• 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

Latch vs. Exit Device

G

Gizmo

Bronze Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
42
Location
Duarte, California
According to the ADA Code requirement regarding a door with a "Latch and Closer", it is to have a minimum clearance of 12" beyond the strike-side on the push side of the opening. I am being told by some Access Compliance Inspectors at one of the largest School Districts in the Country, that this applies to Exit Devices as well. My argument is that the authors of the code implied that a "Latch" is a double levered device, e.g.; Lock and/or Latchset which require access to the leading edge of the door to unlatch it in order to open it. Since an Exit/Panic Device can be unlatched at the center of the door, this requirement is not required. I have been told that the code doesn't define a "Latch" as a lockset and should include an exit device because it latches onto the jamb. To be fair, these DSA Inspectors do not know a great deal about Architectural Hardware and I have tried to explain to them that since the authors of the Access Compliance code site both a "Latch" and an "Exit Device" throughout the text, they would have identified an Exit Device if so warranted. I even explained that if the work-around for not providing this clearance is not met, to install an access button which would unlatch either the strike or strike plate allowing one to just push the door open and pass through. Now what if I installed this push button on the door... and said how is that any different than how an exit device operates.

Is there any documentation I can share with them that explicitly details that a "Latch" is not an Exit Device? What amazes me is how determined they hold their position on a decision they made even when proven to be wrong! I liken this behaviour to a Defense Attorney who argues for his clients' innocence even in the face of overwhelming evidence that proves otherwise... they act as if they will lose their livelihood if they had to admit that they were wrong.

Thanks,

Bob
 
First, welcome!!

Second, hope you are not shaking to bad

Third, glad you asked an easy first question

Fourth, expect an answer just give it a day or two to populate

Fifth, there is a door guru on here,,,, not me,,,,

http://idighardware.com

How did you find this humble forum???
 
interesting argument, and I can see you point, I don't know off any drawing that support this position in all the code books I have.

The latch is the part of the hardware that secures the door closed into the strike plate not the operating handle, knob or push bar.

My opinion and the way I enforce the requirements
 
Since an Exit/Panic Device can be unlatched at the center of the door, this requirement is not required
Click to expand...
It takes more foot pounds of force to push a door open from the middle then from the end. If you can meet the requirement for opening force at the middle of a panic bar then I might agree with you. However I doubt this can be accomplished with a commercial door.
 
I have heard that concept before. I have tried to utilize that position. It has never been successful.

One loophole exists if your plan will allow it. There is no 12" latch side clearance required on a door with a latch and a closer if you force a side approach to the hinge side of the door. I have just used this to the amazement of the BO. I put a wing wall up 48" from the door that previously had a front approach. This forced the side approach to the hinge side of the door. Magically the 12" requirement disappears. Accessibility was not necessarily improved, but it is compliant.

Just noticed the link to the thread above was the one I had started. The wing wall was the solution for my issue.
 
I could not locate a definition of the terminology that would clarify it. I would have to say "latch" is generic and could be used for either a lever or exit so clearance would be needed. The clearance to access is the issue, not the hardware.

I like JPohling's wing wall solution and it looks viable to me.

Is this a theoretical question or is there a particular door involved and if the latter is true do you have any pic's or drawings?
 
cda said:
First, welcome!!Second, hope you are not shaking to bad

Third, glad you asked an easy first question

Fourth, expect an answer just give it a day or two to populate

Fifth, there is a door guru on here,,,, not me,,,,

http://idighardware.com

How did you find this humble forum???
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply and warm welcome to the forum... I found this msg. board via a google search.
 
TheCommish said:
interesting argument, and I can see you point, I don't know off any drawing that support this position in all the code books I have.The latch is the part of the hardware that secures the door closed into the strike plate not the operating handle, knob or push bar.

