Often called “the handshake of the building,” door hardware plays an outsized and often unsung role in delivering safe, secure and ADA-compliant ingress and egress access in the build environment.
Yet complying with code and industry regulations can be tricky, often clouded by assumptions that can unintentionally expose projects to financial, operational, or liability risks for owners, architects, specification writers, contractors or project stakeholders.
How should you approach door hardware specification? Here are five common scenarios.
1. When aesthetics leads the conversation
This is a common concern for specification experts, including Brian Clarke, director of architectural specifications for Hager Companies. Over his 20-plus years in the business, Clarke has assisted with hardware specification on thousands of projects across building types, helping architects, contractors and specification writers navigate options in hinges, closers, levers, locks, exit devices and more.
“You have to understand the complexities 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-clearance requirements and hinge options. “The type of hinge appropriate to that door and frame was not going to work for the required width,” Clarke says. “We walked through several options and confirmed the opening would need to be adjusted by making their door opening four inches wider to meet minimum IBC requirements.” This early-stage prescription allowed the architect to adjust to a code-compliant design, preventing costly doorway tear-outs and rebuilds.
2. When upfront savings drive hardware decisions
It’s understandable to assume that a midrange hardware rating can handle the intended building use and traffic. After all, Grade 2 is rated for up to 400,000 operation cycles (Grade 1, the highest grade, is rated for 800,000 cycles).
“It’s not unusual to implement first cost savings by lowering product quality and jumping from Grade 1 to Grade 2,” Clarke says. “When you consider building function, the number of openings and environmental matters, those savings may not be in the best interests of the owners. The right grade depends on occupancy type, traffic patterns, and long-term performance expectations. I would never advise putting Grade 2 hardware in high-traffic environments like high schools or hospitals.”
The initial hardware savings are quickly offset by repeated maintenance and premature replacement.
3. All door hardware performs the same
Clarke advises specifiers to carefully vet door hardware companies. “There are no shortcuts to independently certified and documented product testing,” he says. “Maintaining product quality across an entire product line requires an ongoing commitment, not a one-time effort.”
At Hager, this means regularly updating components, testing for evolving code requirements, and validating performance across our product lines, because durability and compliance doesn’t stop for the life of our products.”
Specification teams should also be cautious of products described only as “conforming” to ANSI/BHMA or UL fire standards. “What does conform mean?” asks Clarke. “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 rated door?”
Specifiers should confirm that testing is conducted in independently certified labs, 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 specs just for simplicity’s sake
It’s no great surprise to learn some companies obscure pricing and product features by creating different marketing brands. Clarke encourages owners and specifiers to pursue approaches that allow for fair, transparent comparison while preserving design intent.
What’s the best product value? It can be tough to say. Clarke suggests a “one company, one price” approach, which offers buyers clear performance criteria and transparent documentation to help level comparisons across 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 point. This enabled companies to produce equivalent goods because they were a more efficient manufacturer or held some other advantage. Same grade, but a lower cost.
“Today, it’s different,” says Clarke. “Value engineering has become a euphemism for substituting lower-grade components as a way to save money. When product performance is reduced, those short-term savings often give way to long-term costs and operational impacts. That’s not value engineering. It’s a false economy over a material that accounts for less than 2% of a 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.
