Growing pains: it is no simple task for products such as exit devices to comply with ADA...

It is no simple task for products such as exit devices to comply with ADA guidelines.

It is no secret that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has had, a tremendous effect on the building industry. Everyone in the chain, from architects to specifiers to contractors, has shouldered

Like all other segments of the building products industry, exit device manufacturers have recognized this responsibility, and have accepted the charge of developing door hardware which appropriately addresses the intent of ADA. However, even though the commitment of exit device manufacturers to comply with accessibility guidelines is solid, actually meeting the expectations of ADA is no simple task.

All places of public accommodation must be accessible to persons with disabilities - the intent of ADA is perfectly clear. Identifying ways to meet this intent is a matter with which every discipline of the building industry, including architectural hardware manufacturers, has struggled. Because ADA offers few specific details on how to comply with the accessibility needs of the disabled, members of the building industry have searched for appropriate guidelines as expressed in ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).

Predominantly, ANSI's A117.1 has been adopted by the industry, as the standard used in ADAAG to quantify issues relating to ADA compliance. No matter what their area of expertise, those in the industry simply want to know what works, how they can make it work, and with what specific guidelines they must comply.

For exit device manufacturers, what works has been evolving since the introduction of ADA. As addressed in ANSI standard A117.1, there are three major areas of concern with exit devices in relationship to accessibility guidelines: (1) grasping the pull side of exit device trim, (2) contact with surface vertical rods and latches at the bottom of a door and (3) protrusion of exit devices into what is defined as the "clear area" of an opening.

Architectural hardware manufacturers have had to carefully consider the appropriate manner of addressing each of these issues. Close consideration of these problems has resulted in changes to and a maturing of traditional exit devices, their operating trim and choice of applications, so they are brought into compliance with the intent of ADA.

Q. What is the compliance problem with grasping the pull side trim on an exit device, and how is this situation being addressed?

Until the passage of ADA, traditional knob or thumbpiece trim was used in almost every publicly accessed building. Their simple installation and cost efficiency made them the frequent choice of builders. With the introduction of ADA however, knobs and thumbpieces became problematic. Pull side operating trim on accessible doors now must be easy to operate with one hand. In addition, operable parts of the trim cannot require tight grasping or twisting. Hence, knob and thumbpiece exit device trim suddenly became unacceptable in accessible buildings.

To address this problem, lever trim for exit devices was the obvious solution. Levers provide simple operation which require no grasping while still offering the necessary locking capability. As compliance with accessibility guidelines has developed into a driving factor in construction, the use of exit devices with lever trim has become almost universal in public buildings.

Though lever exit device trim complies with accessibility requirements, they pose other problems. Exit devices with lever trim, by their nature, are easier to vandalize than knobs. Lever trim, when locked, typically becomes rigid. When in this mode, it is simple for a vandal to apply a great deal of torque to the lever - forcing it up or down and causing damage to the exit device or trim itself.

To make lever exit device trim vandal-resistant, two major modifications to the traditional design are available. Both free-wheeling and break-away or clutch-style levers were developed to provide a greater measure of vandal resistance that traditional levers simply cannot offer.

The free-wheeling lever allows an exit device to be securely locked, while the handle is still able to rotate with minimal resistance. This free rotation reduces the temptation and opportunity for vandals to apply damage, as they can on a rigid. lever.

In similar fashion, the break-away or clutch lever, when locked, also provides for movement of the handle, but offers resistance until the force exceeds a predetermined value. As torque is applied to the locked lever, it will "break away" and rotate 45 to 50 degrees from its normal horizontal position until it contacts a positive stop. The lever can rotate in this manner without incurring any damage. When in the less horizontal "break-away" position, the amount of damaging torque that may be easily applied to the trim and exit device mechanism is greatly reduced. In addition, the lever can be reset to its standard position without damage.

When selecting between devices with lever trim, consider the potential for attempted forced entry or vandalism. Where there is a high probability of trouble, a clutch style trim is often preferred, as it is most resistant to vandal-induced damage. Freewheeling trim also offers resistance to vandals, and is much more appropriate than trim which is rigid when locked.

Q. What is the problem with surface vertical rods and latches in compliance with barrier-free guidelines, and what is being done to alleviate this problem?

Surface vertical rods and latches can pose another issue to consider. Although not required by ADA, ANSI A117.1 suggests the bottom 12 inches of a door must be free from obstructions to allow the door to be opened by the foot rest of a wheelchair without creating a trap or hazard. Traditional surface vertical rods and latches protrude from the base of a door and can create this trap. Other mobility aids such as walkers and crutches can also come into contact with surface vertical rods or latches hindering a disabled person's ability to exit freely.

There is an additional concern that prolonged contact between bottom vertical rods and latches and wheelchairs, walkers or other mobility aids may cause serious damage and operational problems with the device. This could create additional security, life safety and accessibility concerns.

To address the problems with traditional surface vertical rod exit devices, two product options have emerged. These options address unique situations and offer solutions to specific needs. A third solution offers a remedy which may be questionable in terms of complying with barrier-free requirements.

