AlllOO

. NBS

PUBufcATIONS

I NBSIR 80-2174

Building Accessibility in Relation

to Door Hardware, Door Users,

and Door Use

Stephen T. Margulis

I

I

Environmental Design Research Division

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20234

January 1981

Prepared for chitectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

3 "C" Street, S.W.

'ashington, DC 20201

NBSIR 80-2174

BUILDING ACCESSIBILITY IN RELATION

TO DOOR HARDWARE, DOOR USERS,

AND DOOR USE

NATIONAL BUBSAL OF BTANSABDa

LIBBAJBT APR 3 0 1981

/ <^ ; /

" ^

Stephen T. Margulis

Environmental Design Research Division

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20234

January 1981

Prepared for Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

33 "C” Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20201

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Productivity, Technology, and Innovation

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
S^OUBACMATS

roei 0 c

•

KfS-06

BT.

’ ‘. T< .eH38%!^d .anAwofiAH flooa OT < " asuflooa ovia ’

iwwii i bi i MfflWflSUi ll^wwl^i n ^ »ii i

'itiMiia 'i ii twwtMMWiMMMMMBWWB

ii,

fitUirtBlrt .T

noti^Kl ri3i«at#Fi rrsisiO iA}nmr«r»oiwn3

j* Y0O*Ofwte*T 0n»t4iua Wt lOJfMjO;

elnttbrtfll^ )o mbbimS tAfXNja^

iacrmmrm>:> to m«m4>Bq»0i

^£0£ lyQ

o4'.. rS6f yrnMtllkt

,w,8 joetia ”x ee

fOSOi DO .rioHjd'HesW

f'

ac maMTRA'Jsa .e.V»

•la oo^%«kvo«)iiA!V tMM n^im^Z iwi3wk«ix ;rtfty^a n»btot

f v»a^ uitOTus jAWorrAM

1’;
PREFACE

As part of a National Bureau of Standards (NBS) effort to develop comprehensive

accessibility guidelines for building professionals, NBS proposed to the

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB) a project

entitled "Development of Architectural Accessibility Guidelines. " The proposed project, which Is In three phases, focuses on accessibility research

on doors. The first phase, now completed, addressed problem Identification.

This report Is a product of the first phase. The second phase will emphasize

research and the development of comprehensive, rational accessibility guidelines. The third phase will be a continuing activity of research, demonstration, and public participation to improve the accessibility guidelines and

to promote their adoption.

ill
ABSTRACT

This report reviews the technical literature related to doors as architectural

barriers. It examines the concept of disability and the associated concepts

of impairment and handicap. It is concluded that these terms lack consensus

of meaning. The concept of functional capacity is recommended as an alternative because of the more direct linkage between functional capacity and

performance. A review of the conceptual literature on functional capacity

and its measurement leads to the conclusion that functional capacities relevant to building accessibility generally have been identified but more precise

specifications and improved ergonomic procedures for testing functional capacities of the disabled are required. Furthermore, a distinction is drawn

between functional capacity and door use patterns. The latter refers to how

functional capacities are applied during actual door use. Last, door systems are examined, particularly locking and latching mechanisms, door openers, and

door closers. The existing literature on these raises questions about the

adequacy of current accessibility codes and standards with regard to these

components. Based on unresolved problems and current needs, research

addressing accessibility-relevant objectives is recommended.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge the helpful comments of Brian Plerman and

John Strolk* Special thanks to J. J. Persensky for material on ergonomic

Issues and for checking the tabulated data In the report and to Byron Johnson

and Edward Stelnfeld for In-depth briefings on their research projects on building accessibility for the handicapped. Most special appreciation to

Sanford (Sandy) Adler for the many fruitful and stimulating discussions on building accessibility.

V
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. THE DOOR USER 5

2.1 THE CONCEPT OF DISABILITY 5

2.2 DISABILITY VERSUS FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY AS AN INDEX OF

HUMAN PERFORMANCE 6

2.3 THE IDENTIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF FUNCTIONAL

CAPACITY 7 2.3.1 The Work of Steinfeld and His Associates on Identifying Functional Capacity 7 2.3.2 Steinfeld's Diagnostic Interview for Measuring

Functional Capacity 9

2.3.3 Other Measures of Functional Capacity 14

2.3.4 Ergonomic Measurement 15

2.4 PATTERNS OF DOOR USE 18

2.4.1 The NBS Door Safety Study 19

2.4.2 Cohn's (1978) Study of Emergency Exiting From

Secure Spaces 20

2.4.3 Seaton's (1979) Study of the Manual Operation

of Doors 20

2.4.4 Johnson's (1979) Study of Door Use 20

2.5 THE DOOR USER: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 23

3. THE DOOR SYSTEM 24

3.1 THE LOCKING AND LATCHING COMPONENTS 24

3.1.1 Door Handles 24

3.1.2 Number of Steps 25

3.1.3 Locks 25

3.2 DOOR OPENERS 26

3.2.1 Opening Resistance Under Normal and Emergency

Conditions 26

3.3 DOOR CLOSERS 27

3.3.1 Door Closer Forces 27

3.3.2 Closer Delay Intervals and Time to Close 31

3.3.3 Two Questions Posed by Closers 35

3.4 THE DOOR SYSTEM; SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 35

4. GENERAL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37

4.1 SUMMARY 37

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 38

REFERENCES 40

APPENDIX 1; Estimate of the Number of People in the United

States with Functional Limitations Who Would Benefit

from Accessible Buildings 43

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 The Enabler 10

Figure 2 Problem Identification Matrix: Entrances, Exits

and Doorways 11

Figure 3 Problem Identification Matrix; Controls and Operable

Hardware 12

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 A List of Functional Limitations and Definitions that

are Particularly Important for Using the Physical

Environment 8

Table 2 Accessibility Conflicts and Recommended Solutions 13

Table 3 Number of Steps in the Opening of Doors 21

Table 4 Door Opening Forces 28

Table 5 Push and Pull Strength Testing Results 30

Table 6 Automatic Door Closers: Time to Close and Delayed

Action Intervals 33

vii

1. INTRODUCTION

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB) was

created by the Congress to assure compliance with Federal standards which

were developed to make building and transportation facilities accessible and

usable by handicapped persons. Since 1973, when the ATBCB was created, a number of accessibility guides and codes have been developed at the State and

Federal levels and by consensus standards groups (e.g., ANSI 117.1-1979).

However, these standards and codes are not in full agreement with each other

on common elements, vary in their scope, and vary in the empirical support

they can muster for their specifications. Fortunately, the Congress has provided the ATBCB an opportunity to clarify this situation through the 1978

Amendments to the R.ehabilitation Act of 1973. These Amendments provide the

ATBCB with authority to "develop standards... with respect to overcoming

architectural, transportation, and communication barriers" [new section 503(d)

(3)].

One building system addressed by codes which requires reappraisal is the door

system. The door is the manipulable building feature which all users of a building must use. It is inherent to building use. Doors must be negotiated at entry points and at other points throughout buildings. Doors, particularly manually operated doors with closers, are a pervasive obstacle to

the disabled.

Doubtless every citizen has experienced at one time or another a door that was difficult, if not Impossible, to open or close. This difficulty can

result from (1) improper installation, (2) insufficient maintenance, such as an improper closer adjustment, (3) an unusual climatic condition, such as extreme wind acting on the door, or (4) a characteristic of the door's design

or construction, such as the door's weight, size, or placement.

There is another reason why doors can become obstacles to ease of access and

use. This reason is less obvious, very pervasive, and difficult to resolve.

Doors serve multiple functions, such as access, life safety, security, privacy, and climate control /energy conservation. Doors also serve ceremonial

and symbolic functions — witness the immense doors on courts of law. These

functions may be dictated by public policy (such as life safety), tradition

(such as privacy), national interest (such as energy conservation through

climatic control), or financial interest (such as security precautions required

by an insurance carrier). These functions are expressed through the characteristics of the door system such as the location of doors, the design and con- struction of doors, door operation, and door size, weight, materials, and hardware. Conflicts among functions all too often have been resolved so as to

create accessibility problems for the disabled.

Examples will illustrate how the life safety, security, energy conservation,

and ceremonial functions, respectively, have conflicts with and affect the

accessibility function. (1) A recently revised national consensus standard

on building accessibility (ANSI 117.1-1979) specifies that exterior doors must

1
open in response to no more than 8 1/2 Ibf (38 N),^ to enable persons with

stamina or coordination limitations to use these doors easily. However, it is

widely believed by persons concerned about life safety functions of doors that

this criterion would sharply reduce the ability of the doors to self-close

and self-latch effectively. Presumably current codes that specify higher

levels than 81/2 Ibf (38 N) for exterior doors are doing so for life safety

reasons.^ (2) Disabled persons with limited mobility or who may be bed-ridden

realize that they are vulnerable to Intruders (burglars, robbers), a point

also emphasized by the police. For example, if locks are used for physical

security, locked doors can prevent friends from entering domiciles, thus

limiting opportunities for the disabled to affiliate or to get needed help

in medical emergencies (Llpchez and Winslow, 1979, p. 67). Moreover, high

security locks require finer motor coordination for their use, a potential

problem for persons with coordination difficulties (J. Stroik, personal

communication, September 1979). (3) Interest in energy conservation has led

to weatherstripping of exterior doors to minimize air infiltration. However,

the weatherstripping also increases the inertial force required to overcome opening resistance. Moreover, weatherstripping can lead to binding of the

bolt against the strike plate hole, further creating difficulties with using

the door (R. Hudnut, personal communication, July 1979). (4) Some public

buildings have huge, heavy, manually operated doors. The size and weight of

these doors express their ceremonial and symbolic status; they give the

building an aura of importance and awesomeness. However, such doors can be an obstacle to access, even for ostensibly able-bodied people. These four

examples illustrate conflicts between accessibility and other door functions.

Clearly, these conflicts must be addressed directly and the alternatives

carefully weighed in any consideration of requirements for doors affecting

door use.^

Conflicts among functions involving the door also can be aggravated if

building regulations or standards do not agree on levels of door performance.

This can be illustrated with conflicts between life safety and security,

respectively, and accessibility. The Life Safety Code specifies that the

force to fully open doors shall not exceed 50 Ibf (222 N) applied at the

latch stile (Sharry, 1978, p. 48). Similarly, security concerns may require

a door to have a very tight fit, similar to the effect of a tightly weatherstripped door. A tight fit may significantly increase the difficulty of

unlocking the door and of opening it from a near-latch position (Cohn, 1978,

p. 3-17). These examples illustrate opening resistances that can fall beyond

the ability of many handicapped individuals (Johnson, 1979; see note 6).

In sum, building features can be obstacles to building access and use.

^ SI and conventional units are rounded, unless indicated. N = Ibf x 4.448

2 Point made by the Panel on Egress during the Conference on Fire Safety for

the Handicapped, November 1979, Gaithersburg, MD.

3 These conflicts are a concern of model code writing organizations such as BOCA, ICBO, SBCC. (S. Trant, personal communication, fall 1979).

2
The idea that building features can be obstacles to access to or use of

buildings for all of uSj at one time or another, is discussed by Jones (1978,

p. lx).

If we consider that the environment has traditionally been designed

for the average, "able-bodied" adult (of average height, weight,

hearing, eyesight, stamina and reaction time), then the rest of

the population which does not match up to this standard is, by

definition, handicapped. It is estimated that 60 percent of the

total population of the United States is handicapped at any one time in their use of the environment.

He goes on to note that

While the environment poses problems to all citizens, the effects

of architectural barriers on the severely disabled are manifested

more tragically.

He concludes that

Any changes that are made to the environment to aid the severely

handicapped population will also help all people to lead easier

and safer lives.

That is, building designs and building products, in principle, can be made

responsive to the capacities of both handicapped users and the general

population so that both benefit from improved accessibility.

In this report, the problem of accessibility focuses on the user and the

door system and the relation between them. This relation is based on several

assumptions. First, successful door use requires a fit between (1) a user’s

functional capacities and (2) how these functional capacities are employed

in using a door with (3) the physical characteristics of and forces created

by the use of the door. Second, these three factors are interrelated.

Third, the contribution of each factor can be studied. Last, studies of

these factors should relate the human and the engineering elements to one another and should provide a technical basis for accessibility standards.

The choice of specific topics for this report draws on expert opinion.

Including the recommendations for further research by the contributors to

3
the ATBCB/NBS Conference on Accessibility Standards, and on an appraisal of

current research on door use.^

^ Surprisingly, studies of the needs of the disabled did not prove to be

useful. An extensive search for such studies resulted in only one "large

scale" study (Panel on Building Design Criteria for the Disabled, 1977)

[henceforth to be designated as "the Panel”]. However, the presentation

of the Panel's results limited their usefulness. For example, the size

of the sample whose responses are reported is unstated and the data is

qualitatively, not quantitatively, summarized thus making it impossible

to determine the relative importance of particular responses.

