Balancing Security and Accessibility: Selecting door hardware for mixed-use facilities

by Katie Daniel | February 9, 2017 10:29 am

[1]

by Ann Matheis
The design process for any building involves a great deal of conflict resolution. A careful balance must be struck between convenience, security, life safety, and aesthetics—particularly at the structure’s openings. This is a complicated goal to achieve in any setting, but mixed-use facilities present unique challenges.

Unlike traditional offices, mixed-use buildings typically feature a combination of retail, office, and dining spaces on the ground level with living space—generally apartments and condominiums or hotel rooms—above. Without the right door hardware and security solutions in place, it can be difficult to both make customers and guests feel welcome and maintain the safety and security of residents and staff.

Access control systems can help professionals balance these concerns, but it is important to be aware of how those systems can impede authorized access for the elderly and people with disabilities. Although working with hardware and security experts can help mitigate many access control-related issues, some are not currently addressed by the codes. By being aware of the challenges these systems present, and by including appropriate solutions in the design process, architects can play a vital role in improving safety and convenience for all occupants. This begins with understanding best practices for designing and implementing access control systems within mixed-use facilities.

Types of openings
Before examining problems and solutions relevant to access control systems, it is important to understand the kinds of openings to which they may apply. Openings common in mixed-use facilities include:

• main entrances, where a single credential provides access to multiple openings;
• resident entrances, which require strong and secure locks paired with stylish interior door hardware;
• stairwells and emergency exits, which need durable door hardware able to perform with minimal maintenance;
• media rooms and common areas, which must balance ease of use with proper egress compliance;
• conference centers and business offices, which typically remain unlocked and accessible during business hours while the rest of the building remains secure; and
• areas with unique requirements, such as pools, fitness rooms, daycare facilities, and parking garages.

Planning ahead
In most facilities, there are multiple openings to secure, and a variety of people in need of differing levels of access. Each of the multiple uses of this type of facility also brings its own demands. It can be difficult to know where to begin.

One of the mistakes most frequently made by designers is failing to incorporate doors and hardware in the early stages of the design. The later issues like access control and accessibility are addressed, the more likely they are to create problems for the architect, as both directly impact door specifications—which, in turn, determine how an opening must be constructed to comply with fire and life safety codes.

It is also crucial to include the relevant experts in the planning process. Typically, this means the hardware consultant, the security consultant, the integrator, and possibly an electrical engineer should be involved. Access control should be planned for after the initial architectural plans and building layout are complete.

“Ideally, access control planning should occur in conjunction with the hardware design,” says safety and security consultant, Derek Ommert, PSP. “By relying on industry subject matter experts early in the process, architects are better able to consider the reliability of access control as well as the environment for which it’s planned.”

Ommert gives the example of a mixed-use facility where the access control system must both provide a secure residential area and allow customers and staff access to varying parts of the same facility. Consulting with experts on these issues will go a long way toward ensuring a satisfactory outcome. They can help to identify key issues that must be addressed, such as:

• whether time and attendance for employees will be integrated into the access control system;
• whether the locks will be accessed in an interior location or an exterior one where weather may be a concern;
• how deeply each user’s access and movement within the facility will be monitored;
• how important aesthetics will be;
• whether there are any cost limitations;
• what the top priorities are; and
• what types of openings will be in use (e.g. resident doors, high-traffic public doors, private amenity space entrances, or emergency exits).

[2]

Ensure accessibility
Once a team has been assembled, accessibility should be emphasized as a guiding principle for the planning process. There are several common issues to be aware of throughout this process.

1. The 2010 edition of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires operable hardware that is “easy to grasp with one hand and does not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist to operate” to be mounted within the allowable range—either less than 1219 mm (48 in.) or 863 to 1219 mm (34 and 48 in.) above the floor, depending on which standard is used. Section 11B-404.2.7 of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), “Door and Gate Hardware,” for example, requires operable hardware to be mounted 863 to 1117 mm (34 and 44 in.) above the finished floor (AFF).

2. The 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA’s) operable force requirements state door and gate hardware must operate with a maximum 2.3 kg (5 lb) of force. Currently, this conflicts with International Building Code (IBC) requirements of 7 kg (15 lb), but complying with the more stringent requirement will allow professionals to avoid costly ADA violations while improving accessibility for
all occupants.

3. Standby power for automatic operators is required for automatic doors if the proper maneuvering clearance is not provided. However, on fire-rated doors, such operators are required to be deactivated upon sounding of a fire alarm. This means automatic operators with standby power should not be used to overcome maneuvering clearance problems on fire-rated doors, as the operator will not be functional when the alarm is sounding.

4. The 2002 edition of American National Standards Institute/Building Hardware Manufacturers Association (ANSI/BHMA) A156.19, Power Assist and Low-energy Power-operated Doors, introduced a requirement for such doors to be activated by a ‘knowing act’ such as using a push-plate actuator or an access control device like a card reader, keypad, or keyswitch.

