Toward more meaningful standards.

OVER THE YEARS, THE ANSI/BHMA A156.3 STANDARD FOR exit devices has continued to evolve. With each revision it has deviated further from UL 305, the basic standard for exit devices. Since virtually every major exit device manufacturer has qualified to Grade 1, the question is whether the standard is as useful as it could be for determining which is the most appropriate and cost-effective exit device to use in every application. Consider that, in the BHMA 2007 Directory of Certified Exit Devices, there are thousands of configurations of exit devices and trim listed as Grade 1 and only three references for Grade 2 products. Some product standards do a good job of stratifying the products across multiple grades that can be used as a relative measure of durability. Without stratification across multiple grades, the value of the Exit Device Standard for indicating durability fails as a useful guide to differentiating by usage.

Is the ANSI/BHMA A156.3 standard a good predictor of whether an exit device will stand up in the real world? Does the 500,000 Grade 1 cycle requirement of A156.3 give an indication as to how many cycles an exit device will really last? Do some openings require less than this level of performance while others may require far more?

Practically speaking, ANSI/BHMA 156.3 is not a requirement, since exit devices must only comply with UL305 to be labeled for panic applications. However, the market has raised the bar to expect compliance with the ANSI standard, which generally means Grade 1, whether the application requires a greater or lesser level of performance.

Further, the number of cycles alone is not an accurate predictor of exit device life. Other factors that must be considered include forces applied, as well as direction and type of force. The abuse from hormone-charged adolescents differs from the impact of a lead-lined X-ray cart sliding along a device and damaging an end cap, for example. The number and type of cycles that devices in these demanding applications must withstand calls for a much higher level of durability than that of a device on the back door of a retail store used mainly for emergency egress, which may see very few cycles and little if any abuse.

UL 305 calls for only 100,000 cycles and includes both the unloaded door test (15# of force anywhere on touchpad area allows egress) and the loaded door test, in which the door is pre-loaded with 250 pounds of force, and the device must release with less than 50 pounds of force.

Since its inception, the ANSI/BHMA standard has raised the cycle test for Grade 1 from 250,000 and now to 500,000. Grade 2 increased to 250,000 cycles when Grade 1 went to 500,000 cycles, Grade 3 was introduced in one of the later revisions and now matches UL 305 at 100,000 cycles. Other changes also were made and more tests added, as the industry began to recognize the importance of such things as lever trim to the performance of the device. While the tests tended to be consistent with those for similar products used in non-exit device applications the test values have often times been inconsistent with similarly graded products.

When choosing exit hardware, Grade 1 specifications are a sufficient starting point but the diversity of exit device applications requires a much deeper evaluation. The unknown is, by how much a product may need to exceed Grade 1 standards in order to perform as desired in the most demanding real-life applications, or conversely, by how much the Grade 1 standards exceed the real needs of a less demanding application.

The question becomes whether increasing the cycles of a test that has not differentiated products to date automatically adds any value. Traditional tests don't always represent the conditions found in real-life applications. Anyone touring junior or senior high schools or hospitals will quickly see inoperative "Grade 1" exit devices with broken or bent components. Instead of simply increasing the number of cycles required to meet future standards, the industry may need to consider additional, more meaningful measures of durability. These should be incorporated into a new, more comprehensive standard that not only increases the demands on the product for each cycle but also incorporates tests that stratify products in the areas of security, "planned abuse" and "unplanned" abuse.

In the final analysis, tests used to certify compliance with ANSI/BHMA are the result of a consensus process among the members of the standards body. With BHMA standards, it is the manufacturers that control this process. To improve the value of the A156.3 standard, this body must look to change the standard so it differentiates products. This will provide the purchasing decision makers who rely on these standards with better data with which they can evaluate products, match value to need, and make sure they purchase the right exit device for their application.

About the Author: Don Baker is the General Manager of Exit Devices for Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies. Building Expected Frequency High Frequency Daily Yearly Large Department Store Entrance 5,000 1,825,000 Large Office Building Entrance 4,000 1,460,000 Hospital Corridor & Surgical Doors 3,000 1,095,000 School Entrance 1,250 456,250 Medium Frequency Hospital Consultation Rooms 100 36,500 School Corridor 100 36,500 Office Building Corridor 80 29,200 Storage Room 50 18,250 Low Frequency Residential Entrance 30 10,950 Residential Interior 20 7,300 Doors in high use applications may reach minimum Grade 1 test levels in less time than expected, while others may never come close to their design life.