音声ブラウザご使用の方向け: SKIP NAVI GOTO NAVI

Web Posted on: August 24, 1998


Automatic Doors and Windows

An Assessment of Improvements in Home Living

 

Stephen L Garvin
Building Research Establishment
Kelvin Road
East Kilbride
G75 0RZ, UK
tel : +44 1355 233001, fax : +44 1355 241895,
e-mail : garvins@bre.co.uk

 

1. Summary

This paper provides some details of a research project carried out over three years to assess the potential for automatic doors and windows to improve home living for elderly and disabled people. The main output of the research was a guide for use by specifiers, manufacturers and users of automatic doors and windows. The guide was published after completing a series of tests on automatic controls. The results of these tests are discussed in this paper.



| Top |

2. Introduction

Doors and windows are some of the most commonly encountered building features and used on an everyday basis. However, while most people may not find difficulties with these features there are many people who find them a problem. Disabled and elderly people in particular can find problems with gaining access through doors or opening and closing windows. These factors are often not helped by the design of the door or window, weight, design, inappropriate hardware and inaccessible approaches.

The Building Research Establishment of the United Kingdom has been undertaking research for the past three years on automatic doors and windows. The intention of this work has been to produce a guide that can be used by specifiers, manufacturers and users (1,2). Automatic doors and windows offer the potential to improve home living for many people, however, there was a need to verify this potential. In order to develop the guide it was necessary to carry out laboratory and field tests of the performance of door and window systems. The results of these tests and their implications form the basis of this paper together with the understanding of the types of systems available.



| Top |

3. Automatic control systems

Automatic door systems normally combine the following:

  • operators, or openers, which drive the opening of the door on receiving a signal;
  • activators which provide the initiating signal;
  • control units which interface between power supplies, activators and operators;
  • electric locks, strikes or bolts;
  • safety devices which prevent injury to users.

The systems work in a variety of different modes such as fully activated, push & go, power assist and low energy. Some products can be adjusted at the point of installation, or later, to work in more than one mode. Most automatic doors will be connected directly to the mains with battery back up in case of power failure. There are a few products which work by battery control. For housing it is normal to consider just hinged doors, although sliding and bi-fold doors can also be automated. Activators for automatic doors include remote control devices, coded key pads, wall mounted push plates and proximity sensors.

Window systems consist of similar items of equipment, although, there are differences in the types of operator and how they function. Most window systems do not include safety devices to prevent injury. Windows tend to be simpler systems and will often have a wall mounted switch type activator with a minimum number of possible operations. Other activators for windows include remote control devices, computer control and environmental sensors.



| Top |

4. Assessment of controls : laboratory tests and results

The automatic door and window systems used in the laboratory tests are described in tables 1 and 2. Two doors and four windows gave comparison between different systems (2).

 

Table 1: Description of door systems used in laboratory tests

ID

door type

operator and hardware

activator (s) mode of operation

Door A Timber, hinged and inward opening Dorma ED800 low energy operator, electric strike and dead locking via 3 point system. Operator receives initiation signal direct. Safety via door entering balanced mode. Hold open time set to 7s. Hand held remote control for fully activated mode. Push & go mode also used (set to work in dual mode).
Door B Metal and Glass, hinged, outward opening NT Dor-o-Matic high energy operator, electric strike with manual override. Safety via sensor in swing of door. Hold open time set to 7s. External side has wall mounted coded key pad, internally a wall mounted push plate. Fully activated on receiving the signal from both.

 

Table 2 : Description of window systems used in laboratory tests

ID

window type

operator and hardware

activator (s) and mode of operation

Window A

Timber (A), Velux roofwindow in top hung position Chain box operator housed in guarding and attached to window frame, supplied by Velux. Remote control activator or wall mounted key pads providing signal to control unit. In system with window B (RC can operate A and B as system). One push to open or close and cut-off at full throw

Window B

Timber (A), small top hung casement as per window A, supplied by Velux as per window A

Window C

PVC-U (A), side hung casement as per window A, supplied by Titon Wall mounted rocker switch, with continuous press for opening and closing.

Window D

PVC-U (B), top hung casement Scissor stay mounted on the frame. Linked to drive motor and rod systems to enable opening, by Geze. Wall mounted thumbturn, does not require continuous press, includes cut off on maximum throw.

 

A number of volunteers were invited to test the window and door systems. These volunteers included elderly people (aged 80 or more), spinal injury wheelchair users, people with learning difficulties and physical impairment, blind and deafblind. This gave a good representation of different disabilities and age of volunteers. The tests were simple and involved people using the doors and windows in set tests. These were intended to assess preferences for activators, mode of operation and ease of manoeuvre through doors. Some tests required the volunteers to try the safety features, this was carried out under strict supervision to prevent accidents. Other tests required the volunteers to carry bags to simulate everyday tasks such as shopping.

