 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Cori
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | San Juan, Puerto Rico |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, BD/MM, CD, BP | | Exams Passed: | PD, BD/MM, CD | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 06:18 pm |
|
I had some technical problems since its my first time posting!
My questions are?
1. Do I need two new doors? Since there are two existing doors going into the space.
2. What about the 3 landings? I have read that 2 landings max.
Attached Image (viewed 168 times):
|
Skip-m
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Scottsdale,AZ |
| Posts: | 1379 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 06:35 pm |
|
Cori wrote: I had some technical problems since its my first time posting!
My questions are?
1. Do I need two new doors? Since there are two existing doors going into the space. No. See my response to your question in hh's post.
2. What about the 3 landings? I have read that 2 landings max.
Where did you read this? Could you solve this vignette with only 2 landings? Switchbacks are sometimes discouraged, but the fact is that you may need to use them to solve the problem. So just as you should practice using the cut stair tool for the stair vignette, you should practice solving problems with switchback ramps.
Last edited on Tue Aug 19th, 2008 06:36 pm by Skip-m
|
Cori
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | San Juan, Puerto Rico |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, BD/MM, CD, BP | | Exams Passed: | PD, BD/MM, CD | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 07:51 pm |
|
I went back, and re read it, it just says that runs should be kept to a minimum but sometimes 3 runs are necessary. Thanks for pointing this out!
About the doors, I was confused because in the NCARB Passing solution it points out that 2 exits are necessary for egress since they include two exits in the exit corridor, do you get what I' was confused about?
|
Skip-m
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Scottsdale,AZ |
| Posts: | 1379 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 09:09 pm |
|
Cori wrote: About the doors, I was confused because in the NCARB Passing solution it points out that 2 exits are necessary for egress since they include two exits in the exit corridor, do you get what I' was confused about?
Actually no. Which version of the Passing solution are you refering to? NCARB 3.1, 4.0, Norman Dorf's, or Kaplan? I looked at NCARB's 3.1 passing and failing solutions and there is no reason given for the double door choice.
|
Cori
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | San Juan, Puerto Rico |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, BD/MM, CD, BP | | Exams Passed: | PD, BD/MM, CD | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 09:50 pm |
|
| ncarb study material, what you download from the site.
|
lug-nut
Architect
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Black, Unmarked Helicopter |
| Posts: | 12678 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | private messages disabled. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 10:57 pm |
|
Skip-m wrote: Cori wrote: About the doors, I was confused because in the NCARB Passing solution it points out that 2 exits are necessary for egress since they include two exits in the exit corridor, do you get what I' was confused about?
Actually no. Which version of the Passing solution are you refering to? NCARB 3.1, 4.0, Norman Dorf's, or Kaplan? I looked at NCARB's 3.1 passing and failing solutions and there is no reason given for the double door choice.
In 3.1 new double doors matching the existing ones are possible, but not required.
In 4.0 new double doors matching the existing ones are NOT possible.
|
hammerhead
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 153 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | humble pie |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 12:13 am |
|
lug and skipm,
if there are two doors downstream, it wouldnt force you into two upstream.
but, if you reverse the condition, two upstream doors would require two downstream. right?
in Dorf's "solutions" book, he has condition Cori is showing, where the two doors in the lwoer lobby actually feed the space upstream. the two doors downstream feed the egress lobby.
thoughts?
|
lug-nut
Architect
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Black, Unmarked Helicopter |
| Posts: | 12678 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | private messages disabled. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 01:32 am |
|
hammerhead wrote: lug and skipm,
if there are two doors downstream, it wouldnt force you into two upstream.
but, if you reverse the condition, two upstream doors would require two downstream. right? Yes.
in Dorf's "solutions" book, he has condition Cori is showing, where the two doors in the lwoer lobby actually feed the space upstream. the two doors downstream feed the egress lobby.
thoughts? Two single doors upstream do not necessarily require a set of double doors downstream.
We are not asked to calculate egress capacity in this vignette...however...
If we were, it is possible that each of the two single doors are shown at 36" wide. It is also possible that the required egress width for each door is much less..say 14" based on egress requirements. A 36" door is used because it is a common, comfortable size and meets ADA requirements. In this case, two single 36" doors would still not require a 72" opening downstream.