4
2. THE DOOR USER

This section addresses four topics: the concept of disability, disability

versus functional capacity as an index of human performance, the identification and measurement of functional capacity, and patterns of door use. These

four topics represent the human side of the user-door equation.

2.1 THE CONCEPT OF DISABILITY

According to a major review of uses of terms such as disability, handicap,

and impairment, there is a lack of consensus on meanings. However, there

is a general sense of agreement on what the terms, taken collectively, have

as their referent (Urban Institute, 1975). There also is disagreement about

what is meant by the various degrees of a condition (e.g. , what "severely

disabled" means). Again, these disagreements tend to vanish when dealing

with extreme, hence obvious, cases. These definitional problems stem from

the different uses of these terms, with medical and scientific usage at one extreme and policy-related usage associated with program administration or service delivery, for example, at the other. Moreover, some meanings narrowly

focus on limited use of extremities and sensory deficits as disabilities.

Other meanings encompass developmental disabilities, emotional disabilities,

and medical conditions, such as severe heart conditions, which can be more

incapacitating and restricting than blindness or paraplegia. Last, people

differ in their response to medical conditions and traumas and in their

ability to cope. These differences also affect how terms like disability

are applied.

What, then, are reasonable uses for terms like disability and handicap?

The thoughtful analysis of the Urban Institute (1975, pp. 21-38) offers the

following suggestions:

The residual limitation resulting from congenital defect, disease,

or injury [should be called] an Impairment . A person with an

impairment, then, may or may not have a disability , an inability to

perform some key life functions [particularly roles related to

work]. When the ability is such that the environment imposes

impediments to the individual's goals for travel or work, for

example, the individual has a handicap (p. 25).

The Urban Institute's report indicates that these definitions create problems

for analyses of existing data on the disabled because most surveys limit

the definition of disability to whether the respondent's condition limits

the kind or amount of work the person can do. Using a work criterion means

that the retired elderly, for example, regardless of their physical status

would not be counted among the disabled, hence among the handicapped.

It is the view of the Urban Institute's report that an impairment is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a disability. Thus, the use

of diagnostic labels such as paraplegia, blindness, and epilepsy as proxies

for the terms disability and handicap is conceptually objectionable because

5
"people with some kinds of disability are better equipped than others to

tackle the trials of life" (Goldsmith, 1967, p. 43).

As reasonable as the proposed definitions are, they still raise a problem.

Handicaps may be based on inabilities that are not rooted in a congenital

defect, disease, or injury. The young or elderly ambulatory person may

encounter environmental barriers to access because of their age and physical

development. So long as the capabilities of the able-bodied adult serve

as the implicit standard for designing environments, others who do not match

this standard are likely to be stigmatized with the label "handicapped".

It would be preferable to recognize and accept changing capabilities across

the stages in human development. Moreover, since people infer handicaps

from failures to master environmental obstacles, it could just as easily

be said that environments handicap people rather than that people have

handicaps. This view does not deny the variability in human capabilities.

Rather, it would stigmatize settings for imposing their limitations on their users.

2.2 DISABILIK VERSUS FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY AS AN INDEX OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE

Steinfeld, Schroeder, Duncan, Faste, Chollet, Bishop, Wirth, and Cardell

(1979) favor the use of functional ability as the basis for discussing

environmental barriers. They state the case clearly.

Environmental barriers have specific impacts upon people with

specific limitations to functional abilities. For example,

the width of a door is only critical to people who use wheelchairs and walking aids. It does not affect use of a building

by a person with severe Impairments of vision. Thus, each

barrier-free design feature may, in fact, have a different

beneficiary population (Steinfeld et al., 1979, p. 27).

There are several advantages to emphasizing functional ability or capacity.

First, the phrase emphasizes what ^ whereas disability, limitation, and

handicap emphasize what isn* t or what was . Second, it has a broad scope since

it applies to conditions such as extremes of size and weight which are not

necessarily rooted in defects, disease, or injury. Third, it is applicable

to the able-bodied and to acute conditions, sucVi as a broken leg, that can have consequences for the use of the environment. Fourth, as Steinfeld et

al. argue, functional capacity is likely to be more closely linked with how

and how well the individual actually uses the environment than are diagnostic

categories, which are the current emphasis. This does not mean that there

will be a direct correspondence between functional capacity and performance.

Performance can be affected by other factors such as the individual's motivation, training and other available services, family support, environmental

setting, and the like (Jeffreys, Millard, Hyman, and Warren, 1969).

Functional capacity is what Jones (1978) meant when he noted that the

able-bodied adult of average height, weight, hearing, eyesight, stamina.

6
coordination, and reaction time is the standard us4d for designing

environments and those not sharing these characteristics and capabilities

are, by definition, handicapped.

In any event, if functional capacity (or functional limitation, a synonym),

whatever its basis or duration, is used as the indicator of or criterion for

assessing handicaps, these functional capacities must be identifiable,

measurable, and have established contributions to building accessibility (Urban

Institute, 1975).

Survey data on people with physical limitations offers an estimate of how many

people could profit from user-responsive accessibility standards and regulations. Such data are summarized in the Panel's report (1977, pp. 178-179) and

in Steinfeld et al. (1979, pp. 21-42). Readers will find additional information in Brown and Redden (1979) and the Urban Institute report (1975, pp. 56-

88). The information in the Urban Institute report tends to be based on

diagnostic categories (e.g., cardiovascular disorder, musculoskeletal disorder)

and severity of disability rather than on functional limitations.

Appendix 1 has summary tables from the Panel's report (1977, pp. 178-179) and

from Steinfeld et al. (1979, pp. 29-30). Steinfeld et al. (1979), addressing

the question "Who benefits from accessibility?", have reviewed the available

data and have concluded that 2.2 percent to 11.6 percent of the U.S. population has functional limitations. These percentages are based on the noninstitutionalized population. There are no figures specifically for beneficiaries

of barrier-free door provisions. Door provisions should result in lower percentages because not all functional limitations affect door use (see Steinfeld

et al., 1979, pp. 29, 80).

A comparison of the summary tables in appendix 1 suggests that the number of

beneficiaries of barrier-free design would depend on whose survey data is

used. For example, the Panel's (1977) report states a much higher incidence

of stamina problems (60 million cases, see p. 178) than Steinfeld et al.

do (5 million cases, see p. 29). Improved estimates will require a survey

that uses measures of functional capacity in a manner that provides complete

statistics on who would benefit from the removal of a class of environmental

barriers (Steinfeld et al., 1979, p. 27).

2.3 THE IDENTIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY

The relationship between functional capacity and the performance of door

users was systematically studied by Steinfeld in his research for updating

ANSI 117.1 (see, e.g., Steinfeld et al., 1979; Steinfeld, Schroeder, and

Bishop, 1979).

2.3.1 The Work of Steinfeld and His Associates on Identifying Functional

Capacity

Steinfeld et al. (1979) have identified 14 characteristics of individuals

that are particularly important for using the physical environment . They

are listed and defined in table 1 and are presented diagrammatically as a

7
Table 1. A List of Functional Limitations and Definitions That Are

Particularly Important for Using the Physical Environment;

A. Difficulty in Interpreting Information - individuals who

have impaired abilities to read or reason and/or who

have limited abilities to interpret complex information.

B. Severe Loss of Sight - individuals who cannot read

ordinary newspaper print with eye glasses, who have

legal blindness (20/200), or vision field defect of 10

percent or less.

C. Severe Loss of Hearing - individuals who cannot understand

usable speech with or without amplification.

D. Prevalence of Fainting, Dizziness or Poor Balance - e.g.

,

individuals with Meniere's disease, hemiplegia, etc.

E. Incoordination - individuals who have difficulty in con- trolling and placing or directing their extremities, e.g.,

those with cerebral palsy or other neurological disorders.

F. Limitations of Stamina - individuals who become short of

breath and/or experience an abnormal elevation in blood

pressure from physical exertion, e.g., those with cardiopulmonary disorders or severe hypertension.

G. Difficulty in Moving Head - individuals limited in looking

up and down or side to side.

H. Difficulty in Lifting and Reaching with Arms - individuals

with decreased range of motion and strength of upper

extremities.

I. Difficulty in Handling or Fingering - individuals who have

difficulty performing functional activities with hands, e.g., one who has severe arthritis or fixed contractures from an injury such as a third-degree burn.

J. Inability to Perform Upper Extremity Skills - individuals

with complete paralysis, lack of coordination or absence of

upper extremities.

K. Difficulty in Bending, Turning Sitting or Kneeling - e.g.,

individuals with severe arthritis of the spine or those in

back braces and plaster body casts.

L. Reliance on Walking Aids - individuals who use leg braces or artificial legs and those who need crutches, canes or walkers.

M. Inability to Use Lower Extremities - individuals who are unable to move about except by use of a wheelchair.

N. Extremes of Size and Weight - individuals who are extremely

tall, extremely short or extremely overweight.

Source; Steinfeld, Schroeder, Duncan, Paste, Chollet, Bishop, Wirth, and

Garden, 1979, pp. 27-28.

8
schematic figure of a person called The Enabler (see figure 1). The

characteristics include cognitive or mental functioning (difficulty in interpreting information), the senses (sight and hearing), "internal" regulation

(balance, coordination, stamina), motor abilities (e.g., head, arm, hand,

finger, and leg movement), and bodily dimensions (size and weight).

Using the Enabler, Steinfeld et al. (1979) analyzed building and site

elements to determine environmental conditions that have an impact on access and use for people. Then, Steinfeld and his colleagues determined the con- tribution of each characteristic of the Enabler to access to and use of the

identified elements. They also indicated the severity of the problem that

might arise from each characteristic, but without specifying the Enabler's

level of functional capacity. The resulting evaluations are called Problem

Identification Matrices. Two, dealing with door use, appear as figures 2

and 3. They focus on doors and on hardware.

2. 3. 1.1 Advantages and Limitations to This Approach

Among the principal advantages are the following three. First, it demonstrates

the nature and pervasiveness of the impact of an incapacity on accessibility.

This can raise the consciousness of uninformed individuals. Second, it ties

specific functional characteristics to accessibility and use. This approach

satisfies two of the three criteria posed by the Urban Institute (1975) for

using functional limitations as indicators for assessing handicap. These two

criteria are Identifying the functional capacity and establishing its contribution to the handicap. The third criterion, measurement, is discussed below.

Last, Steinfeld et al.'s approach encourages an analysis of accessibility

conflicts between people with different functional limitations (see table 2).

There are also several limitations to the approach. For example, the

procedures that Steinfeld and his associates employed for generating the

list of functional characteristics and determining their contribution to

accessibility and use do not appear in Steinfeld et al. (1979). The

analysis could have been an empirical or a logical analysis. If it was

a logical analysis, it may or may not have received independent (outside,

expert) confirmation of the contribution of each characteristic to the use of

environmental elements. Whatever may have been the procedure, the approach

is useful and the examples are reasonable. In addition, the level of

functional capacity is a determinant of the impact of a particular environmental element on access and use. However, as noted above, the matrices

do not address the level of functional capacity. Moreover, the matrices

do not take explicit account of multiple functional limitations and their

joint impact on a person's performance.

2.3.2 Steinfeld' s Diagnostic Interview for Measuring Functional Capacity

Accepting the Problem Identification Matrices, the issue of measuring, in

contrast to identifying, functional capacity remains. A Diagnostic Interview,

designed for self-report, was developed to assess functional capacity

(Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop, 1979, p. 6). The Diagnostic Interview

9
Figure 1. The Enabler

DIFFICULTY INTERPRETING INFORMATION

SEVERE LOSS OF SIGHT

COMPLETE LOSS OF SIGHT

SEVERE LOSS OF HEARING

PREVALENCE OF POOR BALANCE

INCOORDINATION

LIMITATIONS OF STAMINA

DIFFICULTY MOVING HEAD

DIFFICULTY REACHING WITH ARMS

DIFFICULTY IN HANDLING AND FINGERING

LOSS OF UPPER EXTREMITY SKILLS

DIFFICULTY BENDING, KNEEUNG, ETC.

RELIANCE ON WALKING AIDS

INABILITY TO USE LOWER EXTREMITIES

EXTREMES OF SIZE AND WEIGHT

Source: Stelnfeld, Schroeder, Duncan, Faste, Chollet,

Garden, 1979, p. 75.

Bishop, Wirth, and

10
Figure 2. Problem Identification Matrix

Source: Steinfeld, Schroeder, Duncan, Paste, Chollet, Bishop, Wirth, and

Garden, 1979, p. 82.

