California CRC - attached garage door?

[Gawdzira]

Is it still required to have a 20 min. door with self closing hardware on an attached garage to house door? I heard that this was removed from the CRC.

[Joe_Carrick]

I don't believe the self closing hardware is required but any of the fire resistive requirements must still be met.  ie:

• 20 minute rated
• solid core wood minimum 1-3/8" thick
• hollow core metal.

Self-Closing is still a good idea.

[Bob-Roraback]

Absolutely, it is required,

From the 2022 CRC

R302.5.1 Opening Protection

 

Openings from a private garage directly into a room used for sleeping purposes shall not be permitted. Other openings between the garage and residence shall be equipped with solid wood doors not less than 1³/₈ inches (35 mm) in thickness, solid or honeycomb-core steel doors not less than 1³/₈ inches (35 mm) thick, or 20-minute fire-rated doors. Doors shall be self latching and equipped with a self-closing or automatic closing device.

[Joe_Carrick]

Actually, if the residence and garage are fire sprinklered there's an exception.  I need to get the 2022 revisions as my 2018 has an error in what the exception is.

[Gawdzira]

Thanks, I found this: (pic)

But, I am unclear if the exception with fire sprinklers would allow a non 1-3/8" thick door. Like a shaker style panel door?

[JKEdmo]

On 1/20/2023 at 7:24 PM, Gawdzira said:

But, I am unclear if the exception with fire sprinklers would allow a non 1-3/8" thick door. Like a shaker style panel door?

 

Alan, my interpretation is with a sprinklered residence and garage, there is no requirement addressing the door leaf construction.  Only the hardware -- the door must self-close and -latch.

 

You could contact the building official for a verdict.

 

That said, I would be inclined to call out a 20 minute or solid core door that is self closing and latching even if the house is sprinklered.  It's not much extra money and you can always exceed the code requirement especially when it comes to life safety.

 

Jim

 

 

[Joe_Carrick]

There's probably 100's of thousands of existing homes built before 1980 in California that don't have automatic closers on doors between the garage and the house.  Many of them are hinged to swing into the house rather than out - which should be the preferred direction.  That's not mandatory but it is good design practice.

 

 

[Richard_Morrison]

On 1/24/2023 at 3:28 PM, Joe_Carrick said:

Many of them are hinged to swing into the house rather than out - which should be the preferred direction.  That's not mandatory but it is good design practice.

There is usually a step down into the garage. Swinging the door into the garage then would be a code violation in this instance.

[CharlesVolz]

1 hour ago, Richard_Morrison said:

There is usually a step down into the garage. Swinging the door into the garage then would be a code violation in this instance.

 

This has been discussed here before. I think it should be a provision of the IRC but was not at that time. It could be a provision of the CRC. Richard, please educate me on that one. Thanks.

[Richard_Morrison]

4 hours ago, CharlesVolz said:

 

This has been discussed here before. I think it should be a provision of the IRC but was not at that time. It could be a provision of the CRC. Richard, please educate me on that one. Thanks.

I think this should be around your R311.7.6 Landings for Stairways, in the Exceptions. 

[Joe_Carrick]

It really depends on whether the door is an "Egress" door or not.  Section R311 is only concerned with "Egress".  The 

CRC actually allows a step-down of up to 7.75" even in those cases.

 

IAE, I typically have a level condition on both sides of doors between the house and the garage.  I don't step-down until 5.5-6' from the door.  That step-down provides a "wheel-stop" for the cars.

[CharlesVolz]

Here is the old thread where this was discussed.

 

 

[Richard_Morrison]

On 2/24/2023 at 6:36 AM, Joe_Carrick said:

It really depends on whether the door is an "Egress" door or not.  Section R311 is only concerned with "Egress".  The 

CRC actually allows a step-down of up to 7.75" even in those cases.

No, it does not matter whether the door is egress or not. R311 has a Chapter heading of Egress, but includes requirements for ALL stairs, too. "Exception: A floor or landing is not required at the top of an interior flight of stairs, including stairs in an enclosed garage, provided that a door does not swing over the stairs.

[Alaskan_Son]

4 hours ago, Richard_Morrison said:

No, it does not matter whether the door is egress or not. R311 has a Chapter heading of Egress, but includes requirements for ALL stairs, too. "Exception: A floor or landing is not required at the top of an interior flight of stairs, including stairs in an enclosed garage, provided that a door does not swing over the stairs.

 

Just to be clear, a floor or landing is not required provided that a door does not swing over the stairs.  It then stands to reason that if a door does swing over the stairs then a landing is required.  That does not however preclude a single 7-3/4" drop-down to the landing for a non-egress door.  Egress requirements specifically state that the door cannot swing over the landing.  For non egress doors, the wording is changed to state that the door cannot swing over the stairs.  The requirements are therefore indeed a little different.

