Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

[Chris Skoczylas]

While testing the safety reverse on an automatic garage door opener, the bracket pulled out and bent the top panel of the door. Upon a closer look, it appears the door had been damaged in the past and the bracket poorly installed with (2) 1-1/4" drywall screws.
The home owner says the door was working fine and that I owe him a new door.
How would you handle this?

[John Kogel]

Most HI's will say "failed under test" and stand their ground, but do what you feel is best for your business.

I damaged a cheap garage door one day, stopping it with my hand, bent the top and broke a window. I offered to fix it. Bought a length of angle iron and the owner helped me reinforce the top of the door and install a piece of glass. It cost me an afternoon, no job scheduled, and about $80 for glass and hardware. My client bought the house, no bad feelings all around.

[Scott Patterson]

While testing the safety reverse on an automatic garage door opener, the bracket pulled out and bent the top panel of the door. Upon a closer look, it appears the door had been damaged in the past and the bracket poorly installed with (2) 1-1/4" drywall screws.
The home owner says the door was working fine and that I owe him a new door.
How would you handle this?

A prime example of why we should not test the pressure reverse feature. Test the electric eyes and the balance of the door all day long.... Disclaim that you did not test this feature and go on with life, I do.

If the top panel did not have a support brace running across it then it was installed wrong. All door manufactures require a support brace on the top panel and then a properly attached bracket. If you did not see the brace you should not have tested the door.

Sorry, but I have to put the blame on you the inspector for this mishap.

The door worked fine before you tested the reverse feature, the homeowner was correct. You damaged the door when you tested it, by holding it with your hands. You will find no testing method that says this is how you test the reversing feature. So your improper testing method actually aggravated the improperly installed bracket on the unenforced panel.

Sorry for being so hard on you about this but this is a good learning lesson for other inspectors.

Once the top panel is damaged you will most likely have to replace the entire door. The top panel is the important part of the door that takes most of the stress when the door is opened with an automatic opener. Call a garage door contractor to see what they can do for you and if they will cut you a deal.

I have bought one garage door and parts for another in the past 17 years. My GL insurance paid for the door along with major damage to a customized Honda Goldwing that was crushed.... Thank goodness I had GL insurance.

[John Kogel]

My GL insurance paid for the door along with major damage to a customized Honda Goldwing that was crushed.... Thank goodness I had GL insurance.Ouch! Stories like this prevent me from even opening the door if there's a vehicle parked inside. If the homeowner is home, I might ask him to demonstrate the door, or wait until he pulls out. Otherwise, I disclaim it, not worth the grief.

[Ken Rowe]

Before testing the auto reversing motor always check that the reinforcing brace is installed at the top of the steel door and always check for loose hardware. The brace is required by all door manufacturers and opener manufacturers if an automatic opener is installed. However, this piece is purchased separately and does not come with either the door or opener. The brace is shown at the top of the included picture.

If you tested the auto reversing mechanism without the brace installed and / or loose / improper hardware and the door broke, you're responsible.

http://diynovice.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/garage1.jpg

[Jerry Peck]

A prime example of why we should not test the pressure reverse feature. Test the electric eyes and the balance of the door all day long.... Disclaim that you did not test this feature and go on with life, I do.

I usually agree with what Scott P. says, however, in this case Scott is w-a-y off base in my opinion.

Scott would be correct to chastise you for using your hand and not the approved and only recognized reversal test - the 2x4 on the floor and done correctly (many, if not most, HIs seem to not do this test correctly, and thus are afraid of this test).

"Failed under testing" if how I have handled it in the past ... I cam up with that phrase after a garage door fell off the tracks.

With regard to the garage door "operating properly" before it damaged ITSELF (you did NOT damage the door, it damaged ITSELF), if the door was "operating properly" prior to the test, the door would have have damaged itself.

I do agree that the HI should look the door over first for things like damage to the top of the door where the operator connects to the door - it is not uncommon at all to find doors which do not have the required stiffener brace installed at that location and you will find many doors which are wrinkled/crinkled at that connection point. Me, I tested those doors anyway, but damage like that is reason enough to write the door up for repair without testing ANYTHING - if you are not going to test the entrapment avoidance systems - ALL of them - don't bother trying to fool your client by only testing the easy ones. You could create a false sense of 'the door operates properly' in the client because you, the professional, did not feel the need to test the auto-reverse feature.

Either test the door or don't test the door, but don't do a half-arsed test by testing only the easy stuff. Crimeny. :rolleyes:

[Dom D'Agostino]

Frankly, the "failed under testing" line is unnecessary, as the hardware was clearly deficient and should have been more closely inspected before you operated the opener. I'm betting you could have seen the 2 drywall screws holding the bracket to the door, along with previous damage to the area.

Had you tested it using recognized industry protocols, you might be able to claim "failed under testing", but it appears some details were overlooked prior to your test.

In my area, you can get a 16x7 metal door installed for $700-$900. Consider it "Continuing Education" costs.

[Brandon Whitmore]

If it was damaged easily, my guess is that it's a newer thin paneled door. You may be able to just have the single panel replaced.....

[Garry Blankenship]

Everything works fine, until it doesn't. You were hired to test the door and by contract the owner agreed to allow you to test it. Unless it can be proved that you did something incorrecty, how can it's failure be your responsibility ? That said, a good faith effort to help can't hurt. Even small claims court will ultimately cost the players more than the repair.

