# Door closer



## e hilton (Aug 21, 2019)

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.


----------



## RLGA (Aug 21, 2019)

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?


----------



## e hilton (Aug 21, 2019)

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.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 21, 2019)

Consider using a door opener with wall mounted button?


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 21, 2019)

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.


----------



## RLGA (Aug 21, 2019)

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.


----------



## Yikes (Aug 21, 2019)

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."​


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 21, 2019)

He is from Virginia, maybe the project too?


----------



## RLGA (Aug 21, 2019)

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."​


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.


----------



## e hilton (Aug 21, 2019)

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.


----------



## RLGA (Aug 21, 2019)

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.


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..."


----------



## Builder Bob (Aug 21, 2019)

Thanks RGLA for the contractual obligation as stated in AIA documents that often is failed to be read by contractor's everywhere.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 21, 2019)

As previously mentioned, an after market electric assist is available.


----------



## my250r11 (Aug 21, 2019)

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


----------



## e hilton (Aug 21, 2019)

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.


----------



## RLGA (Aug 21, 2019)

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.


----------



## jar546 (Aug 21, 2019)

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.



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.


----------



## e hilton (Aug 21, 2019)

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.


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 22, 2019)

e hilton said:


> Interesting specs from Rick, the spring hinges have to close faster than a hydraulic closer.



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?


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 22, 2019)

interesting question.


----------



## e hilton (Aug 22, 2019)

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.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 22, 2019)

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.



This issue becomes even more likely under CM - Multiple Prime Contracts.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 22, 2019)

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.



"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?


----------



## e hilton (Aug 22, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> At what point is a "licensed" contractor/sub to not be held responsible for not adhering to code and the CDs?


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.


----------



## Yikes (Aug 22, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> 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?


Automatic doors are not considered as having "closers" in the same sense as manual swinging door has closers (ADAS 404.2). 
Automatic swinging doors are addressed in a completely different section, ADAS 404.3, which refers to ASNI/BHMA A156.10 for operation specifics.


----------



## Yikes (Aug 22, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> At what point is a "licensed" contractor/sub to not be held responsible for not adhering to code and the CDs?



That answer depends on the nature of the contract they signed with the owner.  But for sake of discussion, let's assume that they are using the standard AIA-A201 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction:

§ 3.2.2 Because the Contract Documents are complementary, the Contractor shall, before starting each portion of the Work, carefully study and compare the various Contract Documents relative to that portion of the Work, as well as the information furnished by the Owner pursuant to Section 2.2.3, shall take field measurements of any existing conditions related to that portion of the Work, and shall observe any conditions at the site affecting it. These obligations are for the purpose of facilitating coordination and construction by the Contractor and are not for the purpose of discovering errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in the Contract Documents; however, the Contractor shall promptly report to the Architect any errors, inconsistencies or omissions discovered by or made known to the Contractor as a request for information in such form as the Architect may require. It is recognized that the Contractor’s review is made in the Contractor’s capacity as a contractor and not as a licensed design professional, unless otherwise specifically provided in the Contract Documents _[e.g., design-build components]_.

§ 3.2.3 The Contractor is not required to ascertain that the Contract Documents are in accordance with applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, rules and regulations, or lawful orders of public authorities, but the Contractor shall promptly report to the Architect any nonconformity discovered by or made known to the Contractor as a request for information in such form as the Architect may require.

§ 3.2.4 If the Contractor believes that additional cost or time is involved because of clarifications or instructions the Architect issues in response to the Contractor’s notices or requests for information pursuant to Sections 3.2.2 or 3.2.3, the Contractor shall make Claims as provided in Article 15. If the Contractor fails to perform the obligations of Sections 3.2.2 or 3.2.3, the Contractor shall pay such costs and damages to the Owner as would have been avoided if the Contractor had performed such obligations. If the Contractor performs those obligations, the Contractor shall not be liable to the Owner or Architect for damages resulting from errors, inconsistencies or omissions in the Contract Documents, for differences between field measurements or conditions and the Contract Documents, or for nonconformities of the Contract Documents to applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, rules and regulations, and lawful orders of public authorities.​
So, in the example in this thread, if the architect had a floor plan that contained an inherent code conflict (door clearance vs. lavatory location), it is not the contractor's problem. But let's say these same plans also had (A) a door schedule that called for latch and a closer, and (B) a standard detail that showed door strike side clearances and it said 'add 12" on push side for door equipped with closer and a latch':

Scenario #1 - The contractor follows the floor plan and schedule, does not notice the inherent conflict between plan, schedule and standard detail, and it gets built in a non-code-compliant manner: The contractor is not liable to fix the problem; the responsibility rests with the architect.

Scenario #2 -  The contractor notices the conflict during construction, and sends an RFI: The contractor is not liable for the cost or time to fix the problem; the responsibility rests with the architect to come up with a code-compliant solution.

Scenario #3 -  The contractor notices the conflict prior to installation, but says to himself, "hey, I'll make more money if I build it first, then point out the code problem, then get paid to tear it out and rebuild it again":  The contractor is then liable for the difference in cost in design solutions of when they knowingly should have reported it vs. when they did report it.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 22, 2019)

3.2.3 ! We can't question his methods and means and he accepts our plans as Gospel, so why then does a client hire an architect? There does not seem to be any provisions for checks and balances other then the poor inspector who should have caught this issue, no?