[Richard_Morrison]

14 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

Just to be clear, a floor or landing is not required provided that a door does not swing over the stairs.  It then stands to reason that if a door does swing over the stairs then a landing is required.  That does not however preclude a single 7-3/4" drop-down to the landing for a non-egress door.  Egress requirements specifically state that the door cannot swing over the landing.  For non egress doors, the wording is changed to state that the door cannot swing over the stairs.  The requirements are therefore indeed a little different.

A "stair" in the IRC is defined as one or more risers. Therefore, a door that swings over a dropped landing is still swinging over a stair. And frankly, anyone that designs a door that has a step behind it that drops as you're opening it (surprise!), probably deserves the subsequent lawsuit.

[Alaskan_Son]

5 minutes ago, Richard_Morrison said:

A "stair" in the IRC is defined as one or more risers. Therefore, a door that swings over a dropped landing is still swinging over a stair. And frankly, anyone that designs a door that has a step behind it that drops as you're opening it (surprise!), probably deserves the subsequent lawsuit.

Damn, I would hate to live in a world like yours where the automatic presumption is an ensuing lawsuit.

 

All that aside.  I’m a little perplexed.  Are you honestly of the opinion that the code section and successive subsection in question are just repeating the same thing?  That sounds a little ridiculous.  I’m also curious then why you think they would be using different words the second time around.

[Alaskan_Son]

22 hours ago, Joe_Carrick said:

There are special exceptions for exterior doors other than "Egress" which includes the 7-3/4" dropdown and the swing over the "landing" isn't required other than for "Egress" doors.

 

 

 

Right.  Here's the actual wording from the 2021 IRC:

 

Quote

R311.3.2 Floor elevations at other exterior doors.
Doors other than the required egress door shall be provided with landings or floors not more than 7-3/4 inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold.

 

That's it.  That's the whole rule.  No mention of door swing at all.

 

Where people seem to confuse the matter is by trying to shoehorn wording from the exception into the rule itself.  The exception to the rule is this:
 

Quote

Exception: A top landing is not required where a stairway of not more than two risers is located on the exterior side of the door, provided that the door does not swing over the stairway.

 

The exception is clearly trying to provide a way out of needing a landing on one side.  The most common place we see this is where we have super narrow garage that has room for one or 2 steps up to the man door but not enough room for a landing.  The landing requirement therefore is removed from one side, but only if the door doesn't swing that direction. 

[Richard_Morrison]

19 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

The exception is clearly trying to provide a way out of needing a landing on one side.  The most common place we see this is where we have super narrow garage that has room for one or 2 steps up to the man door but not enough room for a landing.  The landing requirement therefore is removed from one side, but only if the door doesn't swing that direction. 

Michael, you need to be careful of the definitions. A "stairway" is the stairs INCLUDING any landings. You can have a couple of steps up to the main house from the garage without a landing, but the door has to swing INTO the main house. It can't swing over a "stair" which is defined by the Code as one or more risers. You should not be stepping through a door that swings away from you as you're also stepping down. This is incredibly dangerous.

[Alaskan_Son]

7 hours ago, Richard_Morrison said:

You should not be stepping through a door that swings away from you as you're also stepping down. This is incredibly dangerous.

I doubt you actually believe what you’re saying as strongly as you’re letting on unless you’re also totally opposed to shower curbs and storm doors.  
 

Regardless of that though, perceived danger isn’t the discussion.  We’re talking about code requirements, and I am quite familiar with the definitions of not only stairway but also stair, landing, floor, riser, and flight amongst other applicable terms.  It makes absolutely perfect sense to me, exactly as written ESEPCIALLY considering all those definitions, and I don’t see how they could’ve made it any more clear.  In essence:
 

Egress doors need properly sized floors or landings at or near threshold height on both sides.  An exception is made to allow a drop on one side provided that the door doesn’t swing over that dropped landing.  For these required egress doors there is no exception made for a landing on both sides.

 

For non-egress doors, the requirement is relaxed a bit to allow for a drop on both sides (irrespective of door swing).  In addition, an exception is granted to do away with one of the required landings provided that the door doesn’t swing over the stairs on that exempted side. 
 

And if the code itself isn’t clear enough regarding both levels of relaxed requirements, then the official IRC commentary should further clear it up:

 

Quote

For exterior doors other than the required egress door, the top of the threshold can be up to 7³/₄ inches (196 mm) above both the inside and outside floor surface.

 

[Richard_Morrison]

I'm not sure why we are continuing this discussion. A garage door is not an egress door, but the code is clear that you cannot swing a door (whether egress or non-egress, exterior or interior) OVER a stair. (Which is ONE riser, per the Code definition) I don't see this as even a gray area. But do whatever the hell you want. Darwin's law applies.

 

[Rich_Winsor]

Holy Cow, look at all the red ink. I hope I'm not

putting myself in peril if I suggest this discussion

might be best served if it were to be resumed in

the thread that had to do with discord.