[Ian Page]

While testing the safety reverse on an automatic garage door opener, the bracket pulled out and bent the top panel of the door. Upon a closer look, it appears the door had been damaged in the past and the bracket poorly installed with (2) 1-1/4" drywall screws.
The home owner says the door was working fine and that I owe him a new door.
How would you handle this?

I don't see anywhere in the OPs post that he was not testing the door pursuant to recognized standard procedures. So, without clarification of the method used it is inappropriate to lay blame or hold him fully accountable for the damage caused. Certainly close examination of the door prior to operation would/should have identified potential problems but he did what most of us would do (absent any other indication that the door would not operate normally) he operated the door. If the door's broke before actually reversing or failed to reverse, that aspect of the door still failed under testing.

In a good faith response and without admitting liability, I would maybe offer perhaps 50% toward cost of repairs, cut a check and hope he cashes it. If still not satisfied, let the homeowner take him to small claims for the balance but I hope he has good documentation, photos and used standard operating procedures to support his case. In a court case the primary issue will be the method used in testing. If not conforming to industry and manufacturers standards then expect the worse. It really doesn't matter what the condition of the door was prior to testing if the deficiency which caused the buckling was not noted or observed and the test was conducted without that knowledge. The observations afterward will help in mitigation (reduce the liability) to some extent but the total value of his liability will hinge on the method of testing used. If he used an appropriate testing method then he is on relatively solid legal ground but an award could still go against him in small claims.

[Jack Feldmann]

If the door was tested using a method that is not "approved", then the damage was caused by the inspector IMHO.
If I saw something wrong with the door hardware I probably wouldn't have tested it at all (not take the risk of it "failing under test".
Before I test a garage door, I always look to see if it's locked, then I check out the hardware, then I check the balance. Only after doing those things do I operate the opener.
I think Chris owes the guy a door repair.

[Garry Sorrells]

While testing the safety reverse on an automatic garage door opener, the bracket pulled out and bent the top panel of the door. Upon a closer look, it appears the door had been damaged in the past and the bracket poorly installed with (2) 1-1/4" drywall screws.
The home owner says the door was working fine and that I owe him a new door.
How would you handle this?

Chris,
My short answer is that you owe nothing relating to the failure of the door to function and the subsequent damage resulting from operation and testing. Based on your OP.

Scott,
Chris does not say how he tested the door (hand, 2x4,dog or child ) and the sequencing of the doors inspection. Nor is there any mention of any signs posted to not operate the door or relating to any of its functions.

In general,
The method of testing the reverse function may have a minor role in the failure. Whether it is tested at 1 inch, 1 1/2 inches or at 36 inches from floor the reverse should function.

If you want to rely on the manufactures manual of installation and operation you head off into two different topics. One is the door and the other is the opener. Both will have something to say on installation, maintenance and testing.

The inspection of the door and its installation should have noted that the method was not according to any manufactures requirements if only referring to the drywall screws observed. The fact that there may have been prior damage to the door does not put its present failure on the shoulders of the person operating/testing the door.

If the door was locked, blocked or obviously inoperable without potential damage, then it should not have operated or tested. But that was not in the OP.

Just because door operated before it failed only means that it did not fail on that operation and nothing else. Inspecting and testing the door and its operator is in all owners manuals and is the responsibility of the owner that maintenance and inspection is performed on a regular basis. So the responsibility is on the owner for the failure not the HI.

"Failed under operation" may be a better way to state what happened since the reverse function is part of all current operators normal design and operation. Since the HI was only operating all of the functions of the door's designed operations.

States with Lic. usually state inspections in terms of operating so "operation" is what is being attempted with the garage door. Possibly semantics but that is what the English language is all about.

[Garry Sorrells]

If you offer anything to the owner you make your self responsible for the entire failure.

If you caused it to fail then replace it.

If you did not cause it to fail, do not make an offer of appeasement. Black or white with no gray area. Your are either responsible or not. You are not responsible for the owners actions.

[Raymond Wand]

Upon a closer look, it appears the door had been damaged in the past and the bracket poorly installed with (2) 1-1/4" drywall screws.

1. Damaged in the past.
2. Repaired due to previous damage.
3. Repaired with inappropriate materials, most likely not recommended by manufacturer.
4. Non professional repair - most certainly homeowner.
5. Previous damage has left the door/mounting hardware weakened and unable to withstand downward force. This alone could compromise built in safety feature(s).

[Scott Patterson]

My bad for assuming that Chris used his hand to hold the door during testing. Chris, sorry for assuming this....

The door based on the information provided should not have been tested.

Chris, let us know how you tested the door and the outcome.

Don't worry about folks coming down hard on you, it is for your own good and for others to learn from. By having the intestinal fortitude to post like you have done is helping many others.

[John Kogel]

Personally I think you are out of your mind to use the 2x4 method on a garage door unless you know the test requirements for the door you are going to test. If I did what you say here I would have replaced at least a 1/4 of the doors that did not reverse correctly.Search the archives here for some of the longest threads in history pertaining to the testing or operation of garage doors.
Then choose a side and carry on. :D

[Jerry Peck]

Personally I think you are out of your mind to use the 2x4 method on a garage door unless you know the test requirements for the door you are going to test. If I did what you say here I would have replaced at least a 1/4 of the doors that did not reverse correctly.

Sounds like someone does NOT know how to test garage doors with the 2x4, which is the recognized method for testing the auto-reverse mechanism.