 

The general reaction of most of the volunteers was favourable towards the automatic doors. The majority of the volunteers were capable of using the automatic doors using either the remote control, the push & go facility, the coded key pad or the push plate. Although, some activators suited some users more than others. For example the wheelchair users generally preferred the remote control for door A as opposed to the push & go. The reason being that as the door opened inwards towards the volunteer they could not pull the door and manoeuvre out of its way at the same time. The remote control removed the need to do anything other than initiate opening and manoeuvre.

 

A number of the volunteers used too much force to bring the push & go facility into operation in moving from outside to inside. In particular some of the wheelchair users pushed through the door with electric wheelchairs as well as hands and arms. Those blind, deafblind and elderly users who had sufficient strength, were able to push open and walk through door A without the push & go facility being activated.

 

The coded key pad entry on door B received mixed reaction, the major drawback being for people with poor control over their hand and arm movements and for those with partial sight. However, this contrasted with the completely blind or deafblind volunteers who found the coded pad straightforward to use once they had located it and determined the layout of the pad. The volunteers indicated that they were accustomed to using touch as opposed to sight for devices such as telephones or cash machines. In contrast, people with partial sight and the elderly were trying to use their sight more than touch resulting in a struggle to locate the small buttons. Some volunteers commented that the pad lacked a Braille indicator, "that could easily have been added", while others thought better colour contrast would have helped. The push plate on the internal side of door B was popular with most volunteers, although, this did not mean that it could be used equally well by everyone. The volunteers liked the simplicity of the action combined with the rapid response. The volunteers suggested that the push plate’s design and positioning could be adjusted for the individual.

 

The remote control, for windows A and B, was beneficial for a number of the volunteers. Wheelchair users were normally presented with physical barriers in front of windows and unless the handle was at low level then they could not reach the hardware. The remote control was found beneficial in this respect. The main drawback was that the device used in the tests was not user friendly, it was designed to look good, and needed larger buttons for some users as well as colour contrast. However, for those with better eyesight and good manual dexterity it was not a problem. In common with the coded key pad for door B the remote control gave most problems to the partially sighted. Those volunteers who were completely blind began to learn their way around the remote control quickly and did not need for example better colour contrast.

 

The key pads for windows A and B had larger buttons which were easier to use than the smaller buttons on the remote control and were preferred by some volunteers. The use of individual switches meant that it did not require switching between channels for the remote control. In effect it was a simple procedure, whereas changing channels on the remote control presented more to learn and therefore reduced its usefulness.

 

Window C had a simple rocker type switch that required a continuous push in order to activate the operator. This window system was generally preferred over the other systems in the opinion of the volunteers. The main reasons were the instant response of the operator to the initiating signal and its simplicity. The drawback was that the rocker switch was not user friendly for people with poor control over hand movements or those with, for example, arthritic hands. Window D was easy to use by the volunteers, although, some volunteers with arthritic hands or poor control required a larger raised nose on the thumbturn. The drawback of the system was the slow response of the operator to activation which give a poor perception to some volunteers.

 

A number of the volunteers, e.g. the blind people, were able to use standard hardware (handles) to open windows in their own homes. They suggested that they would not actually use the controls unless a window was inaccessible or until they were older. There were also safety and security aspects that needed to be considered, such as finger trapping and fixing of operators to frames.



| Top |

5. Conclusions

This paper has described research carried out to assess the potential improvements that automatic doors and windows can make to the home living of elderly and disabled people. Such controls have been demonstrated through laboratory tests to be of benefit in improving access and facilities. However, the laboratory tests also demonstrated the need for automatic control systems to meet the needs of the individual users. Failure to address this aspect could result in poor specifications and the installation of controls that provide as much as a barrier as poor manual hardware. Automatic doors and windows are not needed by all disabled people. The blind volunteers were generally able to open and close windows and could not see a need for them. However, there may be a role for good manual hardware for some users which includes better colour contrast and easier use. The research has also included the installation of automatic controls into controlled field situations. These tests, while not discussed here, will form the basis of future work on whole life performance and costs.



| Top |

6. References

  1. Garvin S L, Domestic automatic door and window controls : for use by elderly and disabled people, BRE Report BR334, Construction Research Communications, 1997.
  2. Garvin S L, Automatic door and window controls for the disabled, Building Services Journal, pp39-40, August 1997.



| Top |

7. Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions of the United Kingdom for funding the research and the support of the industry partners.



| Top | | TIDE 98 Papers |