• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Door closer

e hilton

e hilton

Bronze Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
3,148
Location
Virginia
Got a question about door closers. In a bank branch there is door to the women’s restroom with a closer, and it is non-compliant because it is too close to the lav so there is not enough clearance. The simple solution is to remove the closer, then the required clearance goes away.
Since it’s a restroom (single occupant) it would be nice to have the door stay closed when not occupied. We’re thinking about installing spring hinges. They would not be strong enough to actually close and latch the door, but the intent is to keep the door mostly closed. Maybe only put on one or two, enough to slowly swing the door.
 
Just to clarify: Are you saying that because the door has a closer and a latch you're required to have the 12-inch or 18-inch latch-side clearance (depending on which way the door swings), but you can't provide that clearance because the lavatory's location is within that distance from the door?
 
Exactly.
There was a detail on the construction drawings that showed the door to be 12” from the front of the lav. Unfortunately the dimension on the drawings was shown between the door frame and the lav, and of course the lav was not even on site when they framed the walls. The gc should have coordinated but did not, and/or the archy should have shown a dimension off an adjacent wall.
 
So this can open a debate, are spring hinges the same thing as door closers?

I think they are both door closers because they both close the door.

The only place in the code where they differ is in ICC/ANSI A117.1 section 404.2.7 Closing Speed:

404.2.7.1 Door Closers shall be adjusted so that from an open position of 90 degrees, the time to move the door to an open position of 12 degrees shall be 5 seconds minimum.

4404.2.7.2 Door spring hinges shall be adjusted so that from the open position of 70 degrees, the door shall move to the closed position in 1.5 seconds minimum

As you can see above the doors with spring hinges is required to close all the way.
 
Here's my take, but others may have different points of view...

The issue is not whether the thing that closes the door is called a closer or not, it's the issue of someone with disabilities having to overcome the resistance of a device that is intended to close the door. So if the door doesn't have a "closer" on it, but it does have something that will close the door such as spring hinges, then technically it has a "closer" on it.

Now for the contractor issue. Since the drawings show a required clearance between the door and the lavatory, the contractor is required to comply with the contract documents--thus, they must install the door to provide the indicated clearance. Coordination is not an architect issue--the contractor is responsible for means and methods, and the contractor's failure to coordinate the work does not alleviate the contractor's responsibility from complying with the contract documents. Therefore, the contractor is obligated to correct the situation to conform to the contract documents--and not to provide a "band-aid" installation.
 
e hilton, you did not state the location of your project, so I don't know which code applies. And while I always appreciate RGLA's opinion and inclined to personally agree with him about functional usage, ADAS does actually treat spring hinges differently than/ distinct from closers. Here's an excerpt from https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-ada-standards/guide-to-the-ada-standards/chapter-4-entrances,-doors,-and-gates :

"Are spring hinges and gravity hinges considered “closers” in determining the size of maneuvering clearances?

No. Some approaches require additional maneuvering clearances when a door or gate is equipped with a closer because of the additional force that must be counteracted in proceeding through doors. Since spring and gravity hinges do not significantly impact the opening force of doors, they are not considered “closers” for purposes of specifying door maneuvering clearance."​
 
Yikes said:
e hilton, you did not state the location of your project, so I don't know which code applies. And while I always appreciate RGLA's opinion and inclined to personally agree with him about functional usage, ADAS does actually treat spring hinges differently than/ distinct from closers. Here's an excerpt from https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-ada-standards/guide-to-the-ada-standards/chapter-4-entrances,-doors,-and-gates :

"Are spring hinges and gravity hinges considered “closers” in determining the size of maneuvering clearances?

No. Some approaches require additional maneuvering clearances when a door or gate is equipped with a closer because of the additional force that must be counteracted in proceeding through doors. Since spring and gravity hinges do not significantly impact the opening force of doors, they are not considered “closers” for purposes of specifying door maneuvering clearance."​
Click to expand...
Thanks, Yikes, I was not aware of that interpretation. However, they do make it vague by stating "do not significantly impact the opening force"--then the question now is, what is considered "significant"?

Something to also keep in mind is that the Access Board does not provide interpretations of the building code and if the IBC is involved, which references ANSI A117.1, then the building official may interpret the spring hinges as being "closers." You could use the Access Board's interpretation to convince the building official, but the B.O. is not obligated to accept it.
 
The door happens to be in Va. The construction is 4 yrs old, no chance getting the (inept) gc to return to fix it. The problem was discovered in a premptive ada inspection, and the tenant will fix it, question is what is the most cost effective and acceptable solution. Removing the hydraulic closer solves the problem, but then the aesthetic issue of an open door arises.

I like Yikes answer. :}

RL ... coordination could be part of the architects scope, if their contract includes CA ... construction administration. And they should have caught the problem during one of the weekly site visits during construction. So should the owners project manager. So should the gc pm and super. Lots of failure points here. And this is not a means and methods issue, it is conformance with the cd’s.

Interesting specs from Rick, the spring hinges have to close faster than a hydraulic closer.
 
e hilton said:
RL ... coordination could be part of the architects scope, if their contract includes CA ... construction administration. And they should have caught the problem during one of the weekly site visits during construction. So should the owners project manager. So should the gc pm and super. Lots of failure points here. And this is not a means and methods issue, it is conformance with the cd’s.
Click to expand...
Actually, an architect performs "contract administration"--or more specifically, "construction contract administration." Even if an architect is hired to perform contract administration, it is not the architect's responsibility to ensure coordination between the various trades and the installation of the work. The architect's responsibility is to visit the site and become familiar with the "progress and quality" of the work, according to AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. The A201 also states that the contractor is responsible for means and methods. It also states the contractor must "carefully study and compare the various Contract Documents...for the purpose of facilitating coordination and construction by the Contractor..."
 