11
Figure 3. Problem Identification Matrix

• potential problem

' ^ <

—

»M

> p

L ri/I N

O severe problem • impossibility

Controls and Operable Hardware* ^/

\E

L

/

1 b:

'> r'l

2C 3 1r - ( 3 1 A \J <

1 • L oun tc 1 “ 1 n lu 1 1

Vc uicanb or activation

w t

Miyn Torc6 ot aCLivutiun r c

'1 r

) )

J • U 1 tra-bcll blLIVcULtlVaLIUTI ^ J ts j <-J K

r

J

(

c :r3 • VC. .jlllu 1 1 IbC. J \ )

D. very 1 ur yc

r

) ^

1

)

1

/ • »»c Vutiori rc yui rc..# wUin ir*y

motion of wrist

(

f

(more than a single movement)

)

L 1 k \ y. usc reC|Uires wo nanub

A

* < H

w

k

\

(

)

hi iu« use rec|uires nunus % p j

1 !• roue

1 4 k \c* use requires Tinyers

s ( .

r

10 * Lunuruis anu noiiuwarc iuc.cLtcu iii very high position —

H: ) %

14. uonurois anu naraware louateu in very low position

*Includes controls and hardware on appliances and fixtures.

Source: Steinfeld, Schroeder, Duncan, Faste, Chollet, Bishop, VJirth, and

Cardell, 1979, p. 90.

12
Table 2. Accessibility Conflicts and Recommended Solutions

Condition

1. Curbs at Intersections

2. Warning signals

3. Controls and hardware

4. Control heights

5. Height of work surfaces

6. Overhanging objects

Conflict

Elimination of curbs Is

helpful for wheelchair

users but Is dangerous

to blind people.

Visual signals are good

for deaf people, but cannot be seen by blind

people; audio signals are good for blind people,

but cannot be heard by

deaf people.

Hand operated controls

and hardware are good

for wheelchair and walking aid users, but cannot be used by people

who have no use of hands.

Low heights are good for

wheelchair users and

people who cannot reach

very high, but are a potential problem for

very tall people and

those who cannot bend

easily.

Low work surfaces are good for people who sit

while working but a severe problem for those

who stand and have difficulty bending.

Good way to provide access to equipment for

wheelchair users, but

dangerous to blind

people If the object

projects Into a circulation area.

Recommended Solution

Provide a texture change

for the curb to define

the edge of the street.

Use both visual and audio

modes for warning signals.

Sometimes both hand and

foot/leg controls or hard- ware can be used; In other

cases only hand controls can be provided (e.g.

,

window or door locks) and

this problem can only be

solved by electronic means.

Use compromise height.

Use adjustable or adaptable

heights In residences and

work places or alternate

heights In public places.

Keep objects out of circulation paths.

Use compromise height In

public facilities and

provide alternate heights

In residential locations.

7, Grab bar mounting height Low heights help people

without use of legs to

have leverage while

transferring; people

who use walking aids,

have poor balance or bending and stamina problems use high bars to

pull themselves up.

Source; Stelnfeld, Schroeder, Duncan, Paste, Chollet, Bishop, Wlrth, and Cardell,

1979, p. 94.
addressed many of the functional capacities in table 1, often in terms of

mastering daily activities (e.g., "Can you fasten buttons?"). It was used to select volunteers for the research project to revise ANSI 117.1-1961

and specifically to "find people within each [disability] category that

reflected a range of functional abilities" (p. 6).

The Diagnostic Interview yields "valid indications of functional ability"

(Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop, 1979, p. 6). Also, it yields accurate

reports. Specifically, answers to the interview by 20 respondents over

the telephone accurately reflected their actual condition, as determined

by a subsequent visit to the respondents' homes by a physical therapist.

However, a comparison of self-reports with performance measures of functional

capacities taken in the laboratory by Steinfeld and his associates, often

a month or longer after the interview, indicated that some volunteers inaccurately judged certain abilities and that some volunteers had experienced an improvement or deterioration in their physical status. In all, approximately

25 percent of the volunteers demonstrated discrepancies between self-reports

and performance. The two areas of self-report that had the weakest predictive validity were difficulty reaching and lifting and limitations of

stamina (Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop, 1979, p. 8). Last, Steinfeld,

Schroeder, and Bishop (1979) do not report how the Diagnostic Interview

was scored in order to establish the functional ability level or functional

ability profile of a person or what these level were for each disability

category (see Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop, 1979, p. 9). Different

levels were meant to represent decreasing degrees of independence in daily

activity, ending with the lowest level that would allow such independence

(Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop, 1979, p. 6). The authors do not report

what the different degrees of independence are.

2.3.3 Other Measures of Functional Capacity

Steinfeld included static and dynamic anthropometric measurement procedures

as part of his research. These procedures can be used in conjunction with an instrument like the Diagnostic Interview or in lieu of it to establish levels

of functional capacity. Such use requires having or developing anthropometric measurement procedures that do what they claim to do and also are relevant to building use. Whether such procedures are currently available is a matter of debate. Developing them is a difficult, expensive, time-consuming

task.

An obvious source of other measures of functional capacity would be other

studies of building accessibility in which the functional capacities of

volunteers were assessed. However, only one other study was located which

relied on anthropometric measurements (Johnson, 1979). It is discussed

in section 2.4.4.

Another obvious source is the medical, rehabilitation, and service delivery

literatures. These should be reviewed systematically to determine if instruments, in addition to the Diagnostic Interview, have been developed. An initial search suggests that such instruments have been developed (e.g., Jeffreys,

Millard, Hyman, and Warren, 1969). There remains the task of assessing the

14
technical adequacy of the instruments, particularly with regard to building

access, egress, and use as criteria.

2.3.4 Ergonomic Measurement

Two basic assumptions underlie ergonomic measurement and data.

(1) People vary in their physical characteristics .. The physical

characteristics of individuals change over the years (cf. the child

with the adult). Individuals also differ from one another. Often

these differences are associated with group membership, such as size

and weight differences between males and females. There appear to

be differences across generations. Generational differences can affect

the future applicability of current anthropometric data. There also are sources of variability in daily life including day-to-day fluctuations in height and weight and the effects of clothing on body size

and joint movement (Annis, 1978).

(2) The measurement of the human body encompasses a variety of procedures

for determining an almost limitless number of human characteristics . There seems to be a lack of consensus, worldwide, on measurement

procedures. In some cases procedural differences result in measurement

differences greater than what can be attributed to measurement error

(McConville and Laubach, 1978). Moreover, procedures must be carefully

chosen to fit the problem. Thus, if building accessibility is the

Interest, then the measured characteristics must be relevant to accessibility. For example, Johnson (1979) reports a near zero correlation

between static measures of strength and successful door performance.

This suggests that his particular static test does not measure a functional capacity of individuals relevant to this aspect of

building use.

Ergonomic data permit you to compare specific individuals with appropriate

reference populations for whom there are ergonomic measurements. Also, you can determine the percentage of a population falling at, between, or below

certain values on a measured characteristic. For example, a sitting height

of 35.8 in (90.9 cm) Includes at least 95 percent of the 5,800 military

fliers on whom this measurement was made (McConville and Laubach, 1978,

p. III-20).

Steinfeld et al. (1979, pp. 102-122) review the available ergonomic

literature. Their review covers functional anthropometry or the measurement

of physical features of the body. Size and reach are examples of static

anthropometry; range of movement, accuracy of motion, and speed of response,

reaction, or limb movement are examples of dynamic anthropometry. It also

covers strength and endurance which are examples of biomechanics. [This

categorization differs from that of Steinfeld et al. (1979).] Detailed

ergonomic data can be found in Hertzberg (1972), Jones and Fechter (1980),

and Webb Associates (1978a). Body size and reach data also can be found

in Webb Associates (1978b) and Dlffrient, Tilley, and Badagjy (1974).

15
Erogonomlc data are based on able-bodied adults, by and large. Applications

of ergonomic data to disabled groups are found in the Panel's report (1977,

pp. 141-180) and in Jones (1978, pp. 7-31). The Panel's (1977) report also

Includes data on environmental features affecting the disabled. These data,

for example on door spring force, are usually based on user considerations.

Stelnfeld et al. (1979) review additional sources of ergonomic data (see

pp. 102-122).

The usefulness of anthropometric data on joint motion, muscular strength,

velocity of limb movement, and response time based on able-bodied persons for

problems of disabled groups generally Is assumed. This assumption must be

critically evaluated. It must be determined whether the procedures used to

measure able-bodied groups are appropriate for disabled groups and whether

the data for able-bodied people, based on these procedures, can be

generalized to disabled populations.

Stelnfeld et al. (1979) discuss another aspect of generalizing ergonomic data.

They point out that most ergonomic measurement was not done with building use

in mind. However, to the extent that negotiating the built environment is a task with features In common with tasks that have been well studied by human

factors psychologists, they believe that the resulting data can be transferred across tasks.

Based on their review, Stelnfeld et al. cite seven limitations of available

ergonomic data.

1. There Is a lack of comprehensive dynamic anthropometric research.

2. There are little data on people over 50 years old, women, and disabled

people but there are Increasing data on children.

3. Some data, such as size measurements, may be out of date. However,

correction factors make this a less serious problem than It might

otherwise be.

4 . Few data have been taken during actual activities of the kind useful to

building designers and building component manufacturers.

5. Most of the data have been gathered using posed body positions. The

representativeness of this data for situations Involving natural body

movements has not been determined. Lack of representativeness would

be a serious problem.

The usefulness of other data bases, such as speed of movement and

strength. Is limited because of the nature of the tasks that were studied

16
when able-bodied users were measured (see Steinfeld et al., 1979,

pp. 109-111).

6. The data are not comprehensive on the effects of encumbrances, prosthetic

devices, etc.

7. There are few studies that compare different disabled groups or disabled

with able-bodied groups

According to Steinfeld et al. (1979, p. 106), "focusing specifically on

anthropometric data for people with disabilities, there is not a definitive

study." Available data tend to focus on wheelchair users. Often these data

are no more than generalizations from data on able-bodied persons. Too many

studies do not include descriptions of research procedures or sampling,

thereby undercutting an opportunity to critically evaluate the quality of

the data. Nevertheless, some studies of actual human performance have provided useful information for building design guidelines (e.g., best dimensions

for a door)

Steinfeld et al. (1979, pp. 120-122) also note methodological shortcomings of

ergonomic measurement and they suggest ways of overcoming them. They recommend testing in the field or accurate simulations of real-world tasks and

environments in contrast to overreliance on laboratory-based research. They

also recommend representative selection of volunteers, but only when this is

necessary.^

As for which functional capacities are relevant to door use and, therefore,

are appropriate for ergonomic measurement, suggestions are found in Jones

(1978) and Steinfeld et al. (1979). Jones (1978), for example, notes the

Importance of end-positions of the hand for door use. These end-positions

are (1) power grip, for grasping a door handle, (2) precision grip, for

grasping a key, and (3) open hand, for pushing on the face of a hinged door.

(Twisting skills could be added to this list.) These manipulative abilities

determine whether door use will be easy, difficult, or impossible (Jones,

1978, p. 19). Steinfeld et al. (1979) discuss information needs in designing

accessible buildings. These needs are stated in terms of environmental factors, such as force of activation (see p. 103), which have user counterparts

in muscular strength, joint movement, and stamina. Thus, an analysis of

information needs in terms of user counterparts could guide the evaluation

of available ergonomic data and, by implication, the determination of needed

ergonomic data.

For example, in determining a lower limit, such as a minimum width for an

opening, the researcher may only have to test the widest users and the widest mobility aids expected in a building. It may not be necessary to test

a representative sample of users.

17
2.4 PATTERNS OF DOOR USE

Door use refers here to gross body movement patterns people use in unlocking,

unlatching, opening, passing through, and closing doors. Social and psychological factors that can impact on door use could be added. One well-studied

social factor is the effect of the presence or absence of an audience on an

individual’s motor performance. Researchers are currently trying to establish

the most adequate explanation of this effect (see the reviews by Geen and

Gange, 1977; Landers and McCullagh, 1976; and Marten, 1974). Another social

factor is the presence and assistance of a personal aide. Psychological

factors include expectations about the difficulty of opening a door which,

in turn, may derive from inferences about the door based on the door's

appearance (e.g., the massiveness of the door).

Patterns of door use can be viewed from two perspectives: ideal patterns and

actual patterns. Both perspectives acknowledge the actual functional capacities

of the individual as well as the age and rehabilitation training of the person. Ideal patterns are based on expert judgment and include patterns of use which rehabilitation specialists recommend and teach to their clients. Presumably, there is a better or best way for a person to use their functional

capacities in order to open a particular door. Actual patterns refer to what

people actually do when using a door.

The principal questions about door use patterns are whether the ideal and

actual use patterns are comparable and, if these are different, why this

is the case and what can be done about it? Brown and Redden (1979) offer

two possible reasons for noncomparability. The use patterns that the disabled are being taught may "not fit their individual needs [or, perhaps,]

the person has not been taught well how to use [them]" (Brown and Redden,

1979, p. 2). In this regard, to establish ideal use patterns, the ergonomic

implications of actual use patterns, in terms of body position, reach,

stamina, strength, etc., must be understood. What are the forces a person

generates using his or her body in a particular way? Can a different

pattern generate higher forces more easily for the person?

Little attention has been paid by researchers to actual door use patterns.