If you knew how to test with the 2x4 and did the test that way, the door *would not be damaged* by the test. It really is that plain and simple.

[Jack Feldmann]

"That being said of course the Manufacturers wants you to wreck the door."
You are kidding I hope.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry I used to test them with my Steel toed boots but did not feel comfortable after so many would not reverse when met with resistance. One damaged door was enough to convince me this is not the way to do it. I would think that a fight would be in the works on this one as John has pointed out.
That being said of course the Manufacturers wants you to wreck the door.

Like I said before: "Sounds like someone does NOT know how to test garage doors with the 2x4, which is the recognized method for testing the auto-reverse mechanism."

Testing with steel toe shoe is not an approved method and only shows the lack of knowledge and understanding of proper testing.

[Jerry Peck]

Old ones don't and do not reverse. Those are the doors that will get busted if you did use the 2x4 method.

I've tested hundreds of old doors which did not reverse, never intended to reverse, as well as hundreds of doors which were intended to reverse but did not.

If the 2x4 test is done properly the door will not be damaged if it does not reverse. Also, I've only had one track partially come apart where the sections were bolted together, one bolt was loose and fell out, fortunately, though, the other bolt held.

As has been said, make a good visual of the door first before testing, but if the 2x4 test is done correctly it will not damage the door.

[Scott Patterson]

Personally I think you are out of your mind to use the 2x4 method on a garage door unless you know the test requirements for the door you are going to test. If I did what you say here I would have replaced at least a 1/4 of the doors that did not reverse correctly.

I don't think I posted anything about testing with a 2x4 even though that is the proper method.

[Ian Page]

If you offer anything to the owner you make your self responsible for the entire failure.

If you caused it to fail then replace it.

If you did not cause it to fail, do not make an offer of appeasement. Black or white with no gray area. Your are either responsible or not. You are not responsible for the owners actions.]

Garry
Legally, a good faith offer made without admitting, assuming or accepting liability does not make the offeror responsible for the entire damage or culpable in any way. It is just that, an offer made in good faith in an attempt to resolve a dispute. That kind of agreement is made all the time in all aspects of law, both civil and criminal. The GF offer is an attempt to avoid potentially costly legal proceedings, whereby even if the respondent (the OP in this case) is on firm legal footing, an award for damages could still go against him. It's a roll of the dice either way. Do nothing and hope the homeowner goes away. Do nothing and wait for the summons and subsequent court case (another roll) or take remedial action up front at some cost (yet again another roll - but IMO, better odds).

[Matt Fellman]

I stopped testing with physical resistance a few years ago after one of our guys did a similar thing as the OP. I guess we were lucky it was just the bracket that failed and not the door. I think it was around $80 (wow, garage door guys work cheap!).

Our state SOPs changed a few years ago and just require testing the photo-optic sensors. I believe we're close to 20 years since the optic sensors have been required. Any opener w/o them is past its life expectancy and is a safety hazard according to some authority I remember (CPSC?) and I write it up as such.

I was testing an opener and going through my normal spiel about the safety features a couple years ago and the buyer got a bit white in the face... he told me his neighbor's kid got killed by a door opener at the house he was moving out of. More than anything that has changed the way I think about openers. I have 3 small children also and it's easy to see how an accident could happen. I'd rather not count on my child having the resistance of a 2X4 to survive.

[Tom Rees]

I was just doing some searching too see what publications say about testing garage doors and ran across this CPSC article: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/523.pdf It seems to say that if the garage door reverses with electric eye that is sufficient. In that case you would not need to test for pressure reversing (physical resistance). Is this right?

[Dom D'Agostino]

As has been said, make a good visual of the door first before testing, but if the 2x4 test is done correctly it will not damage the door.


I wouldn't make such a sweeping generalization like that, Jerry.

A defective opener could easily apply too much force while closing upon a properly placed 2x4, and cause damage to a properly installed and functional overhead door instead of reversing as designed.

Dom.

[Stuart Brooks]

Federal Regulations define the tests. Every opener manufacturer includes testing information and recommends that the door be tested and adjusted every month or two. The only prescribed test is with a 1" board placed on the floor under the middle of the door. A 2x4 may be used in place of a 1" board (stated).

I have a block of oak cut 6 inches long, 1"x1.5" that I can carry in my tool bag. The 6 inch length placed in front of the IR beam is a clear indicator in a picture when the transponders are placed too high off the floor and I consider the floor to be where the door closes.I may change that to 12" long with a band marked at 6 inches.

Looking at the door before testing is best along with checking the balance on the springs. If you test the auto-reverse, holding with your hand is NOT a prescribed method nor would it be an acceptable defense if you ended up in a courtroom. If you inspect and test the door in accordance with the Federal regulations and therefore the manufacturer's instructions, you cannot, oh ok, should not, be held liable for damages to a properly installed and undamaged door installation.

Want to pay for the door or repair? That's up to you.

[Garry Blankenship]

While training w/ another H.I. we were at a four stall garage. Stall # 3 had a vintage Corvette, ( 58 I think ~ georgous ), and the Sr. inspector said we are not testing that one. You will not find that in any training manuals or SOPs, but I think he made the right call. If the owner was there & willing to move it, OK.

[Stuart Brooks]

While training w/ another H.I. we were at a four stall garage. Stall # 3 had a vintage Corvette, ( 58 I think ~ georgous ), and the Sr. inspector said we are not testing that one. You will not find that in any training manuals or SOPs, but I think he made the right call. If the owner was there & willing to move it, OK.