The closer is not required by the code?!?!

Maybe on the door schedule, believe the situation can be solved if the owner agrees & a change submitted to AHJ
 
RL ... what you say is textbook correct, but addendums to contracts are common. Everything is negotiable.
And locating the door opening is not means and methods, that falls under adherence to the cd’s. If the gc scope includes setting roof trusses, then how the gc gets them properly installed is their m&m.
 
e hilton: Contracts are negotiable, but there is no contract between the architect and the contractor—the contractor cannot modify the architect’s scope of services, and the architect would well-advised not to take on responsibility that may not be covered by professional liability insurance.

I agree locating the door is not means and methods if the location is shown, but locating it based on a dimension from a yet-to-be-installed lavatory requires coordination, and coordination of the work is means and methods. Now, there’s nothing to prevent the architect from saying, “Hey, don’t forget that there’s a lavatory going there, so you might want to check your dimension” if the architect notices something. But it is not the architect’s responsibility to check to ensure that kind of coordination occurs everywhere all the time.

If the contractor does not coordinate the work and the architect decides to take on that responsibility, the action of the architect, if consistent, will have ratified a change to the construction contract without knowing it, and now the contractor can rely on the architect to perform coordination. Thus, if the architect makes an error while coordinating or fails to continue performing the coordination for the contractor, the contractor could make a claim to the owner for damages.
 
RLGA said:
Here's my take, but others may have different points of view...

The issue is not whether the thing that closes the door is called a closer or not, it's the issue of someone with disabilities having to overcome the resistance of a device that is intended to close the door. So if the door doesn't have a "closer" on it, but it does have something that will close the door such as spring hinges, then technically it has a "closer" on it.

Now for the contractor issue. Since the drawings show a required clearance between the door and the lavatory, the contractor is required to comply with the contract documents--thus, they must install the door to provide the indicated clearance. Coordination is not an architect issue--the contractor is responsible for means and methods, and the contractor's failure to coordinate the work does not alleviate the contractor's responsibility from complying with the contract documents. Therefore, the contractor is obligated to correct the situation to conform to the contract documents--and not to provide a "band-aid" installation.
Click to expand...

I'm still in the camp for this answer, regardless of the "spring" vs "closer" interpretation. It is still a variable that increases resistance beyond the normal hinge design of the door.
 
In practice (the way my architect works) the AOR should catch the misplaced door opening at some time before the paint is dry, and in addition to a verbal comment to the site super the AOR would advise me of the problem, and i would send a nastygram to the gc pm telling him they need to make the correction, at no additional cost or schedule delay. And then i would tell the architect that their detail sucks.
 
e hilton said:
Interesting specs from Rick, the spring hinges have to close faster than a hydraulic closer.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make sense to me that one can get through a spring hinge door faster than a hydraulic closer door.

While we are on the subject at a drug store I go to they have automatic folding doors and at a supermarket where they have automatic sliding doors the doors seem to close really fast. Are these considered door closerers? Since they are not hinged and do not open 90 degrees does the closing speed per ICC/ANSI A117.1 section 404.2.7 required?
 
RL ... i thought of something else ... you can delegate authority, but not responsibility. So the aor could be tasked with more coordination than you are used to seeing, but the level of responsibilty doesn’t change from the aia document.
 
RLGA said:
e hilton: Contracts are negotiable, but there is no contract between the architect and the contractor—the contractor cannot modify the architect’s scope of services, and the architect would well-advised not to take on responsibility that may not be covered by professional liability insurance.

I agree locating the door is not means and methods if the location is shown, but locating it based on a dimension from a yet-to-be-installed lavatory requires coordination, and coordination of the work is means and methods. Now, there’s nothing to prevent the architect from saying, “Hey, don’t forget that there’s a lavatory going there, so you might want to check your dimension” if the architect notices something. But it is not the architect’s responsibility to check to ensure that kind of coordination occurs everywhere all the time.

If the contractor does not coordinate the work and the architect decides to take on that responsibility, the action of the architect, if consistent, will have ratified a change to the construction contract without knowing it, and now the contractor can rely on the architect to perform coordination. Thus, if the architect makes an error while coordinating or fails to continue performing the coordination for the contractor, the contractor could make a claim to the owner for damages.
Click to expand...

This issue becomes even more likely under CM - Multiple Prime Contracts.
 
jar546 said:
I'm still in the camp for this answer, regardless of the "spring" vs "closer" interpretation. It is still a variable that increases resistance beyond the normal hinge design of the door.
Click to expand...

"Free swinging" is the key word here; openable with minimum effort as in only requiring perpendicular "pushing" by the user or use of an "assist" device accessible within (unobstructed) reach ranges.

At what point is a "licensed" contractor/sub to not be held responsible for not adhering to code and the CDs?
 
ADAguy said:
At what point is a "licensed" contractor/sub to not be held responsible for not adhering to code and the CDs?
Click to expand...
You missed a comment. The construction is 4 yrs old, and was accepted by the owner at turnover. Any chance for punch list work is long gone. The issue was found during an ada survey, and the tenant is going to make it right, even though there have not been any complaints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top