----------



## Yikes (Aug 22, 2019)

ADAguy, I'll give you a real-world example.
I recently had a project where there were 2 foot wide electric ranges back-to-back on the fire-rated wall between two (11B accessible) apartments.  The code requires that any recessed outlet boxes in the fire-rated wall be separated by 24", and so our electrical engineer should have instead specified surface mounted J-boxes (which would have still fit behind the range, invisible to the tenant, and which are shown in the range installation instructions).  But the engineer forgot and called out for recessed boxes.  

When the contractor discovered the problem during rough electrical, he should have sent an RFI, and I as architect would've been on the hook for the minimal cost difference (if any) of a surface mount J-box vs. a recessed box.  Instead, the contractor - likely with the best of intentions - had his cabinet sub rearrange the cabinet layout to stagger the ranges apart.  He did not inform us of any of this.  Thus, he took on the design responsibility himself, and took it away from me.  That had significant unintended consequences:
Now, in 50% of the units, the relocated range is too close to the refrigerator (it's a U-shaped kitchen) and does not comply with wheelchair clearance requirements for a side approach to the electric range.  Per A-201 section 3.2.4 the contractor is now on the hook to either tear out and rebuild the kitchens, or buy a bunch of very expensive counter-depth refrigerators issues could've been avoided if the contractor had simply called or sent an RFI when they discovered the problem.

To answer your question: the client hires the architect in hopes that the architect will get it right the first time.  But no one is 100% perfect, and since most buildings are one-of-a kind, there is usually a small amount of contingency funds set aside for minor problems, and there is professional liability insurance for rectifying huge mistakes.  The contractor does not have to accept our plans as gospel: sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 make it very clear that the contractor needs to request more information when they have any doubts or see any errors or inconsistencies.


----------



## e hilton (Aug 22, 2019)

Here is a clip of the detail on the construction drawings.  As you can see, there is a dim for the correct clearance, but it is referenced off a point the framers could not see.


----------



## e hilton (Aug 22, 2019)

Oops ... didn’t take.


----------



## e hilton (Aug 22, 2019)

Yikes said:


> : The contractor is not liable to fix the problem; the responsibility rests with the architect.
> .


Good explanation of the possible scenarios.  Two comments.  If the aor is found to be at fault, it’s typical that their financial liability would be limited to the cost of redoing the drawings.  Hopefully the problem was caught before the contractor blindly (or nefariously) built it wrong, so the architect would provide revised drawings at no cost. 
 If there are additional construction costs ... say they drew the concrete slab as 3” thick rather than 6” ... the owner would have to pay the cost for the correct product, on the logic that if it had been drawn correctly then the bid price would have been higher anyway.  You might ... maybe ... be able to recover some cost if the contractor had ordered the wrong product based on approved shop drawings and submittals, and there was a restocking charge.  Say they ordered #3 rebar for the 3” slab, and needed #4 rebar for the 6” slab.  You might have a chance of recovering the cost of the new rebar if the old rebar is not returnable.  
Architects have E&O insurance.  Errors and omissions.  But that usually has a cap, sometimes the value of the design contract.   So trying to recover money from the architect is a very arduous process for any amount, and depending on the level of the screw up, there might not be enough to cover the oops.


----------



## e hilton (Aug 22, 2019)

Yikes said:


> the Contractor shall, before starting each portion of the Work, carefully study and compare the various Contract Documents , shall take field measurements of any existing conditions


Yeah, good luck with that.  You would be surprised at how many details on the drawings are missed until its time to build.


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 23, 2019)

Yikes said:


> Automatic doors are not considered as having "closers" in the same sense as manual swinging door has closers (ADAS 404.2).
> Automatic swinging doors are addressed in a completely different section, ADAS 404.3, which refers to ASNI/BHMA A156.10 for operation specifics.



Thanks. So how do I time these doors to see if they comply to code when doing an inspection? Is the only way is to buy this standard?


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 23, 2019)

e hilton said:


> Yeah, good luck with that.  You would be surprised at how many details on the drawings are missed until its time to build.



Point, at time of bid this should have/could have been brought up (fat chance). 
City issued permit (dwg's met code "minimum" as to content (in-house peer review/office standards vs best practices should have caught this?)
City inspector should have caught this.


----------



## JPohling (Aug 23, 2019)

If the door is rated then you only have the auto operator to solve the issue.  Is it a single occupancy toilet room?  If non rated door then either remove the latch,  or remove the closer.  If single occupancy you could use the closer with push /pull hardware and then a thumbturn latch on inside.


----------



## steveray (Aug 23, 2019)

404.2.7 Closing Speed.
404.2.7.1 Door Closers. Door closers shall be adjusted
so that from an open position of 90 degrees, the time
required to move the door to an open position of 12
degrees shall be 5 seconds minimum.
 Closers with delayed action features give a person more
time to maneuver through doorways. They are particularly
useful on frequently used interior doors. When used on fire
doors, the closer should be adjusted so that the delay does
not exceed requirements established by the administrative
authority. This requirement also provides sufficient time
for persons using walking aids, such as walkers and
crutches, to maneuver through the door without the added
burden of working against the door and closer.
404.2.7.2 Spring Hinges. Door spring hinges shall be
adjusted so that from an open position of 70 degrees,
the door shall move to the closed position in 1.5 seconds
minimum.
Although not considered as a “door closer” in the general
sense, spring hinges create the same difficulty for people
trying to open and then maneuver through the door. Therefore,
for the same reasons that are mentioned in the commentary
for Section 404.2.7.1, the standard establishes a
minimum length of time for the door to close.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 26, 2019)

Life expectancy on a spring hinge should be considered.


----------

