Home Retrofit Project
presentation four
Mathew Reynolds
Under Supervision of:
Dr. Samer Adeeb
Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
Design Goals
To improve the accessibility of  existing homes


Need
Product = Resource for:
Outpaitents
Clinicians
Ocupational Therapists
Successful and efficient implementation of knowledge 
and technology to improve and preserve the quality
of life. 
"We need to find ways to be more creative in how
we can deal with the challenges created by an aging
population and how we can keep people in their 
homes longer, and be more respective to their needs."
- Mayor Stephen Mandel, City of Edmonton
"Age in Place"
"We will see a doubling of
seniors in 5 years"
"By 2036 one quater of Canadian Population
will be over the age of 65"
"Senior falls currently cost Alberta
96 million a year"
"Making our Houses Lifelong Homes - Accessible
Housing for Seniors" - City of Edmonton
Current Design Philosophy based on level of access:
Visitability - Main floor bathroom, zero barrier
Accessibility - Broader scope affecting all aspects of life
Universal Design / FlexDesign: Ground up accesibility Design
Design 
Base design on peoples degrees of mobility rather then 
the products implemented
This will allow for a more user friendly and
streamlined implementation
Space Accessibility: Improving the accessibility to those individuals that require a little more space to feel comfortable (i.e. stepping through doorways)

Wheelchair Accessibility: Improving the accessibility of a space given the special requirements of users in a wheelchair



Cane/Walker Accessibility:Improves the accessibility to people with minor reduction in mobility (i.e. shortening rise of stairs to make stepping easier)

Quadriplegic Accessibility: Extensive needs

Intesity of Renovation
Mobility
Product Overview 
4
3
1
0


Walker/Wheelchair Accessibility: People who require the use of both
2
Rated (X/5)
Quantitative analysis of Accessibility 
New method to compare the accessibility of various spaces using recomened barrier free zone as defined by NBCC.
STEPS:
1.In plans view of a space, place a 1.5m diameter circle in movement circle.
2.Remove any areas, and shadow areas blocked by objects impeding the circle.
3.Record the area of the impeded circle, and divide the area of the “idea 1.5m circle” as defined by NBCC, multiply this number by 100 to achieve a percentage.
4.The resulting percent represents an accessibility of that movement. These specific circle locations can be then compared between designs to compare final the accessibility.
5.The areas of the impeded circles for any given room can be averaged, to give an average of the accessibility of that room.

Assign Paitent a Benchmark
Mobility Number based on need
Problem
Set A
Problem 
Set B
Problem 
Set C
Solution A1
Solution A2
Solution A3
Solution B1
Solution B2
Solution B3
Solution C1
Solution C2
Solution C3
A1 A2 A3
B1 B2 B3
C1 C2 C3
INTENSITY/COST
PROBLEM
Example 1: Paitent is experiencing issue C with level two intensity


*Database of problems and solutions to be created from interviews 
*Problems are not exclusive to a respective Mobility Catagory i.e: Thresholds
Space Accessibility 

Some cases require that spaces be modified and if possible renovated to create more accessibility. The reason this category is implemented is to provide some kind of step before major renovations for people who simply require slight modifications. This category tends to be very subjective to the individual. 
PROBLEMS:
•Stepping over the thresholds of doorways.
•Need for extra support when climbing stairs.
•Need for support getting out of the shower.
•Smooth flooring can cause falls.

SOLUTIONS:
•Grab bars mounted on thresholds – question raised about integrity of the grab bars and mounting locations -> Integrity evaluated (Case Study D). The deflection of these bars are of major concern.
•Mount railings (on both sides if it is close enough to reach comfortably).
•Install.
•Use non-slip products on floors such as no-slip tiles.
•Relocate toilets and vanities, enlarge spaces by sacrificing storage spaces.
•Install “swing clear” hinges to open up threshold and provide wider clear distance.


Cane/Walker Accessibility 

People using canes and walkers will have special needs that are not so intensive as people in wheelchairs. These needs lead to unique circumstances where applying general wheelchair guidelines are not appropriate. A perfect example of this my interviewee (using a cane) liked spaces that were smaller, with the installation of grab bars, to feel secure.
PROBLEMS:
•Rise in steps of stairs can be too high.
•Require stable grab bars.
•Ramps are not good, impairs balance and rails are likely not appropriate.
•Floor surfaces: people with walkers might find it easier to have laminate flooring; vs. the traction preferred by those with canes.
•This level of decreased mobility can start to lead to physiological stress with regards to accessibility.


SOLUTIONS:
•Lengthen the run of stairs and provide shorter rises – if possible.
•Use “Easy Cane” to shorten rise in stairs.
•Install flooring appropriately to the situation.
•Install grab bars, dual railings, threshold ramps, threshold steps.
•Address lack of accessibility immediately. Interviewee couldn’t access his backyard since his surgery because the there was no adjacent railings from the sliding door.
•Physiologically people need to feel secure with the solutions implemented, railings/grab bars need to offer very little in terms of deflections.



Wheelchair Accessibility 
Wheelchair users have unique needs, and usually more intensive modifications to restore accessibility. NBCC addresses mobility reduced people by clauses terms “Barrier Free access”, and applies exclusively to commercial/industrial buildings and spaces within living suites. Using a guideline imposed by NBCC as a requirement to have the equivalent of an 1.5m circle to turn in for any modification.
PROBLEMS:
•Narrow doorways: wheel chairs vary in size from 22” to 39”, interior doorways can be as narrow as 24”.
•Not enough clearance (1.5m circle not met in critical locations).
•Stairs.