5. Stepping into the field of a motion sensor is not considered a knowing act. If automatic operation via a motion sensor is desired, automatic doors must comply with the standard for full power operators—ANSI/BHMA A156.10, Power-operated Pedestrian Doors—instead of A156.19. This means even though the door may have a low-energy operator, it and its safety sensors or control mats and guide rails must meet the same requirements as a full-power operator.

6. Maneuvering clearance for recessed doors must be provided when there is an obstruction within 457 mm (18 in.) of the latch side of a door projecting more than 203 mm (8 in.) beyond the door’s face. Without this clearance, a person using a wheelchair may not be able to open a door recessed in an alcove. A frame with a large jamb depth (approximately 254 mm [10 in.] or more) can create the same problem.

Access control products must comply with the same code requirements as mechanical hardware, but architects and security consultants should also take into account some accessibility concerns not addressed by codes. For example, several types of readers and credentials are difficult, if not impossible, for the elderly and people with certain disabilities to operate. A keypad requiring a high degree of manual dexterity for code entry will prove far more challenging for those with impaired motor skills than a proximity (prox) reader that just requires a token to be nearby. Design and construction professionals should consider whether potential products will be appropriate for occupants of all ages and abilities before making any final decisions.

Maintain flexibility
Planning for access control ahead of time ensures the system will not only be appropriate for the current needs of the facility, but also flexible enough to adapt to future changes. It is common for clients to be concerned the solution they select will require upgrades and expansions as facility needs change—many people want a system capable of accommodating emerging technologies that will facilitate future adaptation.

The best way to address this concern is by using open-architecture electronic locking systems, which are designed to easily accept additions, upgrades, and replacement of components or even the system itself. This structure eliminates proprietary constraints, employing open standards to provide access to critical data and information. It also helps protect access control investments for years to come—as security needs change, the access control system can likewise be changed with the addition of new credential technologies, various network protocols, increased security levels, and system expansions. These upgrades do not require replacement of all locks or even taking locks off doors to retrofit.

With this type of system, components traditionally located around the door can be integrated into the lock itself to yield a smarter solution and more value for the investment. Locks can also be configured to create a custom fit. These systems provide multiple, interchangeable credential reader modules as well as interchangeable offline networking modules—both wired and wireless—that allow access control to be installed at doors where this had previously been unfeasible.

The modular, scalable characteristics of these systems allow this kind of flexibility. Users can choose which openings should remain offline or be moved to a network, and can manage both types of locks with the same software and database. As security needs evolve and when budget allows, a facility can place more locks on more doors and move more offline doors to a network solution.

[3]

Avoiding costly delays
Another benefit of bringing together stakeholders in a project’s beginning stages is it gives architects the opportunity to avoid many of the unpleasant surprises common to the building process, which typically lead to delays and dissatisfaction.

“One of the biggest surprises is the length of time it takes to incorporate access control into design,” says Ommert. “That surprise usually comes when access control is treated as an afterthought—an add-on, after the design has been finalized.”

When access control is added later in the construction process, it often results in a need for additional circuits, extra raceways, and power and conduit layout changes—all of which cost time and money.

Access control systems frequently extend into parking garages, warehouses, storage units, and other areas, so plans must also take into account the potential needs of the system outside the main building. Failure to consider access control in the design phase can create barriers to this process later on. For example, an owner may want access control to be implemented on a raised walkway connecting a building and a parking garage—but if the related considerations were overlooked in the design stage, the walkway may be limited by egress requirements. That is, installing an electronic access control system on the outside of the building would create a building code violation, because it would restrict egress from the parking garage. However, without such a system in place, anyone able to gain access to the walkway would be able to gain access to the building.

This is a common problem with balconies and courtyards as well—they seem appealing aesthetically until the problem of locking those doors to restrict access is remembered. Given such doors are required to grant egress, they cannot be completely secured with electrified locks, and may be limited to delayed egress locks or alarms.

Confirming code compliance
Once a tentative solution has been reached, one should ensure it will not conflict with any relevant codes. When considering which code requirements to follow, professionals should first identify which category the hardware falls into and refer to the applicable code section. State or local requirements could differ from those of IBC or National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101, Life Safety Code—thus, the published codes should be referred to for detailed code requirements, and the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) should be consulted for more information about local conditions.

Conclusion
Taking the time to consult with all stakeholders and properly integrate access control into the design process will help architects avoid many costly mistakes. Doing so will also help ensure future upgrades can be made easily and the facility has the appropriate balance of security and accessibility for all occupants, regardless of their respective levels of ability.

Ann Matheis is the marketing director, multi-family, at Allegion, PLC. She joined Schlage in 2004 as the residential channel marketing manager, a role which later incorporated sales operations responsibilities. Matheis’s broad experience in sales, marketing, and communications contributes to her work with Allegion residential security brands. She is a graduate of Indiana University, with a BS degree in marketing and a minor in psychology. Matheis can be contacted at Ann.Matheis@allegion.com[4].

Source URL: https://www.constructionspecifier.com/balancing-security-and-accessibility-selecting-door-hardware-for-mixed-use-facilities/

---