Only four studies involving door use patterns were located (Cohn, 1978;

Johnson, 1979; the NBS door safety study; Seaton, 1979).° Two focus on

Byron Johnson's study was conducted for the National Research Council of

Canada. I wish to thank Mr. Johnson and the National Research Council of

Canada for permission to cite the unpublished reports of Johnson, Seaton,

and Cotton and Dainty (see section 2.4.4). The reports by Seaton and

by Cotton and Dainty were done under contracts from the National Research

Council of Canada. They are available from the Canadian Institute of

Scientific and Technical Information. A published version of Mr. Johnson's

report under the title "Door Use Study" is forthcoming. The NBS door

safety study is unpublished. Inquiries about it may be addressed to the

author.

18
building accessibility (Johnson's and Seaton's)» The other studies are concerned either with physical security, specifically with emergency exiting

from secure spaces (Cohn, 1978), or with user safety (the NBS door safety

study).

2.4.1 The NBS Door Safety Study

As part of a door safety project, door use was videotaped. The aim of this

videotape study was to capture and analyze actual use and misuse of doors

as these occurred under typical conditions of use in a variety of settings.

Eight hours of videotape of door use was collected. Users were ostensibly

able-bodied adults and children. Doors in six different settings across

five sites were studied. The five sites were a shopping center, a university

medical center, a university student union, a university-based preschool, and

other university buildings. Presumably, different door sites had different

user groups.

Videotaping was employed because, like filming, it is a useful method of data

collection for behavioral data. It can record naturally occurring behavior

unobtrusively. Moreover, having a videotaped record permits a detailed

examination of recorded activities, including an estimation of the proportion

of all recorded events involving a designated critical event.

The NBS analysis of the videotape focused on what were called misuse patterns

and behavior patterns. The misuse patterns are observed actions thought to

be closely linked to factors that a previous analysis of Consumer Product

Safety Commission (CPSC) in-depth accident reports suggested caused or contributed to door-related accidents. The behavior patterns are observed

actions that indicate a door is inconvenient or even difficult to operate

due to a poor fit between user and door characteristics. A model of door

and stair accidents by Johnson, Archea, and Steel (1975) determined which

behavior patterns to expect.

The study of behavior patterns may have applicability to user aspects of

accessibility. Examples of behavior patterns include leaning toward or away

from a door while opening or holding it, using both hands in the process of

opening or holding a door, bumping or crowding another while going through

a doorway, pushing or pulling a door handle the wrong way, and touching a door at least one time after initially touching or contacting a door.

The behavior pattern of leaning toward or away from a door while opening

or holding it will be used to illustrate the potential applicability of the

concept of behavior patterns to accessibility. In its study of door safety,

the NBS researchers reasoned that this pattern resulted from a poor fit

between the physical strength of the user and the force required to open the

door. Consistent with this, the group most likely to lean were preschoolers

using the metal door to their classroom. Thirty-five percent of the preschoolers (N=40) leaned compared with an average of six percent of the other

280 users at the other six door sites. Preschoolers are both smaller in

size and lighter in weight than adults. Put differently, preschoolers are

19
an example of an extreme size and weight group, a category in Steinfeld

et al.’s ideogram of functional limitations. Thus, a behavior pattern

analysis may provide a basis for describing how people with different functional capacities manage potential environmental barriers. This supports

the contention that analyzing behavior patterns as part of a study of door

use patterns of disabled persons could be valuable.

2.4.2 Cohn’s (1978) Study of Emergency Exiting from Secure Spaces

As part of a study of emergency exiting from secure areas, Cohn did a logical

analysis, it appears, of the operations a user had to go through to use locks

and latches. He found that, depending on the hardware, more than one step

might be required (see table 3). With certain multi-step procedures, more

than one movement will be required (see section 3.1.2). Cohn’s analysis of

hardware use coupled with the Jones’s (1978) analysis of hand end-positions

and the analysis of functional limitations of users by Steinfeld et al. (1979,

esp. ch. 5) could provide a foundation for subsequent analyses of lock and

latch use.

2.4.3 Seaton’s (1979) Study of the Manual Operation of Doors

Seaton studied door use and errors in door use on a university campus.

Functional capacity and disability were not studied. Events were recorded

by observers as they occurred; they were not videotaped or filmed.

Seaton (1979, p. 7) reports that over 60 percent (483 of 802 persons) used

their right hand to open a door, which is not surprising since most people

are right-handed. By comparison, less than 10 percent used either both

arms (4.9 percent or 39 of 802 persons) or their shoulders (4.7 percent or

38 of 802 persons) to open doors. Those who used both hands tended to be

unencumbered (72 percent or 28 of 39 carried nothing) and those who used

their shoulders most often had both hands encumbered (45 percent or 17 of 38

had both hands encumbered) . Seaton seems to indicate that the unencumbered

individuals may have been older (see Seaton, 1979, p. 7). In regard to age,

Cohn (1978) reports that anthropometric norms for older persons (over age

50 years) may be two-thirds of the value for younger males. This study

suggests that certain behavior patterns indicate how environmental barriers

are managed by people with temporary limitations, such as encumbrances, or age-related limitations.

2.4.4 Johnson’s (1979) Study of Door Use

Byron Johnson, of the National Research Council of Canada, undertook an extensive study of door use. The study addressed three aspects of door use:

unlatching and pushing open the door, passing through the door, and closing

the door when needed. Volunteers were studied in a laboratory setting (much

as Steinfeld and his associates did). Emphasis was placed on opening resistance caused by door closers and air pressure differentials. There were 4

volunteer groups totalling 24 individuals with varying but unspecified physical

abilities: a minor or no disability group, children (under age 13 years),

and 2 disability groups (see Johnson, 1979, p. 10). The use of one door

20
Table

3.

Number

of

Steps

in

the

Opening

of

Doors

vO

OuV

4J

C/3

A

0)

C/3

A

<U

A

A

<u

A

0>

4-) CO

>4-1 o COA

V OZ CO

9A

CO9A(09A

i-i CJ

CO

<u O

V4o

•o.a-g o to 2: r-l

•H 00

«< a

4J "H

CJ 9

0) 0)

r-t ^ b3 Oj

u

•rt 009

*J "H O 9

0) 0) H A

M O

9

A|

CO9A

o

•H

XIo

9 CO 4J 4J CO 0)

d) <u ^

0) 9 9 U T3

CO OO A 9

9 cd 9 CU cd •H a X 9 ja

c; •H 00 ^ 9

4J *H O 9

O O

ji ^

o -o

9

(09A

0) 01 4J (0

i-l A eO <1) w o p -O

9

CO9A

Uu

(0 (0 iH

030) Xi§ A 9

OJ X

’T3 4J

9

A|

Xt

CO9A

J3m

9A

(09A

T3

cu 9 cu

V4 cd t-l •X3 cd cd c » V4 »

cd -u Cd TJ

V4 X t4

4-1 Cd cd •H J3 t4 X o V

XI CJ t-l CJ a *H U t-l cd 9 I-l 9

lu Cd cd cd O A M A

9

J3

CO9A

9

CO

COmA

U

•H

4J X O CJ

0)

9

O

ATI

<U iH cd

0) 9

4J oo

Iu

<u X H CJ

eo OJo u

S -H

Cd 0) C4 w iH ei 4J

f-H 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 iH 1—1 1-H 1—1 1—1 9 9 9 9 9 A A A A A —

X! X X X X

CO CO to CO CO 9 9 9 9 9 A A A A A

M OJ

1—

1

f-H 01 X X 9

1—

1

1—1 > O O to O

9 9 CU 9 9 OJ o A A 1—

1

-os —

,

X

x: X 9 9 9 9 u

CO CO 14 |4 |4 9

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 A A 4J 4J X X A

1 CO 1 4> 00 "O CO OJ I-l to 00 "9 •o !S ^ Cd •9 cd 01 cd I-l O a cd iH •H 4-1 X X a Cd U u 00 iH 1-1 CJ 4J CO O 01 X X X M U M > m |4 CJ

CJ 0) t-l cd 9 >9 o 01 OJ tH 9 CO 4J OJ f4 Cd a CO CO X

9 9 cu 9 OJ OJ 9 9 OJ A t-l 9 X 4J "9 |4 tH t-l 9

cd

ctj CM cn CO CO CO CO

u >1 •9 cd X

9 X |4 t-l cd o I-l ft, 01 X 9

u CJ u 4J •9 o X CJ

t-l t-l 9 01 1—1 cd X 1—1 OJ V4 |4 OJ CO o u cd o CO 4J X 4-1 X 00 Cd X X t-l 1—

1

X X 1 o o o o i-l OJ •o O I-l -9 o X

cu 4J V 4J 0) 1—1 cd 4-1 |4 *9 Cd X 00 iH Cd 1—1 cd a OJ OJ cd cd 9 01 cd tH W I-l W iH M 14 Q iH n cd a 1-1 X

9

XCO9A

OX X

ts CJ

cd 4-1 <u cd a -H

9A

XCO9A

X

o

9

A!9

C49

>N

(U

9U

9

4J

5>^ (U

cu

(U>

o

a

<u

t-l

CO

CO

cd tH

00

(U

S-I Xi

vO

I

CO

0) 2

c

•H O

CO

<0

0) iH

CU

0)

0)co

CO

CO •V

dJ>

•H

d)O

c

o

a

0) •oo

CO

a

d)

d)GO

CO

eo

CO

(0<0 iH

00

00G

•H

(V

(-1 X

CO

0)

9

jaou

21

multi-step

activity.
under varying air pressure differentials was videotaped. Three other doors

were mounted with closers. The use of one of these three doors was filmed,

and a force platform was used to measure triaxial ground reaction forces

while volunteers opened the other two (Cotton and Dainty, 1978). The 16 mm

film was used to measure behavior patterns and other use patterns (Johnson,

1979, p. 12). A control group of 17 able-bodied individuals from a local

university, most of whom were staff members in the physical education

department, took part in ergonomic testing of door hardware (Johnson, 1979,

p. 20).

Johnson studied the relationship between door use patterns and success at

opening and keeping open doors. He noted, for example, that depending on

a person's functional capacities, force could be generated by v;alking (forward movement), angular momentum (while moving), leaning (assuming the person

can balance), or from pushing or pulling with shoulders and hands. His volunteers were usually successful at opening the doors and often against higher

opening resistances than Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop's (1979) volunteers.

However, it appears that Johnson's volunteers were more functionally capable

than Steinfeld' s volunteers. Moreover, Johnson's volunteers, unlike Steinfeld' s, treated the testing as a challenge and "their performance was very

similar to what it might have been in an emergency situation" (p. 10;

emphasis added). It is necessary to limit comparisons of t^he subject populations of Johnson's and Steinfeld' s studies because neither report (Johnson,

1979; Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop, 1979) precisely states the functional

capacities of their samples or subsamples. This points to a need for

developing and using technically adequate and comparable measures of functional capacity in accessibility studies of disabled groups so that their

results can be compared and accumulated.

Last, Johnson (1979, pp. 25-27) presents a preliminary model to predict the

difficulty of door use for a user. His aim is to develop a model that has

a few, easy-to-measure variables that will predict door use successfully.

His current model includes four variables: maximum (static) push, the person's

weight, the person's height, and the cosine of the shoulder angle which is

Johnson's Indicator of angular velocity. These correlated +0.49 with force

at failure, his performance measure. Note that this model includes three

anthropometric measures (push, weight, and height). Shoulder angle is a door use variable which, like a behavior pattern, describes how people with

different functional capacities manage potential environmental barriers.

Johnson (personal communication, August 1979) describes the shoulder

angle as the angle whose sides are a horizontal line passing through the

ankle and a line connecting the shoulder to the ankle. Johnson (1979)

does not discuss the applicability of this model to wheelchair users. The proper models for hand-operated and powered wheelchair users are not

patently obvious. The question, then, is what the proper models will be

for wheelchair users and whether they will be comparable with models,

such as Johnson's, for standing (ambulatory) door users.

22
In all, Johnson’s study Illustrates the importance of considering patterns

of door use. In personal conversation (September 1979), he notes that work

has to be done to determine which aspects of door use contribute significantly

to successful passage and to determine the proper techniques for observing

and measuring these aspects.

2.5 THE DOOR USER: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The concept of disability and related concepts like impairment and handicap

lack consensus of meaning. In part, this is because some definitions

reflect regulatory in contrast to scientific requirements. One view defines

impairment as residual limitations, disability as impairments resulting in

inability to perform key life roles, and handicaps as environmentally-imposed

impediments resulting from impairments. However, even these relatively

reasonable definitions raise conceptual problems. One can argue for limitations which are not residuals of injury, illness, or trauma. Functional

limitations (or, stated positively, functional capacities) are likely to be

better indicators of human performance than disabilities are because functional capacities are direct antecedents of performance. Disabilities, by

comparison, are indirect indicators of functional capacities. However, to

make an approach based on functional capacities workable, they must be identifiable, measurable, and have established contributions to building

accessibility.