This is just an example explaining something we don't even have to do in this vignette.
|
btb
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 163 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP | | Describes Me: | waiting for BT |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 01:47 am |
|
lug-nut wrote: hammerhead wrote: lug and skipm,
if there are two doors downstream, it wouldnt force you into two upstream.
but, if you reverse the condition, two upstream doors would require two downstream. right? Yes.
in Dorf's "solutions" book, he has condition Cori is showing, where the two doors in the lwoer lobby actually feed the space upstream. the two doors downstream feed the egress lobby.
thoughts? Two single doors upstream do not necessarily require a set of double doors downstream.
We are not asked to calculate egress capacity in this vignette...however...
If we were, it is possible that each of the two single doors are shown at 36" wide. It is also possible that the required egress width for each door is much less..say 14" based on egress requirements. A 36" door is used because it is a common, comfortable size and meets ADA requirements. In this case, two single 36" doors would still not require a 72" opening downstream.
This is just an example explaining something we don't even have to do in this vignette.
I agree with the "egress capacity" logic, but in this case, I feel that sound design logic ditates a set of double door. Is it a downgrade to provide double door? thanks.
|
lug-nut
Architect
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Black, Unmarked Helicopter |
| Posts: | 12678 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | private messages disabled. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 03:08 am |
|
btb wrote: lug-nut wrote: hammerhead wrote: lug and skipm,
if there are two doors downstream, it wouldnt force you into two upstream.
but, if you reverse the condition, two upstream doors would require two downstream. right? Yes.
in Dorf's "solutions" book, he has condition Cori is showing, where the two doors in the lwoer lobby actually feed the space upstream. the two doors downstream feed the egress lobby.
thoughts? Two single doors upstream do not necessarily require a set of double doors downstream.
We are not asked to calculate egress capacity in this vignette...however...
If we were, it is possible that each of the two single doors are shown at 36" wide. It is also possible that the required egress width for each door is much less..say 14" based on egress requirements. A 36" door is used because it is a common, comfortable size and meets ADA requirements. In this case, two single 36" doors would still not require a 72" opening downstream.
This is just an example explaining something we don't even have to do in this vignette.
I agree with the "egress capacity" logic, but in this case, I feel that sound design logic ditates a set of double door. Is it a downgrade to provide double door? thanks.
See the 4.0 ramp vignette. Matching the existing exit doors is impossible.
|
Skip-m
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Scottsdale,AZ |
| Posts: | 1379 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 03:39 am |
|
hammerhead wrote: lug and skipm,
if there are two doors downstream, it wouldnt force you into two upstream.
but, if you reverse the condition, two upstream doors would require two downstream. right?
in Dorf's "solutions" book, he has condition Cori is showing, where the two doors in the lwoer lobby actually feed the space upstream. the two doors downstream feed the egress lobby.
thoughts?
The Example in Solutions is different. It is a Double door upstream of the new doors. Not two separate single doors upstream.
As Lug-nut Illustrates in his example, there is no information to determine a required width for the doors based on occupancy.
Last edited on Wed Aug 20th, 2008 03:40 am by Skip-m
|
hammerhead
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 153 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | humble pie |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 12:19 pm |
|
so, long story short, a single door will sufice in all conditions?
if not, what else should we be taking into consideration?
|
Skip-m
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Scottsdale,AZ |
| Posts: | 1379 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 04:05 pm |
|
hammerhead wrote: so, long story short, a single door will sufice in all conditions?
if not, what else should we be taking into consideration?
You can not say all conditions. As the "Solutions" example shows there could be a circumstance where double doors may be warranted. You need to evaluate the plan as you receive it. The likelihood that double doors will be required is indeed rare, as Prof. Dorf's example is the only precedent.
|
forum
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 86 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 24th, 2008 01:48 am |
|
| I'm just wondering - why is the lobby at elevation 2'-0" called "lower" and the one at elevation 0'-0" called "upper"...?
|
hammerhead
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 153 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | humble pie |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 05:26 pm |
|
in some sample vignettes, the lower level is -2'
just look out for the (-)
|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 5518 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Architect |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 10:53 pm |
|
hammerhead wrote: in some sample vignettes, the lower level is -2'
just look out for the (-) Since the practice software cannot handle a negative elevation, it's extemely unlikely that it will appear on the exam.
|
Current time is 07:42 am | |
|
|
|
|