My opinion and the way I enforce the requirements
Click to expand...
Actually, the drawing does support my position. Carefully look at the illustrations and it's clear to see that the authors are referring to a double lever device. There are other illustrations where they drew an exit device on the door and referred to it as such. The biggest problem I have seen is that these "Access Compliance" Inspectors are not Door and Hardware experts. If they were, it would not be an issue, because the word "Latch" refers to a noun, not an adverb, or verb, or any other misrepresentation of the word. If you were to Google the word "Latch" and choose "Google Images" and you will see gate latches, trunk latches, hasps, and everything else that can be construed loosely as a so-called latch. What you don't see is an Exit Device amongst the hundreds of photos. Then add the words, "Architectural Hardware" to the existing search of "Latch", and you will find countless double lever or knob devices; yet still no Panic Devices. If the Authors of the Code regarding Doors and Hardware did not intend the word "Latch" as "Architectural Hardware", then we need to also include the word "Closer". "Closer" can also be defined as a Baseball Pitcher who comes in the end of the game to help win it for his team.

I am a seasoned Door and Hardware Contractor and have been installing doors for more than 30 years. If I call to order a Latch from any Architectural Hardware supplier, manufacturer, or retailer, there is no question that I am ordering a double levered device, not an exit device. The problem here is that logic is somehow thrown out the window with regard to this issue if the inspector is not familiar with Architectural Hardware. Just because an exit device latches a door onto a jamb, doesn't mean it incorporates a "Latch". In this statement, The panic device is the noun and "Latches" is the verb. The code is written in a clear grammatical way that specifies a "Noun". The actual name for the part that latches onto the jamb is actually called the "Strike" to those in my field. It latches onto the "Strike Plate".

Ask yourself why the author of this particular code calls out for the extra 12" beyond the strike-side of the door?

Also, why would the author use a double lever device in his illustrations?

Finally, why would the author identify exit devices separately on other illustrations and text, yet never refer to them as a "Latch" anywhere else in the code? They actually use both terms, latch and exit device, throughout the door and hardware code. If they use them separately throughout the code book, why wouldn't they specify an exit device on this particular instance? Again, I must reiterate to use logic, as the authors did when developing this code... what is the purpose of the additional 12" on the side of the door if the door has an exit device?
 
mtlogcabin said:
It takes more foot pounds of force to push a door open from the middle then from the end. If you can meet the requirement for opening force at the middle of a panic bar then I might agree with you. However I doubt this can be accomplished with a commercial door.
Click to expand...
I never implied to push the door open from the middle, I stated that it can be "unlatched" at the center of the door. How many pounds does it take to "unlatch" the door from the center, or edge, or an access button on a pedestal, 3' away. Assuming it takes no more effort to unlatch the door from the center, as it would from the strike side, the door can still be pushed open from the same area regardless if the door has an extra 12" of unmovable wall beyond the strike side of the door opening. In other words, the exit device's strike can be retracted from the jamb pushing anywhere across the surface of the door, and then can be pushed open from any part of the door as the operator sees fit. Since it is easier to push the door open from it's leading edge, I would bet that is where the person would still push it open from. Allowing them to unlatch it from a different area on the door has no bearing upon where the door is being pushed open from. That said, how is offering the extra 12" going to help someone in a wheelchair unlatch the door from the jamb, when they can unlatch it from nearly anywhere across the surface area of the door? Now thinking about it, I could see how the 12" would be advantageous for unlatching a lever lock or latch... the person in the wheelchair would need access to the first 4"-6" on the strike side to operate the lever.
 
Safecrackin Sam said:
I could not locate a definition of the terminology that would clarify it. I would have to say "latch" is generic and could be used for either a lever or exit so clearance would be needed. The clearance to access is the issue, not the hardware. I like JPohling's wing wall solution and it looks viable to me.

Is this a theoretical question or is there a particular door involved and if the latter is true do you have any pic's or drawings?
Click to expand...
The word "Latch" can be generic if used in a different context... but so can the word "Closer". You are obvious not familiar with Architectural Hardware, so I wouldn't expect you to know what that is. Since most do not professionally work in the industry, I would not expect you to know otherwise. But it's clear to anyone who installs Door Hardware professionally, that a Latch is a Double-Levered Device which requires strike side access to operate... hence the purpose for the 12" strike side clearance.