Although functional capacities relevant to building accessibility have been

identified generally, they must be more precisely specified and improved

ergonomic measurement procedures for them are needed. In the absence of

meeting these goals, the evaluation of specific research studies and the comparison of studies on building accessibility by people with functional limitations will be undermined. This will result in conflict and confusion

about what is, in fact, the case. As for available ergonomic data, it is

usually based on able-bodied adults and often in relation to tasks other

than building accessibility. Questions have been raised about the generalizability of results from able-bodied subjects to disabled subjects.

However, a case has been made for generalization of results across tasks

with essential features in common. If building accessibility is a task

which shares characteristics with other well-studied tasks, then results

from those studies should be applicable to building accessibility, other

factors equal. Nevertheless, the available ergonomic data, overall, are not fully suited for understanding accessibility by disabled people.

Assuming functional capacities can be identified and measured, then their

contributions to building accessibility would be determined, in part, by

how the abilities were actually employed. This is the topic of patterns

of door use. It is clear that these patterns vary. The questions, then,

become (1) which patterns, for given groups and given types of doors, are

the most effective, (2) are they being used, and (3) if not, why not? It

is assumed that if ideal patterns were known, they could be taught as part

of rehabilitation training.

23
3. THE DOOR SYSTEM

The physical forms of buildings and their components, such as the door system,

derive from custom, regulations, research, and the creativity of designers.

These forms also reflect the multiple functions that a building component

may serve. Because functions may be in conflict (see section 1), research

that could affect the performance of door system components should take

explicit account of the multiple functions served by the door components.

This section will address three components of the door system as they relate

to handicapped users: the locking and latching components, door openers,

and door closers. Each component raises questions about the adequacy of

current standards governing accessibility. Each has engineering and

behavioral implications.

3.1 THE LOCKING AND LATCHING COMPONENTS

There are two approaches to the handicapped and their use of locking and

latching components. One emphasizes adaptive solutions such as the use of

adaptive devices by the handicapped. The other emphasizes product designs

that meet the needs of users which is the emphasis in this section. Adaptation is a reasonable approach. However, some situations make adaptation

difficult. For example. Prof. K. Mallik, a rehabilitation specialist (personal communication, July 1979) describes the problem of disabled travelers.

They find a variety of locks and keys at motels and hotels. Keys tend to

have plastic identifiers to assure their return. However, these identifiers

often make it difficult to use conventional key extenders. Furthermore,

there is currently no key adaptor which can be used across motels and

hotels. In addition, many motel and hotel doors tend to automatically

lock when closed, increasing the potential for room key use.

3.1.1 Door Handles

There are different types of door handles such as door knobs and push plates.

Although strongly held preferences for particular types of handles are common, often based on personal experience or observation, there is little

systematic research on door handles. In one recently completed study on this

topic there were no differences between different types of handles in their

effectiveness (Johnson, 1979). Johnson used 24 disabled people to compare

a lever, a knob, a pull bar, and a push plate. Although levers allowed

greater strength to be exerted than knobs, as advocates of levers have been

suggesting, volunteers who were able to effectively use the lever also

effectively used a knob. Thus, based on force alone, levers are not essential to accessibility. Moreover, the force levels generated by Johnson’s

disabled volunteers easily exceeded the levels required by the door handles

that Cohn (1978) measured in his field study of door components. Johnson

also found, contrary to expectation, that the pushing and pulling maxima for

his 24 disabled volunteers did not differ. There were two additional com- parisons. The 24 volunteers used a panic bar and a paddle-type unlatching

device to unlatch a door and a knob and a handle to close a door. All

24 volunteers apparently were used in both comparisons (see Johnson, 1979,

24
pp. 23, 24). The results did not favor one type of door handle over the

other in either comparison. Based on this finding and other considerations,

Johnson recommends the paddle-type unlatching device to unlatch a door. If a door has a knob, Johnson does not recommend the addition of a handle for

closing a door (Johnson, 1979, pp. 19-24). Like Lipchez and Winslow (1979,

p. 61), Johnson believes that although strength can affect the use of

hardware, it should not be the sole determinant of the choice of hardware.

3.1.2 Number of Steps

Rehabilitation specialists have complained about forcing the disabled to

simultaneously turn a key, work a handle, and push a door. Cohn (1978)

analyzed the number of steps required to actuate exit door hardware. The

results are in table 3. Cohn notes that some of the multiple step operations are discontinuous. For example, turning a knob and pushing a door may

be done without shifting the hand whereas removing a bar and pushing a door

will probably require two distinct movements. He goes on to conclude that

"the modes of operation requiring more than two steps [see table 3] typically

will require the shifting of hands" (p. 4-4). Although Cohn feels such hardware may still be simple to use, the consequences of multiple steps and

multiple movements on persons with different functional limitations does not

appear to have been addressed in research with the disabled.

3.1.3 Locks

Two characteristics of cylinder locks that can affect individuals with

certain functional limitations are key insertion difficulty and key opening

force. For example, locks with multiple bolts may require a higher key

opening force. A factor that may lower the needed key opening force is

the smoothness of the operation of the lock, a factor that is associated

with the quality of a lock. A delination of lock characteristics is required

in order to determine the contribution of each characteristic to opening

resistance and to key insertion difficulty.

An alternative to the keyed mechanical lock, particularly the cylinder lock

discussed above, is the electro-mechanical lock, particularly the electronically encoded lock. Electronically encoded locks substitute an encoded

card which is read when inserted in a slot or held in front of a sensor

for a cut key which is inserted in a cylinder and turned (see table 3). If

electronic locks grow in popularity, then their use by persons with functional

limitations should be considered. This suggests the need for a determination

of the use-related advantages and disadvantages of cylinder and electronic

locks of different types for groups with different functional limitations.

In summary, there is preliminary work on handles and apparently no research

on locks or latching mechanisms with regard to the functional capacity of

disabled users. If one accepts the design alternative as a basis for removing

barriers, research on these components will be required.

25
3.2 DOOR OPENERS

Door openers refer to power-operated and power-assisted devices that replace

or supplement user force in the opening of a door. These devices vary in

their durability, reliability, and safety features. These sources of product

variability do not necessarily create problems for the handicapped. However,

if a door opener fails, which is a reliability issue, then there must be

back-up procedures to meet the needs of the handicapped user. A failure

could be especially serious during an emergency situation requiring egress.

An emergency situation itself can create an electrical failure, making power

features inoperative, thereby compounding the emergency. Back-up power

systems or assurances that the failed doors can be opened by or for

handicapped people would solve this problem.

3.2.1 Opening Resistance Under Normal and Emergency Conditions

The current standard for power-operated doors (BHMA 1601-1977) stipulates

that sliding and swinging power-operated doors, during a power failure, will

be capable of manual opening and panic breakout with a force no greater than

50 Ibf (222 N) . These values appear to be consistent with the 50 Ibf

(222 N) limit recommended by the Life Safety Code to fully open exist doors

during emergency egress (Sharry, 1978, p. 48). However, a 50 Ibf (222 N)

maximum may be too high for disabled users. According to Johnson (1979,

p. 12), a rapid impact against a door created 36 Ibf (160 N) for a wood

door and 40 Ibf (180 N) for a steel door. In tests with a push plate, the

average maximum push force for a sample of 24 disabled persons was 27 Ibf

(121 N); this group's maximum pull force was 34 Ibf (153 N) . For a control

group of 17 Individuals, largely physical education staff from a local university, the forces were correspondingly higher: 45 Ibf (201 N) for maximum

push and 57 Ibf (252 N) for maximum pull (see Johnson's table 5, p. 20).

Put differently, for both groups combined, approximately 2 persons in 10

could achieve a maximum push of 45 Ibf (200 N) or higher (see Johnson's

figure 15). These results suggest that BHMA 1601 's 50 Ibf (222 N) limit

for emergency exiting might not be met by disabled persons with the functional capacities of Johnson's sample, a sample that not only may be more

capable than the individuals studied by Steinfeld and his associates (see

Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop, 1979, p. 9) but who, according to Johnson,

may have been treating his tests as a challenge and and who may have been

performing as they would have under emergency conditions (see section 2.4.4

of this report). This comparison underscores the contention, in the

preceding paragraph, that there must be provisions for persons with functional limitations who might otherwise face doors whose power has failed,

particularly during situations requiring emergency egress.

This discussion underscores the Importance of addressing a building element,

such as a door system, holistically—that is, with its many functions, such

as accessibility and life safety, in mind.

26
3.3 DOOR CLOSERS

Doors frequently have closers. There are many reasons for having closers on

doors. Bor example, environmental conditions acting on an open door may prevent it from closing; the proper sized closer will overcome this source of

resistance and close the door. There is a consequence for the user of having

closers on manually operated doors. Closers increase the opening resistance

of the door. Specifically, the closing force of a door closer, because of

its mechanical inefficiency, is generally 60 to 70 percent of the opening

force. Because door closing forces can become a barrier to access, this

problem is often the subject of regulation. One approach to regulation has

been reducing the closing forces so as to create opening resistances at

managable levels. This approach is discussed in section 3.3.1 on door closer

forces. Another, often complementary, approach is to slow or delay the

action of the closer, thereby giving the user enough time to get through

the door. This approach is discussed in section 3.3.2.

3.3.1 Door Closer Forces

This topic raises the most contentious issues involving door hardware. The

contentiousness reflects conflicting findings and recommendations which, in

turn, reflects problems of measuring and of sampling the disabled. In

addition, this topic clearly distinguishes the engineering and behavioral

approaches to door closer standards.

An indication of conflict among recommendations comes from an unpublished

comparison of 19 standards and codes addressing building accessibility by

Mr. Sanford Alder of NBS. A summary of standards and codes that have door

opening force requirements appears in table 4. As mentioned above, opening

force maxima set an upper limit on door closer forces. For exterior doors,

for the codes with quantitative criteria, six codes specify an 8 or 8.5 Ibf

(36 or 38 N) limit and five codes allcw a 15 Ibf (67 N) limit. For interior

doors, for the codes with quantitative criteria, four codes specify a 5 Ibf

(22 N) limit, another seven codes specify an 8 Ibf (36 N) limit and one code specifies a 15 Ibf (67 N) limit. Many factors determine the limits

a code will set for door opening resistance, including research on functional

capacities of disabled users, the state of door closer technology, the status

of measurement methodologies for testing opening resistance, interpretations

of what "accessible” means, and the like. The code to be addressed here

will be the ANSI 117.1-1979 recommendations (exterior doors; 8.5 Ibf or 38 N; interior doors; 5 Ibf or 22 N).

Steinfeld and his associates conducted research on which to base their

revision of ANSI 117. 1-1961. The research included a study of push-pull

forces (Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop, 1979, pp. 42-44), the results of

which were to be the basis for recommendations for door opening force, and by

implication, for door closer performance. For a number of reasons, Steinfeld

and his associates decided to use current technology to establish door closer

specifications. "Operating forces for opening doors ... should be as low

as technology allows..." (Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop, 1979, p. 42).

According to Prof. Steinfeld, if the door closer specification had been based

27
Table 4. Door Opening Forces (Maxima for Hinged, Manually Operated Doors)

No Quantitative Criterion 8 Ibf (36 N) 15 Ibf (62 N)

Exterior Doors 3 codes

Michigan, Minnesota, North

Carolina-New Construction Code

These codes tend to require

that the door be operable

with a single effort, and

using one hand.

6 codes

ANSI^; U.S. Department

of Health, Education

and Welfare, U.S.

Postal Service, New

Jersey, Texas;

Australia

ANSI actually specifies

8.5 Ibf (38 N)

5 codes

U.S. Department of

Defense; Illinois,

Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, North

CarolinaRehabllltatlon Code

Interior Doors 3 codes

Michigan, Minnesota, North

Carolina-New Construction Code

Three codes require Interior

doors to be operable with a single effort.

7 codes

U.S. Department of

Health, Education and

Welfare, General

Services Administration,

U.S. Postal Service;

Illinois, Massachusetts,

New Hampshire, New Jersey

1 code

North CarollnaRehabllitatlon

Code

5 Ibf (22 N)

4 codes

ANSI; U.S. Department of

Defense; Texas; Australia

For this set of criteria. Individual codes may have had one or more of the following qualifiers:

1. Whether a self closing feature Is part of the door system (Interior doors only)

(e.g., Massachusetts).

2 . Whether the force to retract the latch set Is excluded (ANSI specifically excludes this)

3. Whether force applies to push and pull operations (ANSI, U.S. Department of Defense

specifically Include both)

4. Whether door also must be operable with a single effort and/or with a single arm (see, e.g.,

U.S. Postal Service, Massachusetts).

5. Statement of where on the door the force Is/should be applied (see Illinois).

6. Whether door Is on Ingress or egress path (see, e.g., Massachusetts).

7. Provision If force Is exceeded (see, e.g., Massachusetts, Illinois, New Hampshire).

8. Whether door Is hinged (see ANSI).

9. Whether there Is a preferred In addition to a maximum force (see U.S. Department of Health,

Education and Welfare).

® ANSI refers to ANSI 117.1-1979, section 4.13.11.