A modification of the standard surface vertical rod exit device which is rapidly being accepted is the less-bottom-rod option. This variation addresses the intent of barrier-free accessibility since the lower rod and latch are completely deleted, leaving nothing to obstruct the smooth bottom face of the door. In addition, this modification is simple and cost-efficient to install, as well as being aesthetically pleasing.

Also available is a concealed-vertical-rod exit device. This option conceals the top and bottom rod and latch mechanisms within the thickness of the door. Again, the concealed-vertical-rod addresses the intent of barrier-free access by providing a smooth, uninterrupted bottom door face. Finally, several manufacturers offer a bottom-rod-and-latch deflector which wraps around the lower edge of a door, concealing and protecting the bottom rod and latch. However, the deflector causes a significant protrusion from the bottom of the door and does not provide a surface completely flush with the door. In addition, this modification is considerably less aesthetically pleasing than the above-mentioned options and must be purchased and installed at an additional cost.

When choosing between vertical rod exit devices, one must consider the code requirements and security needs of the opening. For an interior door with a fire rating up to 1 1/2 hours, a less-bottom-rod device may be ideal. The device is simple and cost effective to install and maim rain. With the removal of the bottom rod and latch however, the security of the opening may be slightly compromised. Because of this, the less-bottom-rod device is generally used in interior applications.

Where security is a primary concern, such as on an exterior door, or in a situation where a three-hour fire rating is necessary, a standard concealed-vertical-rod exit device may be the best choice. The device creates no accessibility problems, is available with up to a three-hour fire rating and with its top and bottom latching capability, provides a high degree of security.

There are several additional issues to consider when choosing a concealed-vertical-rod exit device. Generally, it is more expensive to purchase and install this type of exit device because installation is more time intensive and requires additional door preparation. Extra time is often required with installation and adjustment of concealed devices to ensure proper functioning since the components are less accessible.

Finally, if a door must be made barrier free immediately, and there is no time for retrofitting or replacement of the current door or hardware, a deflector can be added, assuming it meets with locally-established accessibility guidelines.

Q. What is "clear area" and why are exit devices sometimes considered problematic in relation?

Clear area, as defined by ADA, is simply the distance from the face of the door to the face of the door stop. ADA explains only that the clear area of an opening must be wide enough to be accessible to persons with disabilities, The generally referred to quantification of clear area is ANSI A117.1, which identifies accessible clear area as an opening of 32[inches] when the door is opened 90 [degrees].

It is important to note however, that this is the ANSI standard. Some municipalities have established more stringent measurements as their clear area. These stricter guidelines must be followed in the localities that have adopted them.

The problem that exists with clear area and exit devices is equally as complicated as the issue of clear area itself. Exit devices protrude from the face of a door. Does this mean that they infringe on the clear area provided by the opening? Since they are installed higher than the typically traveled path of a walker or wheelchair, does this become a non-issue? Must the guidelines be followed to the letter? If so, even when an exit device protrudes into clear area, the opening would still be considered ADA compliant because the measurement would be taken from door face to stop face. Or, should the intent of ADA be the crucial issue to address? If so, an exit device infringing on the required 32[inches] could be considered non-compliant. The issue is a cause of consternation for many people with good intentions towards ADA.

The solution to this problem is simple architectural foresight. When planning a building meant to be accessible to the general public, consider what kind of exit devices will be used. Then, simply design enough clear area into the openings that the projection of an exit device is inconsequential. Be proactive in designing, and then frantic reaction to accessibility issues will be unnecessary. If appropriate thought is put into design, there will never be a call for expensive specialty products or a costly need for retrofitting to remedy a lack of compliance.

Under the auspices of ADA, the building industry has seen tremendous change in the construction of buildings meant to be places of public accommodation. Manufacturers of architectural hardware have in no way escaped the growing pains experienced by their associates in other segments of the trade.

Through careful consideration and effort however, growing pains have become growth gains as exit devices have become truly useful to all segments of the population. They now provide accessibility for all persons in public buildings without compromising their level of performance. This is truly a welcome progression.

RELATED ARTICLE: Clear Area

Joseph G. Lesniak, DAHC, DHI Technical Director

The Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities standard - CABO/ANSI A117.1 - has been open to comment, change and review since 1995. As of this time, it has just completed the Revised Second Public Review Draft.

Among the proposed changes, the following relates to "clear width."

"4.13.1.4 Clear Width. Doorways shall have a clear opening of 32 in (815 mm) minimum. Clear opening of doorways with swinging doors shall be measured between the face of the door and stop, with the door open 90 degrees. Openings more than 24 in (610) deep shall comply with 4.2.1 and 4.3.3. There shall be no projections into the clear opening width lower than 34 in (865 mm) above the floor. Projections into the minimum clear opening width more than 34 in (865 mm) and up to 80 in (2020 mm) above the floor are permitted but shall not exceed 4 in (102 mm)."

If this change is accepted and approved for ADA, a projection of 4[inches] (min) would be allowed above 34[inches] from the finished floor. Accordingly, the majority of problems with exit device projection would be eliminated.

When this approval becomes effective, DHI will prepare an article alerting our readers to this and other changes that are pertinent to the industry. This would include such items as lock mounting heights, the use of spring hinges, vision panel location, sign location, etc.