You state the "clearance to access is the issue, not the hardware"... please elaborate. In order to effectively operate a Lock and/or Latch (Lever Device), one must have access to the closest 6" to the strike side of the door. To unlatch an exit device, one must have access to any part of the surface of the door. It is impossible to unlatch a door 12" away from the door at the immovable wall. So what access are you trying to achieve that would require the 12" other than operating a lever to unlatch the door?

This is not a theoretical question. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of openings that different DSA officials have instructed me over the years to swap out Latch devices for Exit Devices to comply with this code. Now for some reason, a new batch of DSA and CASp inspectors, who know nothing about Architectural Hardware, are trying to say that the 12" still needs to be met. It's like they do not have common sense or logic. I have a door that is more than 8" deep in the opening, but has an exit device and closer with no double levered latch. They said that the door is not compliant. So I requested what is a work-around for this. They said that I had to install an Access Button that either unlatched the door using an electric strike, or electric panic device. So I replied can I use a compliant access button on the middle of the door. They replied yes. So I then said that since an exit device has an ADA complaint push pad on the surface, I will use that as the access button, or bar, and then I don't need to install an electric strike or panic device since merely pushing the bar will mechanically dislodge the strike from the strike plate and allow the operator to pass through the opening. They replied that without using an electrified panic or strike plate, I would not be in compliance. So I installed an electrified panic that operates manually even though though it has electrical wires inside of it. Since there was no need for a second "Access Button/Bar", we did not install it. The door operates manually even though there are wires inside the device.
 
View attachment 1033

The difference between (b) and © is that © requires the additional 12" if the door has a Closer and Latch, when the door surface is set more than 8" from the push-side surface of the wall. Since no one can actually dislodge the actual strike from the jamb without the use of lever device or panic bar, it's common sense that the authors intent is that the 12" is to access the device that unlatches from the jamb. Then after unlatching the door, they would need to maneuver their wheelchair to push the door open and pass through the opening. Now if the Latch Lever was somehow located at the center of the door, instead of by the strike-side edge, do you think that the author of the code would still call for the additional 12"? Now what if the door did not have a latch nor exit device, and had a set of push-pulls, like in a public, multi-occupancy restroom. Since the door does not have any device that latches the door onto the jamb, but has a Closer, is the additional 12" still required? The answer is "No"; same goes if the door only has a Latch but no Closer. The 12" of additional space is only required if the door contains Both a "Latch and Closer". So if the requirement is not for unlatching a double-levered device, then it would be required if the door had no latching hardware. Same goes if the 12" requirement is due to the door having a Closer, then it would be required on all doors with Closers, including those without any Latching hardware. "Latching" here is an Adverb, not a Noun.View attachment 1033

/monthly_2014_04/572953d20a748_ICCA20110315110538482581.gif.4eb42e108fcf2a3446eb9b8fba4fd340.gif
 
"The word "Latch" can be generic if used in a different context... but so can the word "Closer". You are obvious not familiar with Architectural Hardware, so I wouldn't expect you to know what that is. Since most do not professionally work in the industry, I would not expect you to know otherwise. But it's clear to anyone who installs Door Hardware professionally, that a Latch is a Double-Levered Device which requires strike side access to operate... hence the purpose for the 12" strike side clearance. "

You are correct......

I only have forty years of field experience installing and servicing this type of hardware for some of the largest, progressive, and well known companies in the nation. Additionally, I have colleagues that have authored and instructed as recognized industry experts on the subject for decades.

I wish you success in finding the answer that fits your needs.
 
Gizmo, there are a couple of key people at DSA you can take this up with including: Susan Moe, Dennis Correlis (Principal Architect); Door and Hardware Institute's Scott Sabatini; from the advocates side Richard Skaff and the code guy Steve Winkler, FAIA. Between them and the Building Standards Commission you might be able to resolve this issue once and for all (smiling)
 
In the context of the 2012 IBC panic or fire exit hardware is definately considered to be a latch by definition.

"PANIC HARDWARE. A door-latching assembly incorporating a device that releases the latch upon the application of a force in the direction of egress travel. See also "Fire exit hardware."

