Often referred to as “the handshake of the building,” door hardware plays an outsized and often unrecognized role in providing safe, secure, and ADA-compliant ingress and egress access to the building environment.
However, complying with industry code and regulations can be complicated, often clouded by assumptions that can inadvertently expose projects to financial, operational, or liability risks for owners, architects, spec writers, contractors, or project stakeholders.
How should you approach door hardware specifications? Here are five common scenarios.
1. When aesthetics lead the conversation
This is a common concern for specification experts, including Brian Clarke, director of architectural specifications at Hager companies. During his more than 20 years in business, Clarke has assisted with hardware specification on thousands of projects in a variety of building types, helping architects, contractors and spec writers navigate options for hinges, latches, levers, locks, egress devices and more.
“You have to understand the intricacies between the hardware, the door manufacturer, the frame manufacturer, how the building is used and how they all interact,” explains Clarke, whose credentials include DAOC, DHT, DHC, CFDAI and CDT certifications.
He cites a recent example of an architect struggling to meet code-mandated door opening requirements and hinge options. “The right type of hinge for this door and frame was not going to work for the width required,” says Clarke. “We went through several options and confirmed that the opening would need to be adjusted by making their door opening four inches wider to meet the minimum IBC requirements.” This early-stage prescription allowed the architect to conform to a code-compliant design, avoiding costly repairs and rebuilds of the door.
2. When upfront savings drive hardware decisions
It is understandable to assume that a mid-range hardware rating can handle the intended building use and traffic. After all, Grade 2 is rated for up to 400,000 operating cycles (Grade 1, the highest grade, is rated for 800,000 cycles).
“It’s not unusual to implement an initial cost saving by reducing product quality and jumping from Grade 1 to Grade 2,” says Clarke. “When you consider the function of the building, the number of openings and environmental issues, these savings may not be in the best interest of the owners. The appropriate rating depends on the type of occupancy, traffic patterns and long-term performance expectations. I would never advise putting Grade 2 hardware in high-traffic environments such as high schools or hospitals.”
Initial hardware savings are quickly offset by repeated maintenance and premature replacement.
3. All door hardware works the same
Clarke advises specifiers to research door hardware companies carefully. “There are no shortcuts to independently documented and certified product testing,” he says. “Maintaining product quality across an entire product line requires an ongoing commitment, not a one-time effort.”
At Hager, that means regularly updating components, testing evolving code requirements, and validating the performance of our product lines, so durability and compliance don’t stop during the lifetime of our products.”
Specification teams should also be cautious about products described only as “compliant” with ANSI/BHMA or UL fire standards. “What does it mean to settle?” Clarke asks. “Unless you can prove certification, be careful. What exactly is certified? What code year do they conform to? Are they fire-rated on a 30-minute or three-hour door?”
Specifiers should confirm that testing is performed in independently certified laboratories, such as those recognized by Intertek’s Warnock Hersey program. At Hager, product testing is conducted through Intertek’s Warnock Hersey to confirm strict compliance with industry standards.
4. Rely on proprietary specifications only for simplicity
It’s not a big surprise to learn that some companies obfuscate product prices and features by creating different marketing brands. Clarke encourages owners and specifiers to pursue approaches that allow fair and transparent comparison while preserving design intent.
What is the best product value? It can be hard to say. Clarke suggests a “one company, one price” approach, providing buyers with clear performance criteria and transparent documentation to help level comparisons between multiple qualified manufacturers.
5. Where value engineering can go wrong
The original idea behind value engineering was to select materials of comparable quality and performance, but at a lower price. This allowed firms to produce equivalent goods because they were a more efficient manufacturer or had some other advantage. Same degree, but lower cost.
“Today, it’s different,” Clarke says. “Value engineering has become a euphemism for substituting inferior components as a way to save money. When product performance is reduced, these short-term savings often give way to long-term cost and operational impacts. This is not value engineering. It is a false economy on a material that represents less than 2% of the construction budget.”
As you weigh your door hardware options, keep these lessons in mind. As projects become more complex, early coordination around door hardware plays a critical role in supporting high standards of occupant safety, security and accessibility.