Yeah, cars in the garage can make you think. I once had a Corvette parked under a garage attic access hatch. The ceiling was 10-11 feet high. No way I was trying to remove that hatch cover using the end of a ladder.

[Michael Bronner]

Once again all very good comments and personal feelings about this subject. It comes up often and is always good for intertaining back and forth banter. However, testing the auto reverse of any garage door must take into account so many factors and many were just discussed above.

How about this: The manufacturer of the door and the opener are normally different. How does one know if the motor is compatible with the door? Meaning, take an older high horse powered door opener and connect it your run-of-the-mill cheap AL door that if you looked at it crossways it would bend. Many of these are home owner installed and probably not set properly and never tested...till the HI comes along and sticks his hand, shoe, roll of TP, 2x4, 1X materaial, whatever and it fails, the door bows like a reed in the wind. You broke it! What are we as HIs to do when we look at and test garage doors and all its components? Does the type of door match the opener in place? Are all the support brackets, braces in place, all bolts tight, rails not ready to fall off, well secured where needed, torque springs or coils springs in good condition and not broken ect..my God, it's a wonder we even test these things at all.

There are few garage doors I encounter that are in visibly good condition (unless new), there is always something out of place, loose, already damaged (mostly AL doors), openers that are unplugged (and why). I spend a lot of time inspecting the door before I ever think about pushing the opener button...and there's not a chance in he...ll that I would use 2x4 or block of wood to test the auto reverse function on any cheap AL door, a wood door, yes. Opening a garage door via the emergency release method most times tells me all I need to know about the condition of a garage door and I make my decision to do any further testing based on how it opens manually.

[Jerry Peck]

I'd rather not count on my child having the resistance of a 2X4 to survive.

That's an all too common misconception home inspectors have of how to test a garage door, with or without a 2x4. And this has been said over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over ... (whew, enough already) ... and over again time after time by myself and others - yet some apparently *ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION* to what is being said:
- 1) The garage door *is not* supposed to reverse on pressure on the 2x4 and you do not measure the pressure the garage door exerts before it reverses.
- 2) The garage door *is* supposed to reverse ... ON CONTACT WITH ... yes, that is correct, ON CONTACT WITH ... the 2x4.

If you stand there watching the door operator force the door downward while the track arches upward and then, finally, the door reverses ... THE AUTO REVERSE FAILED.

If you place the 2x4 *where the 2x4 is supposed to be placed* and the door makes contact with the 2x4 ... the door is supposed to reverse, right then and right there.

So many home inspectors think that the door is supposed to partially crush the 2x4 before the door reverses and that there is no way they would want "my child having the resistance of a 2X4 to survive" ... DUH!

"ON CONTACT WITH"

Why don't you guys understand that and get that? It IS that easy.

As I've stated in posts above: "Sounds like someone does NOT know how to test garage doors with the 2x4, which is the recognized method for testing the auto-reverse mechanism."

The 2x4 test really is not that difficult to understand.

[Jack Feldmann]

What Jerry said.......

[Bruce King]

You will find no testing method that says this is how you test the reversing feature.

Here is one: http://www.gatestore.com/garage_door_openers/pdf/CLM-3265.pdf

1. Test the DOWN (close) force
• Grasp the door bottom when the door is about halfway
through DOWN (close) travel. The door should reverse.
Reversal halfway through down travel does not
guarantee reversal on a 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) obstruction. See
Adjustment Step 3, page 25



The first step is to realize that there are several safety features, not just the entrapment test and sensors.

If you only test the sensors and the 2x4 test entrapment-reversal test you have missed one other important test, its called the force reverse.
You can not check the force reverse safety feature with a 2x4!

The force reverse system is not active during the last few inches of down travel! The last few inches are in the anti-entrapment zone which is the only thing you can check with the 2x4.


Here is another source that shows this:
DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association (http://www.dasma.com/safetygdmaint.asp)

[Jerry Peck]

I would expect nothing less from a CMI. :rolleyes:


Here is one: http://www.gatestore.com/garage_door_openers/pdf/CLM-3265.pdf

1. Test the DOWN (close) force
• Grasp the door bottom when the door is about halfway
through DOWN (close) travel. The door should reverse.
Reversal halfway through down travel does not
guarantee reversal on a 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) obstruction. See
Adjustment Step 3, page 25


We've been here before, and through this before, but ... okay, now let's go for the of what that is doing, testing, and part of.

#1. It IS NOT PART OF the automatic reversal test, and in fact it even says "Reversal halfway through down travel does not guarantee reversal on a 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) obstruction"

#2. Putting that back IN CONTEXT of what it was taken from:
- ADJUSTMENT STEP 3
- - Test the Safety Reversal System
- - - (Yep, that is during installation and adjustment of the door.)
- - - TEST
- - - - • With the door fully open, place a 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) board (or a 2x4 laid flat) on the floor, centered under the garage door.
- - - - • Operate the door in the down direction. The door must reverse on striking the obstruction.
- - - ADJUST
- - - - • If the door stops on the obstruction, it is not traveling far enough in the down direction. Increase the DOWN limit by turning the DOWN limit adjustment screw counterclockwise 1/4 turn.
- - - - - NOTE: On a sectional door, make sure limit adjustments do not force the door arm beyond a straight up and down position. See the illustration on page 21.
- - - - • Repeat the test.
- - - - • When the door reverses on the 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) board, remove the obstruction and run the opener through 3 or 4 complete travel cycles to test adjustment.
- - - - • If the unit continues to fail the Safety Reverse Test, call for a trained door systems technician.