"FIRE EXIT HARDWARE. Panic hardware that is listed for use on fire door assemblies. "
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A person with a broken foot will not approach the door in a wheelchair head on or angle in from the side of the injury. Same with someone in a wheelchair with one arm or hand. The 12 inches is strictly to allow maneuvering clearances on a door with a closure and a latch due to the difficulty in opening a door with both. Unlatching the door is not the only operation required to get through the door when using a wheelchair, cane or walker.
 
I have not run into a situation where hardware with a rotational method of operation had to be changed to hardware with a forward-motion method of operation because of a lack of maneuvering clearance. It may happen in CA, but I am on the East Coast. I will ask a couple of our West Coast guys and report back. With regard to the latch debate, the latch or latchbolt is the part of the locking device that engages with the strike. Panic hardware and fire exit hardware are used to release the latch. When a code or standard uses the term "latch", in my opinion it is not talking about what type of hardware it is - it could be a lockset/latchset or panic hardware, or something else with an active latchbolt like an aluminum door deadlatch which may have another means of release. The codes don't/can't address every possible application and interpretation.

I'll let you know what I hear from CA.
 
The specific terms that your industry has bestowed on the individual hardware pieces has nothing to do with this issue. This issue is completely about accessibility. The powers that be have determined that when a door is "latched" and you also need to overcome the resistance of a "closer", then this additional maneuvering space is required to allow disabled individuals to execute the operation of the door. Is it a rated door? then your latch and closer is required. If not rated then you can remove either the latching mechanism or the closing device and eliminate the requirement. An automatic door operator can also solve the issue. If your door is recessed greater than 8" then you do have limited options. Your "exit device" for these purposes is simply a latch. Sorry, but no one with authority at DSA will bless your concept.
 
Giz, it appears that as a "hardware guy" your frustration is that of not being "aware" of the "why" these accessibility issues are required (as clarified by recent commenters), not that the products are not available with which to meet the code requirements.

I reviewed your prior comments and find that the code has addressed your concerns as to definitions by including in 2013 1008.1.9.1 the term "other operating devices" ( a catchall?).
 
Maybe I am not being clear...

What is the purpose of the 12" when the door has an Exit Device? Please respond with an example so that anyone can understand. If it is required to push open the door, please elaborate how the 12" of immovable wall can help with pushing open the door. Also why is the 12" not required if the door doesn't have a "Latch", i.e.; Push/Pulls? How does the lack of the 12" of wall space help if the door does NOT have a latch or exit device? Again, can you please cite examples.
 
ADAguy said:
Gizmo, there are a couple of key people at DSA you can take this up with including: Susan Moe, Dennis Correlis (Principal Architect); Door and Hardware Institute's Scott Sabatini; from the advocates side Richard Skaff and the code guy Steve Winkler, FAIA. Between them and the Building Standards Commission you might be able to resolve this issue once and for all (smiling)
Click to expand...
Not sure by this text if you are trying to help me, or being cynical. This is a serious issue that faces us here in California. On one hand, if you are correct and the code's reference of a "Latch" as including an Exit Device, then millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent at the direction of ADA officials employed by the State, only to be instructing us to install hardware which intentionally violates the law. Not that you are aware of this or not, but taxpayer watchdog groups have filed huge lawsuits against LAUSD and the State of California because of their mismanaged spending on addressing ADA compliance, or should I say nonclompliance.
 
Frank said:
In the context of the 2012 IBC panic or fire exit hardware is definately considered to be a latch by definition. "PANIC HARDWARE. A door-latching assembly incorporating a device that releases the latch upon the application of a force in the direction of egress travel. See also "Fire exit hardware."

"FIRE EXIT HARDWARE. Panic hardware that is listed for use on fire door assemblies. "
Click to expand...
So then how does an electric device, which is also a "door-latching assembly" get around the 12" requirement? If push an actuator somewhere accessible allows for compliance, how is this any different? Basically, I can install a actuator button on the center of the door that releases an electric strike, allowing the operator to simply push the door open from any part of the surface of the door. How is this any different than using a manual push bar that releases the latch/strike that allows for the exact same thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top