Codes and standards are listed alphabetically within categories: Consensus standard;

federal; state; foreign.

28
on his ergonomic research, the requirement for exterior doors might have

been as low as 5 Ibf (22 N) , not 8.5 Ibf (38 N) (E. Steinfeld, personal

communication, February 1980). At this point, it will be useful to summarize

Steinfeld* 8 data and compare it to Johnson's (1979) data on push-pull forces

in order to highlight the role of methodological differences in the creation

of conflicting results.

Steinfeld* s instrument for measuring pushing and pulling forces was workable

but not sophisticated. There was no opportunity to test the adequacy of the

testing rig as a simulation of actual door use (E. Steinfeld, personal

communication, February 1980). Two large samples were used: 53 wheelchair

users and 108 persons with other disabilities. The latter group included

four wheelchair users with "exceptionally good abilities" (Steinfeld,

Schroeder, and Bishop, 1979, p. 11: table 1) as well as persons with reaching, standing, handling, and balance problems and also persons using walking

aids other than wheelchairs. An additional sample of able-bodied volunteers

were tested but their results are not reported in Steinfeld, Schroeder, and

Bishop (1979). The results, reported in Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop

(1979, p. 44) as percentages of individuals within class intervals (measured

in Ibf), have been converted into averages in newtons (see table 5A) . [This

required using the midpoint of each class as the representative value and,

for open-ended categories, using a value 2.5 Ibf (11 N) below the upper limit

or above the lower limit, for whichever limit was given in the original table.]

There appear to be consistencies in table 5A across tasks (pushing and pulling

with left and right hands) and groups (wheelchair users versus other disabled

persons), with average values falling between 11 Ibf (50 N) and 14 Ibf (64 N)

.

By comparison, Johnson (1979) (see table 5B) reports higher values for pull

than for push forces and the averages double those reported by Steinfeld,

Schroeder, and Bishop (compare tables 5A and 5B). Differences in testing

procedures, testing instruments, and functional capacities of volunteers

probably account for these differences.

A comparison of the results for able-bodied groups in tables 5B and 5C

underscores the contention that differences among studies may be the reason

for conflicting results across studies. Table 5B presents results for the

able-bodied adults most of whom were physical education staff at a university.

Table 5C presents the results of studies with six-year old males (Brown and

Buchanan, 1973) and stewardesses (Reynolds and Allgood, 1975). The results

for Johnson's (1979) physical education group approximate the results for

six-year old males (Brown and Buchanan, 1973) and is almost half that of

stewardesses (Reynolds and Allgood, 1975). A detailed comparison of these

studies is difficult. One reason is limitations in the discussion of testing

procedures in Johnson (1979). Nevertheless, it is likely that differences

in testing Instruments and procedures, resulting from different methodological

approaches to shared conceptions of strength or from different conceptions

of strength, account for these unexpected differences in results.

This discussion implies that as long as researchers do not agree on testing

and measurement standards for push-pull strength and on how to measure and

sample people with different functional capacities, noncomparability of

studies will remain a problem and decisions based on different studies will

29
Table 5. Push and Pull Strength Testing Results

(In pounds force, and newtons in parentheses)

(A) Based on Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop (1979, p. 44: Table 10).

(see text for explanation)

PUSH PULL

Left Right Left Right

(Estimated average measured force)

VTheelchair users (n = 53) 14 (62) 13 (59) 13 (59) 11 (50)

Other disabilities^ (n = 108) 14 (61) 14 (63) 13.5 (60) 14 (64)

^ Includes 4 wheelchair users with "exceptionally good abilities".

(B) Results from Johnson (1979, p. 20).

PUSH PULL

(Average Maximum force)

Disabled^ (n = 24) 27 (121) 34 (153)

Able-bodied (n = 17) 45 (201) 57 (252)

^ See text for a description of the group.

(C) Other Studies

6-yr. old males (n = 51)

Stewardessesd (n 152)

PUSH PULL

Female Male Female Male

(Average maximum force)

39 (175) 47 (209) 50 (224) • 56 (250)

MAX. PEAK PUSH AVG. PLATEAU FOR PUSH

97 (432) 67 (297)

c Source: Brown and Buchanan, 1973.

^ Source: Reynolds and Allgood, 1975. These subjects used two hands for

pushing.

30
create irreconcilable conflict. Not surprisingly, both Steinfeld and Johnson

recognize the problem under discussion and they agree that improvements in

sampling and testing are needed.

As for door closer standards, the Industry standard (ANSI A156. 4-1972,

American National Standard Door Controls-Closers) , sponsored by the Builders

Hardware Manufacturers Association, covers product performance tests for

adjustable closing speed, closing force, closer efficiency, degree of dead

stop, degree of opening, etc. (see ANSI A156. 4-1972, section PT 10.1, p. 22).

The test for closer force requires a minimum value to be met. Any value in

excess of the minimum presumably is acceptable. By comparison, the behavioral

standard in ANSI 117.1-1979 establishes a maximum value. Nevertheless, the

two standards have a relationship because opening force is a function of

closing force and closer efficiency.

3.3.2 Closer Delay Intervals and Time to Close

An open door with a standard, mechanical closer will begin to close as soon

as the door is released by the user. Thus, even if functionally limited users can exert the required opening force, the closer's time to close may pose

a problem for the users. Specifically, the users may not have sufficient time

to pass through the door after releasing it without having the closing door

impede or stop their progress. There have been two approaches to creating

adequate time for users. One approach is to delay the closing action of

the door. The other is to increase the time it takes the door to close.

Time to close refers to how long it will take a door to move a prescribed

distance after the door has been released by the user. It is assumed that

the closing speed will remain constant with an adjustable closure (see

ANSI 156.4-1972, sections PT 11-2 and PT 11-6, on pp. 23 and 24, respectively).^

Delayed action refers either to how long an opened door will remain stationary or almost stationary (i.e., move very slowly) after being released by

the user.

The delayed action interval and time to close are independent measures and are additive, with the time to close beginning when the delayed action interval, if any, ends. Delayed action and time to close are also mechanically

independent, each regulated (adjusted) separately on the closer.

A specific delayed action interval (e.g., 5 seconds) and a specific closing

time (e.g., 5 seconds) have different consequences for the user because the

door is stationary in the former case and it is closing in the latter.

Therefore, depending on how much space a user needs, there will be some point

This standard is being revised.

9 A closer with a latch speed regulator would accelerate the door when the

door was between 2 in (51 mm) and 12 in (305 mm) of its closed position

(see ANSI 156.4-1972, p. 23, section PT 11-3). However, a door's speed at

this point does not bear on the discussion.

31
during the closing time when the location of closing door will coincide

with the location of a user who has not cleared the path of the door. At

this point, the door may impede or stop the user's progress or may require an activity, like secondary touching, which permits the user to resume

progress.

Door closers create trade offs between accessibility and other door functions.

For example, the longer a door remains open (because of delayed action and the

closing time), the greater the infiltration, hence energy consumption, in the case of exterior doors and the greater the threat of fire or smoke spread

in the case of interior doors. The issue, then, is the amount of time needed

by handicapped users.

Table 6 provides on indication of how much time is needed. It is based on an unpublished comparison of 19 accessibility standards and codes by

Mr. Sanford Adler of NBS. Table 6 summarizes the codes and standards that

addressed delayed action intervals and closing times for doors with closers.

According to table 6, one standard (ANSI 117.1-1979) only addressed time

to close; eight standards and codes presented quantitative criteria for

delayed action intervals; and one standard addressed both delayed action and

time to close (the Illinois standard). A minimum delayed action interval of

3 or 4 seconds is common. The two standards that addressed time to close

recommended a minimum of 3 seconds. (These two standards, however, specify

different distances for the door to move during the 3 seconds, hence

different total times to close; see table 6).

There appears to be little research on delayed action intervals and closing

time requirements. The author located only one study and it was on delayed

action intervals. In this study, by Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop (1979),

these researchers installed spring-loaded closers adjusted to 5 Ibf (22 N) on each of three manually-operated, hinged doors with 32 in (813 mm) clear

widths (Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop, 1979, p. 133). The door opening

force and the clear widths are the values subsequently specified in

ANSI 117.1-1979 (see ASNI's sections 4.13.5 and 4.13.11).

Eleven volunteers, all of whom were wheelchair users, attempted to pass

through the door using a direct forward approach. Seven of the eleven

subjects (64 percent) got through the door with the closer set at a 3 second

delay. Of the four subjects who failed under the 3 second condition, none

got through the door with the closer set at a 5 second delay and one of

the four got through the door with the closer set at an 11 second delay

(Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop, 1979, p. 138). These four people "all

had severe disabilities restricting strength and arm movements" (Steinfeld,

Schroeder, and Bishop, 1979, p. 135). Volunteers were given more than one opportunity to pass through a door successfully if there was an indication

that they might succeed (E. Steinfeld, personal communication, July 1980).

Thus, the meaning of success or failure under each condition is less equivocal

than if an individual had had only a single attempt.

32
• «\

u

•HOd

•H

0i

d CO

d * 130 d X^ X X

CO CO o B

d

d o X

d <C

d o

iH

X o M-4 •H •H

XX

d CO CJ o d d X O O X t4 4-1 d X H o X > o u d o X d d CO s_/ > d

V-i o d

d MH

d

X CO 33 2 d

X 1 o

cu

d 0 X 0 o • O o d

dd

X 4-) CO t-l •H o. d X X •H X o CO d X d o 4J s d o o d Xi > X •H CJ M d <4H •H Q ,c d X d o X X X X d

•H eCO 4J

X

d

X • d

d

d o X

d s-/ o m

d Oh

X

X

d COX

X

X

X o o.r^ o *d o CO o. o X CO d CO •H d 4J 0 o d X u X CO o o d

4J •H •H

dd o.

a

X o d •H Oh o U d d c X X d d !H X d 4= o C d •H Oh X d d X Xi • CJ d X • X

4J

B

O >-4 o B

d

d c/5

d

d 0 CO

X

X •H CO

d o o CO

X • Xd

d

X • o d

d |L|

X

d CO

d o d> 33 2 O <3 2 2 to O d d 4J d CO X X d o d d o

iH

d o S X

a COd •• • • • • • • <N • • 0) > d o o > d CO CO CO CO CO O •H CO h o. A o X X X X X

4-1 cw XI • • 0 o d

d

dd o d

X

d CO

d o COX o o o o X o d 4J CO d 4J X O CO o CJ o a CJ d •H d > o d d o X 0 d d d d d a d

4-t

X #• o 4JX • d o X CO CO CO CO o CO

d

d o t-l

B

d

X

X o

CO

d o c/5 o d 00

X o CJ vO vO -sf

m o d z o O x: X X o X 1 1 rH CO CN 4J 4J d X X o o\ CO •4’ UO

4-1

d 0) o 6 "H

•H

M

H <Udd3

O'o2

(Ue

•HH

d

4-) o d

CO T3

0)

d

dd

d

d

•H o S d d 'H

CO

d iH

(U C)0

d

X) *H

M

O ^ 4J o o CO •H d S <3

X)

(Ud

r—I

QJ O

d>

>-i (U

4-J d

CO 2 X W d X • 4.3 d U o d •H •H < X X X

CO

d o o d d d

s-/

dX CO CD X • X CO 9k o • 9k d d a\ o d o o X 0 •H C33 X CO X d oo X •H • 1 43 d o X CO X •H o d X • 43 X o d X CO u CO i-H o d d o f—H 2 X X d •H o o X o 9k X d CO d O d d 2 d •H d 00 o < X 43 /-s o X •H

d CO

O o 9iX o X X •H • CO 0 O X d CO X cs X d d d d O d d 1 CO CO X X S-H C^ CO o X X X o o d d d d 00 CJ d 1 X t^ X d d X o 00 d d 0 •H d 45 e d X X d d o d 43 X •H d X d •H X m o X X X X Oh X CO ) o d CO d O d d X X d 2

cr

X •X

M > < d d X X CO d d d X 43 X d 2 > d 43 d X X <3 •H cx X 45 d X o O d d 45 43 •H X

CO

dX

X COX o CO d X •H d X CO X d X X d d d o d d CO X •H X d o X X o d 43 X X d d o d X CO a d 45 CO o X X 0 d X o d o 43 d d X X X o 1 d •H X o d d X o o d CJ CO X O CO CO 1 CO X CO CO 43 d d d X o d X X X X o X o o U d X X C3u 43 o o X d X 0 o CO 0 X d X X 2 CO CO CO X

•H

X

— CO

dXX

X

X

X CO CO •r4d

d

X

d

d

d

X

d 0 d

d

X

X CO CO

d 43

X

cr

d o o o d

X

d CO o CO X X 0 a d

d 43

d

u o 0 o X

43 COd

O CO

dd

X

d

d

d o d

X

X •H 43 43d CO 00 o

00X s H

H

Xd •Hd

d

X 43 •H o <3 d O a • • • CO o •H

<3 i-H CSJ CO CJX s JC

33
An examination by the author of these results using the binomial test (Siegel,

1956) established the likelihood of the obtained results. For example,

although 7 of 11 volunteers succeeded under a 3 second closing time, statistically speaking one cannot say that significantly more volunteers succeeded

than failed. The probability of 7 of 11 persons succeeding is 0.548.^

Generally, for differences to be regarded as statistically significant, the

probability of the obtained results should be 0.10 or, preferably, 0.05 or smaller. With this in mind, the probability of 4 of 4 persons failing in

the 5 second condition was 0.125 and the probability of 3 of 4 persons

failing in the 11 second condition was 0.625. The results do not reach

customary levels of statistical significance, even though the outcomes

appear to be clear-cut, because of the effects of very small sample sizes on binomial probabilities. In this regard, the probability of being

unsuccessful in both the 5- and 11-second conditions, given a failure

in the 3 second condition, is 0.078 which is the product of the binomial

probabilities for the obtained results of the 5- and 11-seco.nd conditions.

