a max 2" diameter (Section 1009.11.3) - in the ADA it is 1 1/2" max diameter (Section 4.26.2)- the ADA is more stringent - and thus will control. It gets quite involved - a lot of cross referencing to cover the bases - but idf you carefully make marked cross references in each book so as to clarify what controls - then it becomes much easier. BUT - it is potentially very damaging to have a different version of ay code other than what is actually in use. So order your copy of the 2000 - and verify with the building inspector if you have to obtain a supplement or Ammendment that might apply in your state to bring you on track. Sincerely, Rod

Thanks Rod. I actually have a friend that is going to bring me a copy of the 2000 version soon, but curiousity got the better of me. I figured it wouldn't hurt me to get my bearings on the newer version while I was waiting. Those things are a tough read, as is the NEC. So getting used to the layout is not wasted time to me. Now that you provided some logic behind the selection, The Business category is so obvious I'm embarrassed that I even asked. And the R3 as well, for the home studio makes sense too, especially the verbiage: "Adult facilities that provide accommodations for five or fewer persons of any age for less than 24 hours." Reflecting on my own design (which is littered with sliders), I believe I have to make a design change. It's true that (as I noted early in my thread) I don't plan on it being commercial at first. But even if going commercial is 5-10 years out, and it was allowable to use them now, it would be foolhardy to proceed with something that will eventually have to be replaced, at great cost and effort. Time spent in this forum is time well spent indeed.

brianrcdd wrote:

Thanks Rod. I actually have a friend that is going to bring me a copy of the 2000 version soon, but curiousity got the better of me. I figured it wouldn't hurt me to get my bearings on the newer version while I was waiting. Those things are a tough read, as is the NEC. So getting used to the layout is not wasted time to me.

Reading the 2000 is as much value as reading the 2006 - if they are using the 2003 you can't just average out the differences. Like I said - buy the 2003 - sell the 2006 at amazon.com for a 10 loss and you won't miss it much.

Reflecting on my own design (which is littered with sliders), I believe I have to make a design change. It's true that (as I noted early in my thread) I don't plan on it being commercial at first. But even if going commercial is 5-10 years out, and it was allowable to use them now, it would be foolhardy to proceed with something that will eventually have to be replaced, at great cost and effort.

Then pay very VERY close attention to hallways - required clearances at doors - and manuvering clearances in general. Both inside of rooms as well as outside of rooms - handicapped people have to be able to move in both directions. For example - any door that I am going to enter that opens towards me requires 60" from the face of the door and back - and 18" free space on the latch side of the door - thus about 63" from the hinge side wall to free space. So that is slightly more than a 25 square foot area that I can have no obstructions in. Nothing can intrude on that space. Watch out for anything attached to the walls. Wall sconces cannot be more than 4" deep (away from the wall) if they are less than 80" above finished floor. Otherwise you have to put a cane guard at the side wall below them to push a blind person away from running into them. Changes in elevation is another area to pay close attention to - including outside of the building - not just in. They have to be able to make it inside to make use of everything else. Door hardware becomes important - you can't just use quick-set locksets from home depot - they have to use L shaped ur U shaped handled. They are not supposed to have to do any pinching motions to make it from A to B. Most important is to remember that not all of this applies to people in wheelchairs - there are ambulatory handicapped people as well....... And finally - that out of all the codes - which one really needs to understand in order to do this right - always the most stringent will apply. So you need the building code - ICC/ANSI a117.1 - the ADA and your state fire safety code to really put it all together correctly. JUst the building code won't get it done alone. I klnow that Mississippi does not have a State Building Code - so verify with your municipality exactly what you are supposed to comply with. Rod And Rod That along with handicapped toilet facilities are the things that will kill you.

vicksburgstudio wrote:

I am bringing up a problem in reference to sliding glass doors and double doors. This is in reference to the 2003 IBC. It is damaging to my design, and is potentially damaging to others designs if my assumptions are correct.

Vicksburg One thing to look at - I know for a fact that Dallas has a document (a set of ammendments) to the 2003 that you must have to properly read the code in that municipality - you can get them at the Oak Cliff Municipal Center, 320 E. Jefferson Blvd. Room 118, Dallas, TX 75203. Make it a point to either pick them up - or go to your architects office to read them just to make sure that they did not modify this in some manner. You would be amazed at the number of architects I run across who completely ignore changes to the code through local or state modifications - and then when I cite them deficiencies in their designs - get all defensive when I pull out the addendums......... and say crap like : "Oh - well I didn't know you wanted me to look in there" - and I am dumbfounded - like "Duh........ it's the code - not the book on your desk"...... Good luck, Rod

Thanks Rod!' You have totally helped me out and I am sure this has helped and will help a lot of people here. The building code can be intimidating at first... There are soooooo many weird things built in. I will definitely look at the set of amendments to make sure

Agreed! Rod's extra effort in explaining the pitfalls associated with designing a code compliant studio should be required reading. There should probably be an entire forum section devoted to just this subject. Having looked at almost every build on this forum, I think it's safe to say some probably don't meet the requirements for their locale. Short personal note here. I just realized I have unintentionally mislead by stating my location as Mississippi. That is currently true, but we are moving next month across the state line to Alabama. This is where the build is actually taking place. I am updating my profile accordingly. My starting point for applicable codes was the county's website : http://www.mobilecounty.org/publicworks/permits/whatyouneed.htm

brianrcdd wrote:

Short personal note here. I just realized I have unintentionally mislead by stating my location as Mississippi. That is currently true, but we are moving next month across the state line to Alabama. This is where the build is actually taking place. I am updating my profile accordingly. My starting point for applicable codes was the county's website : http://www.mobilecounty.org/publicworks/permits/whatyouneed.htm

Brian, A couple of things concerning your project. First off - if it's in your home the code would actually be the 2000 IRC (As amended) So you will want a copy of those amendments. THE IRC is much less restrictive than the IBC - and - seeing as you do not have a code requirement to open your home to any one other than who you should choose to - nor are you obligated to make it handicapped accessible just because you and the wife have friends who are in wheelchairs. You won't ever turn your home project into a full blown commercial venture - so I would head that route if I were you. 1st big reason - none of the handicapped requirements apply -so you can do the double doors if you want - and things like the 1/2" threshold height won't apply. Next - I will give you 10 to 1 odds that the restriction asbout using sliders doesn't exist in that code. SO think it over - homeowner studios have advantages that don't exist in commercial ventures. Rod

I think you and I are of the same school of thought. When I go commercial on down the road, I will be better off finding a more suitable location anyway. Non commercial does afford me some elbow room in the design, so I should probably just enjoy it. I will retrieve the relevant (and specific) documents required, and let you know. Vicksburg, my apologies for an unintentional thread hijack. You know how conversations can go :)