Okay, so THAT ACTUALLY SAYS TO TEST ON THE 2X4 ... so, Bruce and Kevin, the hand holding and steel toe shoes are all up your butt made up things and the STATED AND APPROVED TEST ... get that? ... TEST ... the test is on the 2x4 (a 1-1/2" board, so, yeah, it could be a 2x12, but ... it *says* "(or a 2x4 laid flat)".

Some home inspectors will go to extreme lengths to try to worm out of testing the door PROPERLY on the 2x4.

Either test the door properly on the 2x4 or simply state that you do not test the auto reverse. If you try to stretch your wording beyond that to 'explain why' you do not test, say with something like you 'do not test the auto reverse because the door could be damaged', you are admitting that the door IS MOST LIKELY NOT operating properly .. and that means YOU SHOULD TEST the door. If you feel the door is operating properly and you simply do not want to test the door ... then you should not be waffling to make it sound like there may be a problem with the door.

[Bruce King]

I would expect nothing less from a CMI. :rolleyes:



We've been here before, and through this before, but ... okay, now let's go for the of what that is doing, testing, and part of.

#1. It IS NOT PART OF the automatic reversal test, and in fact it even says "Reversal halfway through down travel does not guarantee reversal on a 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) obstruction"

#2. Putting that back IN CONTEXT of what it was taken from:
- ADJUSTMENT STEP 3
- - Test the Safety Reversal System
- - - (Yep, that is during installation and adjustment of the door.)
- - - TEST
- - - - • With the door fully open, place a 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) board (or a 2x4 laid flat) on the floor, centered under the garage door.
- - - - • Operate the door in the down direction. The door must reverse on striking the obstruction.
- - - ADJUST
- - - - • If the door stops on the obstruction, it is not traveling far enough in the down direction. Increase the DOWN limit by turning the DOWN limit adjustment screw counterclockwise 1/4 turn.
- - - - - NOTE: On a sectional door, make sure limit adjustments do not force the door arm beyond a straight up and down position. See the illustration on page 21.
- - - - • Repeat the test.
- - - - • When the door reverses on the 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) board, remove the obstruction and run the opener through 3 or 4 complete travel cycles to test adjustment.
- - - - • If the unit continues to fail the Safety Reverse Test, call for a trained door systems technician.

Okay, so THAT ACTUALLY SAYS TO TEST ON THE 2X4 ... so, Bruce and Kevin, the hand holding and steel toe shoes are all up your butt made up things and the STATED AND APPROVED TEST ... get that? ... TEST ... the test is on the 2x4 (a 1-1/2" board, so, yeah, it could be a 2x12, but ... it *says* "(or a 2x4 laid flat)".

Some home inspectors will go to extreme lengths to try to worm out of testing the door PROPERLY on the 2x4.

Either test the door properly on the 2x4 or simply state that you do not test the auto reverse. If you try to stretch your wording beyond that to 'explain why' you do not test, say with something like you 'do not test the auto reverse because the door could be damaged', you are admitting that the door IS MOST LIKELY NOT operating properly .. and that means YOU SHOULD TEST the door. If you feel the door is operating properly and you simply do not want to test the door ... then you should not be waffling to make it sound like there may be a problem with the door.


Not sure what you are all worked up about Jerry. I simply added more technical information that you and Scott did not know. (expert witness huh?)

I posted the entire story, you are stuck on the entrapment test, which is fine but now you know more about the other test that is also important and actually required by NC and done by those that truly understand the design, operation and full testing of automatic garage door openers.

For those that are actually inspecting and know what is usually wrong with these doors, its the force reverse adjustment that is setup incorrectly by the professional installers. They do this to prevent call backs due to rough spots in the track. This adjustment is easily accessible on many units which tends to cause them to get maladjusted too. The other test, the one you know about because Jerry only checks and talks about that one, the 2x4 entrapment test is "built in" once the door travel is setup properly and not adjustable once the initial setup is done. Feel free to follow Jerry's advice with the 2x4 but never ever think you have finished the testing with that simple (non CMI) process. LMAO

[Rick Cantrell]

This is a very good thread on garage door openers, I recommend that everyone read it.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/exterior-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/30046-garage-door-retractor-2.html

Below are two post from the thread I feel are important


I certainly think every person here has plenty of common sense.

Home inspectors, as a group, are accustomed to having their opinions challenged and criticized, by trades people, sellers, and agents.
Almost everyone here has heard a trades person or agent say, “ He doesn’t know what he’s talking about”. The HI cannot allow the criticism to alter his opinion.
However, the HI cannot become so entrenched that he is unwilling to examine himself and his methods.
It does not surprise me that some are reluctant to accept using a 2x4. Years of hearing inspector folklore and rumors of disaster have them understandable skeptical.
Only by trust in the words of a few and accepting the validity of written instructions, are they willing to do what they have feared.

Understanding takes trust
Trust takes change
Change takes time


This inspector was opposed to using a 2x4 for testing, however he did try it and was pleased with the results.
I hope each of you have the courage and understanding to overcome your fears and try it also.

