I originally published the post below in May 0f 2009, but I’m trying to gather some information so I’ve pulled it up to the front again. Please take a moment to answer the quick survey about lever return in your area. Thanks!
Over the years I’ve heard many times that certain jurisdictions required lever handles to return back to within 1/2″ of the face of the door so the fire hoses wouldn’t be caught behind the levers. I did some research on this a while back, and I was told by a code official in California that it didn’t have anything to do with catching fire hoses, but with catching clothing, handbags, etc. as people attempted to exit.
I was asked again last week whether the lever handle had to return back toward the door. The only place I’ve seen this requirement in writing is in the California Referenced Standards Code:
Levers. The lever of lever-actuated levers or locks shall be curved with a return to within 1/2″ of the face of the door to prevent catching on the clothing of persons during egress.
There may be local jurisdictions that require returns on lever handles, but it is not a requirement of the ADAAG, A117.1, Massachusetts 521 CMR, the IBC, or NFPA 101.
You need to login or register to bookmark/favorite this content.
Lori,
Has there been any change in this?
http://idighardware.com/2009/05/lever-return/
I had heard it was for fire hoses as well. Interesting!
Lori,
I saw this article today.
Is there any change for the requirement such as NFPA 101 in 2013?
No, there is nothing in the most current versions of NFPA 101, the IBC, the ADA, or A117.1 regarding lever return, but it is still in the California code.
this is the best reason for the return lever its all about the kids right
the straight lever is at the right height for a running and tripping kid
http://www.japantoday.com/category/new-products/view/how-to-stop-kids-from-walking-into-door-handles
plus your button front shirt or jacket will not get caught on the return lever
and you will keep the fire man pulling his hose through the building happy
i am still looking for that pic I saw on the net with a straight lever stuck in a kids eye socket
always use return levers equals no problems
straight levers equals problems
I’ll have to say…none of my 3 kids have every run into a lever. They must be advanced. 🙂
I’m talking about commercial buildings and institution only not residential if you want a knife sticking out you door a home who cares. If your kids never been in a car accident why wear a seat belt? We should get rid of ADA codes and just tell people if they cant access a building to bad your not advanced enough to come in. your too blind, crippled, old. Why do we spend time and money on anti ligature hardware in jails would it not be OK for someone in jail to hang them self. prisoners on death row are on 24 hour suicide watch doesn’t make sense to me. But a lever returning to the door make sense. And it looks better.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3961490/Boy-eight-makes-miracle-recovery-impaling-eye-DOOR-HANDLE-playing-home-South-Africa.html
Hello, how does this door apply on a hotel where the entry doors have applied 3/4″ moulding. would the 1/2″ gap be measured from the flush part of the door or from the moulding. Note: the lever handle is directly in line with the moulding.
Hi Aaron –
Since that is not specifically addressed in the code, it would be up to the AHJ. If the lever is directly in line with the molding, I would measure the clearance at the molding, but the AHJ may measure it from the face of the door.
– Lori
Molding is completely irrelevant, since the danger of loose clothing/straps (and/or fire hoses) being caught on door handles is greatest when the door is OPEN. The distance is measured from the door face to the end of the handle arm.
Hi Lori,
I don’t know if you’ve done an update to this requirement but this is the article that pops up on google first when searching this topic so I thought I’d leave a message here for you and anyone else who stumbles upon this page. I read this article and your post to thebuildingcodeforum.com where you were asking about which codes apply when.
This requirement is buried in CBC Section 1010.1.9.1 which directs readers to the California Referenced Standards Code. Interestingly, Group R and Group M occupancies serving fewer than 11 occupants are exempt (so individual hotel rooms and similarly small spaces would be exempt). This paragraph is in italics, indicating it is a California amendment. According to the Matrix Adoption Table at the front of the chapter, this amendment was adopted by the SFM, HCD-1/AC, and DSA-AC. These agencies govern the vast majority of projects in California. To see a complete list of applicable project types, readers should refer to CBC Sections 1.11.1, 1.8.2.1.2, and 1.9.1.
All of this is from the 2019 CCR Title 24; section numbers and wording could change if you are looking at a different code cycle text. I’m sure you know all of this info by now but hopefully it is helpful for others!
Thanks Leslie! I really appreciate you sharing this information. I’ve wondered about the exception for residential occupancies…in a hotel, for example, where each sleeping unit has an occupant load of less than 11, are the hotel room doors exempt even though people passing by in the corridor could get their clothing caught on the lever handles?
– Lori
Ha! Good question! While I think the codes could do a better job explaining this requirement, all we can do for the time being is guess…
I will say, my wording in the previous comment is perhaps misleading. The exact text says that compliance with the Referenced Standards Code is required for doors “intended for use on required means of egress doors in other than Group R and M occupancies with an occupant load of 10 or less.” So, technically, that’s not doors “serving” 10 or fewer occupants, just doors “in” occupancies with an occupant load of 10 or fewer. So, perhaps the corridor door, is required to have a return? But doors interior to unit would not?
Interesting thought! As a plans examiner, I’d prefer if they’d just say “all doors” and we could call it a day, haha.