Based on the aforementioned results, the author agrees with Steinfeld,

Schroeder, and Bishop (1979) that "door closers are not recommended for

interior locations" (p. 135), so long as it is assumed that this also is

appropriate for reasons other than accessibility. There are several reasons reasons for the author's concurrence. First, the number of volunteers suc- ceeding with a 3 second closing time was not statistically different than

those failing. Even if one additional success with the 11 second closing

time was added to create 8 of 11 successes (73 percent), the difference

between successes and failures still would not be statistically significant

(p = .226). Second, those failing at 3 seconds continued to fail at longer

closing times. However, all 11 volunteers succeeded passing through these

doors with the closers removed (see Steinfeld, Schroeder, and Bishop, 1979,

p. 138: table 36). Clearly, the closer is the problem.

In lieu of supporting data, Steinfeld' s recommendation of a 3 second minimum

closing time for all doors with closers in ANSI 117.1-1979 is a reasonable

interim criterion. He included this recommendation based on his belief that,

given a door with a closer, it is prudent to have a closing time specified.

The ANSI 117.1-1979 recommendation (see ANSI's section 4.13.10) actually is

more generous than it appears. It allows a 3 second minimum for a door to

move 70 degrees to a point 3 in (75 mm) from the latch (see table 6). This

is equivalent to about a 5 second minimum for the door to actually close

(E. Steinfeld, personal communication, July 1980). A 5 second minimum is

consistent with other recommendations in table 6. It also appears to be

consistent with recommended practice in the door hardware Industry. For

example, ANSI 156.4-1972 (section FT 11-6, p. 24), in its cycle test of

closers, stipulates 4 to 6 seconds for a door's time to actually close from

a 90 degree open position. In conclusion, information is still needed on

For this test and for the other statistical tests on this data in this

section, two-tail probabilities are reported because the outcomes were

not predicted in advance.

34
how much time different handicapped user groups need to pass through a door

with a closer. Moreover, there should be a determination of whether the

preferable approach is a longer closing time or the addition of a delayed

action Interval. The decision may turn on the behavior patterns of users. Not all users may open a door wide enough to engage the operation of the

door mechanism that controls delayed action. With some closers, the door

must be opened more than 60 degrees to engage this feature. Steinfeld

(personal communication, July 1980) suggests that user groups only may open

a door wide enough to pass through and that the resulting position of the

door may not be sufficient to engage a delayed action mechanism. Moreover,

user strength and stamina also may be an issue. If a door closer has a back check feature, to make it less likely that a user will slam the door

into a wall or other objects when opened widely, this feature when engaged

will increase the door’s opening resistance. On some closers, the door must

be opened beyond the point at which the back check feature engages before

the delayed action feature is activated. This combination may create barriers

to access for functionally limited user groups with strength or stamina problems. Thus an examination of door closers must include the strength and

stamina of users with regard to unlatching and opening a door, their behavior

patterns with regard to how widely the door is opened, and the relation

of these to the design and operation of door closers on manually-operated,

hinged doors. Last, door closers with delayed action features are priced

higher than standard door closers, other factors equal. Whether the benefits

of delayed action are commensurate with their greater costs also should be

examined.

3.3.3 Two Questions Posed by Closers

Closers pose two related research questions. First, what are reasonable

accessibility maxima for door closers' closing forces, given 60 to 70 percent

closer efficiency for exterior and interior doors? Second, can technology

and environmental design overcome problems that now require high closing

forces? For example, if environmental conditions, such as wind loads acting

on a door, are the reason for increasing the closing force, then environmental

design solutions like wind screens or better choices of door location might

be better solutions than stronger closers. As for technological improvements,

there are now smoke- and heat-sensitive closers for fire doors on trafficked

routes. Consequently, these doors can be left open during nonemergency conditions. There are now pneumatic assists that control the opening force

of doors with mechanical closers by "overriding" the closer and lowering

opening forces to 5 Ibf (22 N) or less. So long as these assists are reliable

and durable and their user-operated controls conform to the abilities of

the handicapped (see Faste, 1977, p. 53), these pneumatic assists represent

a useful approach to separating door opening and door closing functions as far as the role of the door closer is concerned.

3.4 THE DOOR SYSTEM: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Three door hardware components that relate to handicapped users are discussed. The components are the locking and latching mechanisms, door

35
openers, and door closers* Each raises questions about the adequacy of

current codes and standards as these apply to persons with functional limitations. There have been few studies of locking and latching components. It

Is not clear from the available literature how serious the problems posed by

these door components are for functionally limited Individuals. Door openers

provide barrier-free access and egress. However, If the power systems fall,

these door can be barriers. This would be especially serious If the failure

happened during an emergency requiring building egress. Door closer forces,

closing time, and delayed action Intervals lack firm empirical support.

Since these door components, with the exception of locking and latching

mechanisms, are frequently Included In building accessibility standards and

codes, a sound empirical basis for standard-setting remains to be established.

36
4. GENERAL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 SUMMARY

One building system addressed by accessibility codes and guides developed

at the State and Federal levels and by consensus standards groups is the

door system. However, these standards and codes do not agree on levels of

performance or on scope and they vary in their empirical support. This holds

for accessibility codes as a whole and for their sections on the door system.

The sections of accessibility codes on the door system require reappraisal.

Doors can be obstacles to building access and use. The reasons may be obvious

and include improper installation and unusual climatic conditions such as a strong wind acting on a door. The reasons also can be less obvious. A pervasive example are conflicts among the multiple functions that doors serve. These functions include life safety, security, access, and energy conservation.

Doors as obstacles pose problems for all citizens. Jones (1978) has estimated

that 60 percent of the total U.S. population is handicapped at any one time

in their use of the environment. However, the effects of architectural

barriers are greater for the severely disabled.

The concept of disability and related concepts like impairment and handicap

lack a consensus of meaning. In part this is because some definitions reflect

regulatory requirements and others reflect scientific requirements. It is

suggested (in chapter 1) that the concept of functional capacity (or, in

its negative form, functional limitation) be used. This concept is likely

to be a better indicator of human performance than disability because functional capacity, unlike disability, is a direct antecedent of performance.

To make an approach based on functional capacity workable, the abilities

must be identifiable, measurable, and have established relevance to building

accessibility.

Although functional capacities relevant to building accessibility have been

identified, generally speaking, they must be more precisely specified. They

need improved and standardized ergonomic measurement procedures. This is

likely to require a major research effort. Not meeting these goals will

undermine the evaluation and comparison of building accessibility studies

using volunteers varying in functional capacity. This will result in conflict and confusion about what, in fact, are the facts. Moreover, there are questions about the suitability of applying ergonomic data from able-bodied

people to persons with functional limitations. Because of these problems,

chapter 2 discusses suggestions for improving the existing ergonomic data

base to make it more suitable to building accessibility for the functionally

limited.

There is a distinction between functional capacity and door use patterns.

The latter refers to how abilities are actually employed during door use. These patterns vary. This raises three questions. Which patterns are the

most effective for given groups and given doors? Are these patterns being

used? If not, then under what conditions would they be used?

37
The door user is one aspect of the person-environment system. The other is

the door system itself. Among the components of the door system is the

hardware; locking and latching mechanisms, door openers, and door closers.

Each of these is discussed. (Other components, such as door size and

weight, and clear widths, are not discussed in this report.) For each of

the components (discussed in chapter 3), questions are raised about the

adequacy of current accessibility codes and standards as they apply to

persons with functional limitations. For example, it is not clear from the

available literature how serious the problems posed by these components are to handicapped individuals. Door openers provide barrier-free access and egress. However, if power systems fail, these doors can become barriers.

This could be particularly serious if the failure was due to an emergency

requiring building evacuation. Door closer forces, closing times, and

delayed action intervals lack firm empirical suport. The available data

have methodological problems (e.g. , small sample sizes) that limit their

usefulness. Since these components, with the exception of locking and

latching mechanisms, are frequently Included in building accessibility

standards and codes, a technically sound basis for such standards remains

to be established.

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the information that was reviewed, research in three related areas

is recommended. These are the ergonomic measurement of human capacities, the

specification of door use patterns, and the creation of engineering-based

standards (tests and measures) for accessibility.

The ergonomic measurement project should initially address two objectives:

(1) the selection and development of a basis for characterizing the functional capacities of users, and (2) the selection and development of instruments and procedures to measure these functional capacities. Work by

Steinfeld and his associates on characterizing functional capacity, discussed

in chapter 2, is a recommended building block for this effort.

The door use pattern project should initially pursue the objective of

characterizing and measuring ideal and actual door use patterns. Following

the lead of Johnson (1979), the project also should address how these patterns

can and do contribute to successful door use.

The third project should pursue the objective of developing engineering-based

standards for accessibility. A second objective would be to develop and test

new technologies for building accessibility with possible emphasis on door

opener, door closer, and latching and locking technologies. The aim of

producing engineering-based tests and measures is to have available for door

and door hardware manufacturers tests and measures that would predict

behaviorally-relevant door performance. The purpose of developing new technologies would be to make buildings more accessible and to reduce the cost

of so doing.

Cost is a factor that must not be ignored. As matters stand now, the

estimated Increase in construction costs for making buildings accessible is

38
generally less than one percent of total construction costs (Schroeder and

Steinfeld, 1979, pp. 148, 150). As a rule, accessibility is less costly in

new construction than in renovation and in nonresidential than in residential

buildings (Schroeder and Steinfeld, 1979, chap. 11; Jones, 1978, p. ix)

.

Costs depend on what items are Included in a particular building. An elevator, for example, can be an expensive addition (see Schroeder and Steinfeld,

1979, p. 142, cost estimate for the public branch library) and so can powerassist door features (R. Hudnut, personal communication, July 1979). In

short, researchers must consider the cost to the public of proposed standards,

improvements, innovations, and technologies. One aim of researchers should

be the development of new technologies which will reduce the cost of making

buildings accesslblle.

In closing, the three recommended projects were selected because available

research suggests that each represents an area with unresolved problems or unmet needs. Answers provided by these projects can bear directly on

accessibility criteria for door components and on future research on

building accessibility and with functionally limited groups.
REFERENCES

Annis, J. A. (1978), "Variability in Human Body Size," in Webb Associates

(eds.). Anthropometric Source Book (Vol. I). Washington, D.C.: National

Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ANSI A117. 1-1979, "Specifications for Making Buildings and Facilities

Accessible to and Usable by Handicapped People." New York: American

National Standards Institute.

ANSI 156.4-1972, "Door Controls-Closers ." New York: Builders Hardware

Manufacturers Association.

BHMA 1601-1977, "Power Operated Pedestrian Door Standard." New York:

Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association. [Subsequently adopted

by American National Standards lastitute, ANSI A156. 10-1979.

Brown, W. C., and Buchanan, C. J. (1973), "A Study of the Strength

Capabilities of Children Ages Two through Six," (NBSIR 73-156). Washlngtoa,

D.C.: National Bureau of Standards.

Brown, J. W., and Redden, M. R. (1979), "A Research Agenda on Science and

Technology for the Handicapped," (AAAS Report No. 79-R-15) . Washington,

D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Cohn, B. M. (1978), "Study of Human Engineering Considerations in Emergency

Exiting from Secure Spaces," (Task II Final Report). Long Beach, Calif.:

Gage-Babcock.

Cotton, C. E., and Dainty, D. A. (1978), "Analysis of the Physical Exertion

of Door Use," Unpublished final report submitted to the Division of

Building Research, National Research Council of Canada. Ottawa: Department of Kinanthropolmetry , University of Ottawa. [Available from the

Canadian Institute of Scientific and Technical Information.]

Diffrient, N., Tilley, A. R., and Bardagjy, J. C. (1974), Humanscale 1/2/3.

Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Paste, R. A. (1977), "New System Propels Design for the liandicapped ,

Industrial Design , (July/August) , 51-55.

Geen, R. G., and Gange, J. J. (1977), "Drive Theory of Social Facilitation:

Twelve Years of Theory and Research," Psychological Bulletin, 8(6),

1267-1288.