Crap happens in this business. Honestly, things break when we are doing inspections. I have had a main water shutoff break off and start trying to convert the crawlspace to a trout pond. I have had several windows fall out when I tried to open them. I had a furnace catch debris in the ducts on fire (the fire department said it was a good thing that I was the one this happened to because I shut the furnace down properly, but I sure didn't feel like it was such a good thing) I have never had to fill out an insurance form or even offer any more explanation than "component failed under normal use or industry accepted testing." C'mon guys, this is a business where we are suppose to find failing or problem components to protect our clients. To do that, we have to risk breaking things.

I had quit using the wood block because of one problem door some 14 years ago. In the four days that I have once again been using a wood block, I have had two doors pass the hand test and flunk the block test. (Second one today) Neither door buckled, they just locked the block down.

Since, the wood block test is an industry recognized and approved test, in worst case scenarios, I think you could find yourself doing more "splainin" about why you didn't use it than why you broke a door using it.

This thread morphed into something very interesting about our business and the way we conduct it. Jerry noted situations where he won't use the block test. I concur. Similarly, I will never test AFCI breakers in an occupied house, which I rarely see these days. As we become more experienced, we have to recognize when and when not to risk breaking something. But guys, if your risk threshold is too low, I don't know how you can effectively do this business.

Of course, that is very subjective and one good thing revealed in threads like this, is how much thought so many inspectors put into the way they conduct their business.

[Chris Skoczylas]

Well, it's about 50/50 on buying a new door or that it failed during testing. I told the owner that it failed during testing and that I wasn't going to buy him a new door. I haven't heard anything since.
According to my state Standards of Professional Practice, " The inspector shall report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing."
The door failed during testing.

[Rick Cantrell]

Well, it's about 50/50 on buying a new door or that it failed during testing. I told the owner that it failed during testing and that I wasn't going to buy him a new door. I haven't heard anything since.
According to my state Standards of Professional Practice, " The inspector shall report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing."
The door failed during testing.

Chris
Thanks for posting and please keep us updated.

I would also send the HO a written response, such as;

Dear Home Owner
I regret the garage door was damaged and understand your concerns.
However, I did not cause the damage. The damage was caused by improper maintenance.
The garage door sustained damaged during normal operation and testing methods. Had the garage door been maintained in normal operating condition, no damage would have occurred.
Operation and testing methods used, were in accordance with state requirements, Federal Government safety standards, manufacturers instructions, and industry standards.
Home buyers having a home inspection performed have every reason to expect the inspection to include operation and testing of the garage door and related safety features. Would you expect less from an inspection on a home you are about to purchase?
Thank you

[Rolland Pruner]

After replacing 3 garage doors and openers in the past FROM testing with a 2x4 as most people have stated here, I learned NOT to test garage door openers, I simply disclaimed why in my reports and attempted to explain what it is suppose to do! I told them I would test if home owner approved.

I say pay the man & manup!

Retired Home Inpsector after 24 years.


(my opinion) if it counts

[Stuart Brooks]

Chris
Thanks for posting and please keep us updated.

I would also send the HO a written response, such as;

Dear Home Owner
I regret the garage door was damaged and understand your concerns.
However, I did not cause the damage. The damage was caused by improper maintenance.
The garage door sustained damaged during normal operation and testing methods. Had the garage door been maintained in normal operating condition, no damage would have occurred.
Operation and testing methods used, were in accordance with state requirements, Federal Government safety standards, manufacturers instructions, and industry standards.
Home buyers having a home inspection performed have every reason to expect the inspection to include operation and testing of the garage door and related safety features. Would you expect less from an inspection on a home you are about to purchase?
Thank you

Nice thought Rick.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Before employing a 2x4 reversing test you're supposed to inspect the door system, check the operation using the emergency release, perform the force setting test, perform the balancing test, amongst other steps, all necessary before putting a 2x4 under the door and to SAFELY perform the auto reversing test from the floor.

[Bruce King]

Before employing a 2x4 reversing test you're supposed to inspect the door system, check the operation using the emergency release, perform the force setting test, perform the balancing test, amongst other steps, all necessary before putting a 2x4 under the door and to SAFELY perform the auto reversing test from the floor.


Very nice simple summary HG, thanks.

[Jerry Peck]

Not sure what you are all worked up about Jerry. I simply added more technical information that you and Scott did not know. (expert witness huh?)

You added information we already did know.

You added information which has already been discussed at length here.

You added information which, according to you, shows how to test for auto reversing (that was and is the discussion), yet the information itself states that it is not a test for auto reversing, in fact, that information states that reversing at the described location with one's hand:
- #1. It IS NOT PART OF the automatic reversal test, and in fact it even says "Reversal halfway through down travel does not guarantee reversal on a 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) obstruction".

Bruce, not sure what you do not understand about the information you provided, information which you purported as being information which shows another test method for testing the auto reverse feature - yet the information itself says "does not guarantee reversal on a 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) obstruction".

So, Bruce, what is it that you do not understand about the information you provided?

[Jerry Peck]

Before employing a 2x4 reversing test you're supposed to inspect the door system, check the operation using the emergency release, perform the force setting test, perform the balancing test, amongst other steps, all necessary before putting a 2x4 under the door and to SAFELY perform the auto reversing test from the floor.

To bad that's not what it says.

It says that, during installation, you do the force test, which it also says does not guarantee that the door will reverse on contact with the 1-1/2" wood block.

It does not say to do the force test whenever the auto reverse feature is tested, just at the time of installation, or at the time of any re-adjustments being made to the door.