SOLUTIONS:
•Widen doorways where possible, NBCC recommends 32” clear distance for all doors. Otherwise follow codes in 086 to size appropriate lintels and adjacent studs.
•Use sliding doors, or install swing clear hinges when sliders not possible. Sliding doors are ideal because they cut down on an induced shadow (that cannot be used to calculate accessibility).
•Implement adjacent space requirements for perpendicular walls.
•Widen access ways by sacrificing storage and/or auxiliary rooms.
•Use ramps (1:16 to 1:20) on outside locations, and (1:8) on inside locations.
•Use ramps to get over thresholds larger then (1/4”).
•Allow no threshold ramp to have a rise greater then 3”.
•Stair lifts, if afforded, take up considerably less room then ramps.




Walker/Wheelchair Accessibility 
Examples 
Current and all future examples 
based on outpaitent interviews
Case Study A 
Case Study B
Case Study C
Case Study D
PROBLEMS: (72%)
•Tight doorway
•No turning room to access the toilet/vanity
•No turning room to access bathroom
•Poor accessibility 

SOLUTION WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBILITY: (88%)
•Improved door way clear width
•Sliding doors eliminate need for swing distances
•Installation of grab bars
•Wider Clear radius to access toilet/vanity
•Improved “Accessibility” by an average of 22% (w/ respect to old plan)

PROBLEMS: (54%) 
Very tight doorway 
No turning room to access the toilet/vanity 
Very poor accessibility 
Door backs right onto bathtub – hard to widen Client might want to keep size of existing tub
 Landing area on top of the stairs is too small for exit off lift

SOLUTION: 
Improved door way clear width 
Sliding doors eliminate need for swing distances
 Wider Clear radius to access toilet/vanity 
Improved “Accessibility”
KEEP BATHTUB: (76%) 
Client might need large bath tub 
Sliding Door allows for wider clear distance 
Kept plumbing at roughly same locations 
Installation of grab bars 
Utilizes cubby hole that tends to bring down accessibility rating 
Improves Accessibility by 41%
MAJOR RENOVATION: (90%) 
Client can choose between tub or sit shower 
Sliding Door allows for wider clear distance 
Installation of grab bars 
Plumbing kept at same locations 
Dramatically opens up the space Improves Accessibility by 67%

PROBLEMS: 
•Threshold too large
•Hard access with intermediate stair landing
•Poor positioning of the door


SOLUTION:
•Place small ramp at threshold to assist (all cases)
•Move door to the left to provide recommended spacing (NBCC)








WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBILITY (2):
•Add ramp at (16:1) slope in front (NBCC - Ice)
•Widen Landing to improve movement
•Take stairs down to floor – install chair lift
•Doesn’t impair living space and removes the intermediate landing
•Option would be to leave out large ramp and install lift at front

WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBILITY (1):
•Add ramp at (16:1) slope in front (NBCC - Ice)
•Widen Landing to improve movement
•Inside ramp (8:1 – No Ice)
•Keep stairs the same
•Impairs Living Space
•Option would be to leave out large ramp and install lift at front


CANE/WALKER ACCESSIBILITY:
•Add steps and grab bars to front entrance way
Add Small ramp to descrease threshold
•Add step and extend railing on inside stay way
•Keep stairs into kitchen same (would impair access there)

PROBLEM:
Come up with grab bar capacities (not found via. Homecaresolutions) based on ultimate load and serviceability requirements. Self motivated project after interviewee commented on contractor refusing to install grab bar at specific location, and interviewee expressing concerns with the deflection of assisting devices. Due to expressed concern on the deflection of the grab bars a conservative deflection limit of (L/360) was chosen.


Drawings A 
Drawings B 
Drawings C 
SOLUTION:
Limit states was checked using 086 Wood design code, and S16 Steel construction guidelines. The limit states were checked within two failure modes, through the screws or by the stud itself failing. Included In the failure of the stud is an analysis of the deflection as a function of the length of grab bar installed.



Screw summary:
 The longer the bar, the greater the leverage arm action on the screws the lower the force. The limiting case for the failure in the screws is the tension resistance of the screws. Screw failure is not the ultimate failure mechanism for the grab bars.



Mobility Class 4
Mobility Class 3
Mobility Class 2
Task Mobility 
    Number
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.3
2.2
2.1
Product Goals
Initial bench mark: outpaitent
has a clear understanding of what can be
done to improve accessibility
Paitents Accessibility requirements can be 
plotted vs. time for a clear analysis of 
paitent progress and trend wise advice
Product is adaptable, and has the capability
to fix misleading bench mark values based
on paitents need
Paitents overall accessibility can be 
determined by averaging the task 
mobility numbers
Example 2: John Doe is implementing Solutions: A1,B2,B3 giving average
"Mobility Rating" of: 3.6


Stud summary:
•Failure load and (L/360) deflection limits for mounting any grab bar on a door frames two studs thick is acceptable. 
•Failure load and deflection limit is unacceptable for mounting the grab bar onto a one stud door frame orientation.
•Failure load is O.K mounting the grab bar to the wall, but deflection could be an issue. The solution to this would be to install a rail that spans and connects to multiple studs to utilize load sharing effects.
•Choosing bigger grab bars reduce the capacity of the screws but overall increase the capacity due to the distribution on the stud. Therefore whenever possible install the longer grab bars to increase capacity and reduce deflection.




Failure: 403 lb
Deflection Limit: 163 lb
Failure: 101 lb
Deflection Limit: 20 lb
Failure: 225 lb
Deflection Limit: 104 lb
Conclusion: 
To be completed: 
Interview more paitents
Interview Architect
QUESTIONS?
Hi