Accessible Door Pull

[LGreene]

The accessibility standards are not specific about door pulls - the required clearance behind them, the shape, size, etc. Quite a few years ago I asked the ICC, the Access Board, and the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (I live in MA) for their opinion, and was told that you need to be able to slide a flat hand through behind the pull. I have also heard of manufacturers using a clearance of 1 1/2" based on the handrail requirements. Because of the requirement to slide your hand behind the pull, I did not consider flush pulls or closed pulls accessible. The standard for aluminum doors has changed from a closed pull to an open pull, which could be for accessibility reasons or aesthetics, or both. Here's a photo of the closed pull vs. open pull:

View attachment 1982

Several manufacturers are offering flush pulls and closed pulls that are advertised as ADA compliant, but I don't know what this is based on. This graphic shows a fairly wide closed pull as an accessible pull, but how would you determine how wide it would need to be, and what clearance is required?View attachment 1983

Would you consider the pulls below accessible? On what basis?This is a flush pull, recessed into the door. The opening is about 3" x 3" - maybe a little bigger. The lip that you are supposed to pull on projects out by 3/8", but the overall depth of the pull (without the lip) is only 1" so there's not much clearance.View attachment 1984

View attachment 1986

This one is surface-mounted on the door. The overall height is 11", and the overall width is 5 1/4" but about half of that is mounted flat on the door and not part of the area you'd slide your hand behind. The clearance between the face of the door and the back side of the pull is 1 1/2". View attachment 1985

View attachment 1982

View attachment 1983

View attachment 1984

View attachment 1985

View attachment 1986

/monthly_2013_10/mismatched-pulls-768x1024.jpg.c25d9d2f7727db44d675676db6517554.jpg

/monthly_2013_10/Types.gif.ece128bb5a38398a208cbb670921761f.gif

/monthly_2013_10/572953ee1d30f_FlushPull1.jpg.e6de1c5a76b3cf799e126a41f3302024.jpg

/monthly_2013_10/572953ee23854_VRTrim.jpg.09af8bda71d64b6a6c5413f68dcdb1da.jpg

/monthly_2013_10/572953ee267f6_FlushPullDiimensions.jpg.d41652be72b156551920e68211f48212.jpg

 

[jar546]

These are the kind of things that may need to be specified. Right now I believe the only thing we can go in is whether it requires grasping AND twisting.

 

[lpiburn]

IMHO the recessed pulls are not acceptable but the closed pulls are. I justify this by thinking of what disability the regulations on door hardware graspability are intending to address. There is a wide range of disability in the hands: A wrist brace (carpal tunnel, etc), a cast (e.g. broken finger), arthritis (hence the no "tight pinching"), all the way to partial or full amputation (or birth defect) that results in a stump.

At the low end of the spectrum, the recessed pulls are perfectly fine because they don't technically require any of the prohibited motions such as grasping & twisting, but you do have to be able to position your fingers with adequate strength to operate it. At the other end, only the absolutely easiest hardware allows the disabled person to operate the door. From this perspective, I can picture an amputee being able to operate a closed pull, even though an open pull would be preferable. Recessed pulls? Not so much.

I think this is another good time to remember that the code is a minimum. Just because something satisfies the letter of the law doesn't mean it is well designed.