[Bruce King]

You added information we already did know.

You added information which has already been discussed at length here.

You added information which, according to you, shows how to test for auto reversing (that was and is the discussion), yet the information itself states that it is not a test for auto reversing, in fact, that information states that reversing at the described location with one's hand:
- #1. It IS NOT PART OF the automatic reversal test, and in fact it even says "Reversal halfway through down travel does not guarantee reversal on a 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) obstruction".

Bruce, not sure what you do not understand about the information you provided, information which you purported as being information which shows another test method for testing the auto reverse feature - yet the information itself says "does not guarantee reversal on a 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) obstruction".

So, Bruce, what is it that you do not understand about the information you provided?

I have always understood the entire testing methods. I am trying to get everyone to understand that there is much more to it than placing a 2x4 under the door.

The main issue with all of these opener threads is a mixup between the two tests, many did not even know that the "hand test" was important and included in some documents, and you always talk mainly about the anti-entrapment reversal test.

So here it is again if you did not understand it before:

You can not check the force reverse safety feature with a 2x4!

The force reverse system is not active during the last few inches of down travel! The last few inches are in the anti-entrapment zone which is the only thing you can check with the 2x4.


I think everyone gets it now but different inspection methods will exist due to SOP's and risk factors with damaging doors.

[Jerry Peck]

I have always understood the entire testing methods. I am trying to get everyone to understand that there is much more to it than placing a 2x4 under the door.

And we have said that very same thing time and time again.


The main issue with all of these opener threads is a mixup between the two tests, many did not even know that the "hand test" was important and included in some documents, and you always talk mainly about the anti-entrapment reversal test.

Because the force test (hand test as you call it) is part of the installation of the door and adjusting it procedure. The force test is not a necessary test to do when inspecting a garage door as the auto reverse test, if done properly and if it reverses properly, covers the *force test* by reversing properly.

What you do not understand, and are trying to confuse others into your own realm of bewilderment, is that the auto reverse test, when done properly *WILL* tell you if the "force" is set to an acceptable level. Those who DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW TO DO A AUTO REVERSE TEST keep trying to insist that there are alternatives, there are not, or that a force test needs to be done, it does not.

Do you realize and understand that, when installing an overhead door or adjusting one during maintenance of the door, that the force test is done BEFORE the auto reverse test, and then, when the auto reverse test is done, if the door does not reverse *ON CONTACT* with the 1-1/2" wood, that the "force" adjustments are RE-ADJUSTED, NOT FOR FORCE, BUT FOR AUTO REVERSING PROPERLY. Thus the so-called "force test" is not out of whack with what was set during the "force test"?

The purpose of the "force test" is not to test the garage door for force, the purpose of the "force test" is to find a preliminary setting to serve as a starting point for re-adjusting the force for a proper reversing on contact during the auto reverse test.

Thus, when the door *does not* reverse on contact with the 1-1/2" block of wood, the "force" is - DUH! - set to high, and is re-adjusted as necessary, not to a "force" setting, but to a setting which allows the door to reverse on contact with the wood block.

And, when the door *does* reverse on contact with the 1-1/2" block of wood, the "force is - again DUH! - set where it should be.

Thus, the "force test" is done during installation and maintenance, and the "correct amount of force is NOT set during the *force test*, but during the *auto reverse* test to make sure the door auto reverse on contact with the wood block".

Understand what is happening and why?


So here it is again if you did not understand it before:

You can not check the force reverse safety feature with a 2x4!

Here it is again if you did not understand it before:

You CAN AND DO check the force reverse safety feature with a 2x4!

*IF* the door auto reverses on contact with the 2x4 ... drum roll ... THE FORCE IS SET PROPERLY, but if the door does not reverse on contact with the 2x4 ... drum roll ... THE FORCE IS SET IMPROPERLY!

[Bruce King]

Jerry,

Would you assume the force needed to stop and reverse at two or three feet off the floor is acceptable (10-12lbs) if you saw the door contact a 2x4 and reverse quickly with little bow in the opener track? yes or no

[Lon Henderson]

I have paid for a few things over the years including replacing a furnace that I just blew it on. (But my furnace inspections improved tremendously after that). Here and there over the years, I have reimbursed a few inspection fees over some issues where I didn't have any liability, but it was a strategic diplomatic move to keep a regular real estate agent happy.

BUT, if something breaks during the course of normal use or testing, then it failed and that's it........period. You owe the seller an explanation of how it happened, but not even an apology is needed.

Somewhere, sometime, one of us is going to get "that" call from a past customer who just had their prize $5000 pickypoodleshnoozer get crushed under the garage door and their attorney wants to know if we did the "approved" block test. Will a disclaimer save you if you didn't do it?

Hey, it could it happen to me too, cuz I won't test the door with a car or other valuables in the crash zone should the door come down. Even though I wouldn't have any liability or pay for some guy's car, I just draw a line there. It probably isn't a legally defensible line and after this discussion, I am going to reconsider block testing every door.

So, Chris, I am dismayed that some experienced inspectors here, think that you should pay the seller for that door.

Holy cow! Do you guys pay for everything that breaks under normal testing? Sheesh....... Someone said his insurance paid for a door and damage.....Too bad that the insurance company settled. You shouldn't have had any liability. No wonder HI insurance is so stinkin' expensive.