Goldsmith, S. (1976), Designing for the Disabled (3rd ed.). London: RIBA

Publ. Ltd.

40
Hertzberg, H. T. E. (1972), "Engineering Anthropology," in H. P. Van Cott

and R. G. Kinkade (eds.)» Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design

(rev. ed.). Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office.

Jeffreys, M. , Millard, J. B., Iljnnan, M. and Warren, M. D. (1969), "A Set of

Tests for Measuring Motor Impairment in Prevalance Studies," Journal of

Chronic Disability , 22, 303-319.

Johnson, B. M. (1979), "Report of Door-Use Study," Draft of an unpublished

report of the Division of Building Research. Ottawa; National Research

Council of Canada. [Note; A published version if forthcoming.]

Johnson, C. A., Archea, J., and Steel, L. (1975), "A Model of Information - Processing and Human Performance Factors Associated with Accidents Involving

Stairs, Ramps and Doors." Paper presented at the 6th annual meeting of

the Environmental Design Research Association, Lawrence, Kansas.

Jones, C. E., and Fechter, J. V. (1980), "Safe environments — Anthropometric,

biomechanical, and activity considerations," (NBSIR 80-2014). Washington,

D.C.; National Bureau of Standards.

Jones, M. A. (1978), "Accessibility Standards Illustrated." Springfield, 111.;

Capital Development Board, State of Illinois.

Landers, D. M. , and McCullagh, P. D. (1976), "Social Facilitation of Motor

Performance," Exercise and Sports Science Review , 4, 125-162.

Lifchez, R. , and Winslow, B. (1979), Design for Independent Living; The

Environment and Physically Handicapped . New York; Whitney Library of

Design.

Martens, R. (1974), "Arousal and Motor Performance," Exercise and S ports

Science Review , 2, 155-188.

McConville, J. T., and Laubach, L. L. (1978), "Anthropometry," in Webb

Associates (eds.). Anthropometric Source Book (Vol. I). Washington, D.C;

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Panel on Building Design Criteria for the Disabled (1977), "Accessibility; An

Approach to the Development of Design Criteria and Applicable Design Solutions." Washington D.C.; Building Research Advisory Board, National Academy

of Sciences.

Reynolds, H. M. , and Allgood, M. A. (1975), "Functional Strength of Commercial

Airline Stevjardesses ." Oklahoma, City, Okla.; FAA Civil Aeroraedical

Institute.

Schroeder, S., and Steinfeld, E. (1979), "The Estimated Cost of Accessible

Buildings." VJashington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office.

41
Seaton, R. (1979), "Manual Operation of Doors," Unpublished report prepared

for the Division of Building Research, National Research Council of Canada.

Vancouver, B.C.: Department of Architecture, University of British

Columbia. [Available from the Canadian Institute of Scientific and

Technical Information.]

Sharry, J. A. (ed.) (1978), Life Safety Code Handbook . Boston: National

Fire Protection Association.

Siegel, S. (1980), Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences . New York; McGraw-Hill, 1956.

Steinfeld, E., Schroeder, S., and Bishop, M. (1979), "Accessible Buildings

for People with Walking and Reaching Limitations." Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Steinfeld, E., Schroeder, S., Duncan, J., Faste, R., Chollet, D., Bishop, M.,

Wirth, P., and Cardell, P. (1979), "Access to the Built Environment: A

Review of the Literature." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office

Urban Institute (1975), "Report of the Comprehensive Service Needs Study."

Washington, D.C.; Office of Human Development, U. S. Department of

Health, Education and Welfare.

Webb Associates (eds.) (1978a), Anthropometric Source Book, Volume I ; Anthropometry for Designers , (NASA Reference Publication 1024)

Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Webb Associates (eds.) (1978b), Anthropometric Source Book, Volume II ; A

Handbook of Anthropometric Data , (NASA Reference Publication 1024)

Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

42
APPENDIX 1

ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE

IN THE UNITED STATES

WITH FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS

WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM

ACCESSIBLE BUILDINGS

43
PREVALENCE OF FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS IN THE NONINSTITUTIONALIZED U.S. POPULATION (In millions)

Limitation Date Estimate

(in millions)

Age

Group Source

A. Difficulty in Interpreting Information

(No Data Available)

B. Severe Loss of Sight 1970 1.7 All American Foundation for the Blind

C. Severe Loss of Hearing 1974 6.8 All National Association for the Deaf

D. Prevalance of Fainting, Dizziness

or Poor Balance

1970 2.9 18 & Over

Nagl (fainting spells, dizziness, sick

feelings

E. Incoordination (No Data Available)

F. Limitations of Stamina 1953-

1965 5.0 NHIS (limited activity^ due to asthma-hay

fever, heart conditions, hypertension & other respiratory conditions)^

G. Difficulty Moving Head (No Data Available)

H. Difficulty in Lifting and

Reaching with Arm

1970 11.8 18 & Over

Nagi (great difficulty lifting 10 lb weight

or reaching with arms)

I. Difficulty in Handling or Fingering (No Data Available)

J. Inability to Perform Upper Extremity

Skills

1963-

1965

3.6 All NHIS (limited activity due to impairment of upper extremity and shoulder)

K. Difficulty in Bending, Turning,

Sitting or Kneeling

1970 10.0 18 & Over

Nagi (great difficulty stooping, kneeling & crouching)

L. Reliance on Walking Aids 1969 6.6 All NHIS (use of crutches, braces, canes, walkers, artificial limbs)

M. Inability to Use Lower Extremities 1969 0.4 All NHIS (wheelchair users)

N. Extremes of Size and Weight (No Data Available)

^ Includes both those "limited in amount and kind of major activity" as well as "unable to carry on major activity."

Does not Include paralysis and absence of limbs.

From Steinfeld, Schroeder, Duncan, Faste, Chollet, Bishop, Wlrth, and Cardell, 1979, p. 29.
BENEFICIARIES^ OF BARRIER ELIMINATION WHO WOULD BENEFIT DUE TO INC^ASED

INDEPENDENCE IN PERSONAL CARE AND MOBILITY USING NHIS AND SSN DATA^

Age

% of U.S.

Population Date Source

Under 17 0.04 1965-1967 NHIS (limitation of mobility such that

"needs help getting around")

18 - 64 1.7 1966 SSN (severely disabled and needing hel

with personal care or mobility, plus

severely disabled with visual

Impairments)

65 plus 0.5 1965-1967 NHIS (limitation of mobility such that

"needs help getting around")

Total 2.2

^ Nonins titutionalized people only.

2 NHIS refers to the National Health Interview Survey of the National

Center for Health Statistics.

SSN refers to Social Security Survey of Noninstitutionalized Adults.

Source: Steinfeld, Schroeder, Duncan, Faste, Chollet, Bishop, Wirth, and

Cardell, 1979, p. 30.

'

i

;l

111

45

'!

i

i
DISABLED POPULATION

Based on its review of a number of data sources, the Panel concludes

that the following represents a reasonable approximation of the

makeup of the disabled population:^

Disabilities Population

Difficulty in Interpreting Information

Severe Loss of Sight

Severe Loss of Hearing

Prevalence of Fainting, Dizziness, or Poor

Balance

Incoordination

Limitations of Stamina

Difficulty in Moving Head

Difficulty in Lifting and Reaching with Arms Difficulty in Handling or Fingering

Inability to Perform Upper Extremity Skills

Difficulty in Bending, Turning, Sitting, or Kneeling

Reliance on Walking Aids

Inability to Use Lower Extremities

Extremes of Size and Weight

13.983.000

1.768.000

6.800.000

3.599.000

2.700.000

60.203.000

2.652.000

11.978.000

2.642.000

3.244.000

10.097.000

6.935.000

430,000

4.160.000

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1972c) provides

the following concerning the number of persons using special aids:^

Number of Persons Using Mobility Aids (in thousands)

Brace ArtificialLimb Other

Special

Shoes

Cane or Walking

Stick

Leg

or

Foot

Other Crutches WheelchairWalker Leg

or

Foot

Arm

orHand

Aid for

Getting

Around

2,377 2,156 233 869 443 409 404 126 46 140

Population data obtained from Trends (1974) are as follows:

1.2 million blind or severely visually impaired

7.6 million suffering from heart condition

6.2 million (non-lnstltutlonal) using orthopedic

aids—wheelchairs, braces, crutches, etc.

1.8 million deaf

18.3

14.5

18.3

409.000

1,102,000

172.000

2,156,000

404.000

443.000

20,000,000

million hard of hearing

million respiratory ailments

million arthrltlcs

Americans are in wheelchairs

use heavy leg braces

artificial limbs

use canes

use walkers

use crutches

are over 65.

3 As estimated by Sally Bedow of Little People of America, there are approximately 100,000 small adults in the United States.

There is great difficulty in obtaining consistent and reliable data concerning

numbers of individuals possessing specific disabilities and degrees of disability and even more difficulty in determining the numbers of individuals possessing more than one disability who are, thus, being counted more than once. As a consequence, in all probability it is unrealistic to arrive at total numbers of reported individuals with given disabilities.

2 Data are based on household interviews of the civilian nonlnstlCutional

population. The survey design, general qualifications, and information

on the reliability of the estimates are given in Appendix I of the cited DHEW publication; definitions of terms are given in Appendix II of [Che

Panel's report].

3 Private communication

Source: Panel on Building Design Criteria for the Disabled, 1977,

pp. 177-179.

46
U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 80-2174

J. No

iilMiiiiliiliii

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Building Accessibility in Relation to Door Hardware, Door

Users and Door Use

5. Publication Date January 1981

iiiMi

7. AUTHOR(S)

Stephen T. Margulis

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, city, state, ZIP)

Architectural and Transportation

Barriers Compliance Board

33 C Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20201

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

IS. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or teas tactual summary of moat significant information. If document includes a signiticant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here.) This report reviews the technical literature related to doors as architectural

barriers. It examines the concept of disability and the associated concepts of

iii5)airment and handicap. It is concluded that these terms lack consensus of

meaning. The concept of fmctional capacity is recommended as an alternative

because of the more direct linkage between capacity and performance. A review

of the conceptual literature on functional capacity and its measurement leads

to the conclusion that fimctional capacities relevant to building accessibility

generally have been identified, but more precise specifications and improved

ergonomic procedures for testing capacities of the disabled are required.

Furthermore, a distinction is drawn between functional capacity and door use

patterns . The latter refers to how capacities are applied during actual door

use. Last, door systems are examined, particularly locking and latching

mechanisms , door openers and door closers . The existing literature on these

raises questions about the adequacy of current accessibility codes and standards

with regard to these components . Based on unresolved problems and- current needs

,

research addressing accessibility relevant objectives is recommended.

Id

'.I

17. KEY WORDS fsix to twelve entries; alphabeticBl order; capitalize only the first lettsr of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons)

Architectural barriers; building accessibility; codes and standards; disability;

doors; door closers; door openers; ergonomics; functional capacity; handicap; locks

18. AVAILABILITY [X] Unlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

I I Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003- m Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield,

VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

22. Price
- .

' -y

' «aeii'’ --,* ,,.witiA. AtiiOiiiii »

;'

i "

i»n< i<i» xi«*ia»j» <*«»i>

F" ' T— Q,„ /.?l'^-‘*‘''

ttl:'

Mi;.-#"- ':, ar '

, u

ri3,aw

rr_ n. iMWrwiifflP^ ' iiiHTfl*' V

"*''*•** ^ ’ «'

. ; *afyvi^«^TUi

' ' ^' *

^3*!“ -«^.* .’:.iJiK5ii»'-'' ' .

. ''^ 'j^ 5!Z52El^—— — ^_

• ii

ii

•r k‘— ni

&0(^

lA (miA > .,'^. w.i j. ,-^

2

4 ^.’ ^^^T|55| 00 ;

.Ui

... .w

'•’5F

'i' uvp:^

:m..M *t #w*pp :mi*A]

,JMIIj.i.:. ii-i^. * i^,F»ii'»iFy " *' " ." X

iifil. xm^XSi^

Itfi

,'

' ?ti #«0

' ' ,: Wfe-v

T/vw' . F,vi. 'C"*^

; '^X. •>?

„V t. •c*^

Xa

A ,OT<IWtTO-t'l^.^' flw* ,d#^

irtJ «c turn h*»TT H»*l»aS''

, . . ».«' VAijk^ kmuik4€t^>A t%mlm

3

rnK(0.Ui4

’"- •

' ., -iftj.

jmy*%i^

'm

i|ifkii^4' WSwr^ii^:.'*^ «<MH' ; ," ,4 ' -l:

I^^'^lll4w«f«p^ ft* »'<inift<|<r»<. «!»><•*<# ft*

4ii*r »4Mr>w «r« rt'-'.^f ' ^:*^^P A^ „

;n<i -.M , . _ . » '

2:’

i' ^ (V? 4 . W, ,:. " ijr : f' „, :’^'~~"^ -vr, - T,r ^.v. '

%: ,, ii.w’«iiik, .,' f*