Vent over............and I am out.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry,

Would you assume the force needed to stop and reverse at two or three feet off the floor is acceptable (10-12lbs) if you saw the door contact a 2x4 and reverse quickly with little bow in the opener track? yes or no

Bruce,

*I* would make *NO SUCH ASSUMPTIONS*. Does that count as my no?

*I* don't care how much friggin' force is being applied at two or three feet off the floor!

*I* DO care if the friggin' overhead door automatically reverses *ON CONTACT* with the wood block, because if the door automatically reverses *ON CONTACT* with the wood block ... the force is properly set.

The following is from the linked document *YOU* provided:
- ADJUSTMENT STEP 3
- - Test the Safety Reversal System
- - - TEST
- - - - • With the door fully open, place a 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) board (or a 2x4 laid flat) on the floor, centered under the garage door.
- - - - • Operate the door in the down direction. The door must reverse on striking the obstruction.
- - - ADJUST
- - - - • If the door stops on the obstruction, it is not traveling far enough in the down direction. Increase the DOWN limit by turning the DOWN limit adjustment screw counterclockwise 1/4 turn.
- - - - NOTE: On a sectional door, make sure limit adjustments do not force the door arm beyond a straight up and down position. See the illustration on page 21.
- - - - • Repeat the test.
- - - - • When the door reverses on the 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) board, remove the obstruction and run the opener through 3 or 4 complete travel cycles to test adjustment.
- - - - • If the unit continues to fail the Safety Reverse Test, call for a trained door systems technician.
- - - IMPORTANT SAFETY CHECK:
- - - - Test the Safety Reverse System after:
- - - - - • Each adjustment of door arm length, limits, or force controls.
- - - - - • Any repair to or adjustment of the garage door (including springs and hardware).
- - - - - • Any repair to or buckling of the garage floor.
- - - - - • Any repair to or adjustment of the opener.

Also from that linked to document that *YOU* provided:
- Page 26
- - IMPORTANT SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS
- - - WARNING
- - - - To reduce the risk of SEVERE INJURY or DEATH:
- - - - - 10. After ANY adjustments are made, the safety reversal system MUST be tested.
- - - - - 11. Safety reversal system MUST be tested every month.
- - - - - - Garage door MUST reverse on contact with 1-1/2" high (3.8 cm) high object (or a 2x4 laid flat) on the floor.

Now, I admit that I may be missing it, but I do not see anything about testing the force in those important safety instructions ... ???? :confused:

[Rick Cantrell]

...
BUT, if something breaks during the course of normal use or testing, then it failed and that's it........period. You owe the seller an explanation of how it happened, but not even an apology is needed.

Exactly


...I won't test the door with a car or other valuables in the crash zone should the door come down. Even though I wouldn't have any liability or pay for some guy's car, I just draw a line there.
I do not move furniture, empty out cabinets or closets, and I also don't move cars. I don't think I have a responsibility to do so, nor do I think I have a liability for not doing so.


So, Chris, I am dismayed that some experienced inspectors here, think that you should pay the seller for that door.
The people (note, I did not say home inspectors) who think that, are also the ones that do not test the garage door opener using the correct method.
They call themselves inspectors but when there is a tough decision to make they decide that the risk of doing what an inspector was hired to do, paid to do, and expected to do, is not something they are willing to do.
They come up with any excuse that conveniently gives them a way out.
When any of you non garage door opener inspectors get a phone call from a prospective client, do you tell them, "I don't inspect garage doors." or do you happily accept the job then disclaim the garage door in the report?

[Bruce King]

Here it is in the DASMA door maintenance link I posted:
DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association (http://www.dasma.com/safetygdmaint.asp)

"Take a few minutes to inspect and test your complete garage door system. Make monthly inspection and testing a part of your regular routine..."

"Force Setting Test
Test the force setting of your garage door opener by holding the bottom of the door as it closes. If the door does not reverse readily, the force setting may be excessive and need adjusting. See your owner’s manual for details on how to make the adjustment."


I can offer up some more insight and details on why both tests need to be done by either the inspector, the owner or the owners door contractor.

1. Many of these doors are cheaply built, the opener attachment piece on the upper panel is often just epoxied in place with maybe a few small rivets so doing the 2x4 test before getting an actual feel for the actual force threshold is truly asking for a problem.


2. Sometimes the opener is actually very well secured to the ceiling which prevents an accurate observation of the amount of "track bow" produced during the 2x4 test. Also, some tracks are more rigid than others.


3. Sometimes the opener arm does not have the correct angle when the door is closed which can hide a high force condition with no telltale track bow.


4. The firmware in these openers has proprietary logic, timing and thresholds that will differ and they will not release the software code to us.
I can't find it now, but at one time, it was known that the last few inches of down travel ignored the force setting and had firmware to simply stop and reverse when the input from the optical shaft encoder indicated that the motor had stopped before the down limit switch was made. We are dealing with hundreds of brands, years and models here.


5. The latest instructions say it has to reverse within 2 seconds. The force difference between .5 second and 2 seconds will be easily over 75 pounds.
If you can "see", hear or imagine that the door is hitting the 2x4 too hard the force is way too high! You just can't truly tell the difference between 10-12 lb proper threshold and excessive force without using another testing method.


6. Still not on board, then do this, adjust the force for a light reversal, yes, learn how to do this using your hands when the door is near the bottom. Now place a set of analog bathroom scales under it and watch the huge force spike! This force spike is normal since these openers are not designed to be perfect or ultra safe. The new idrive ones are much better, the force is actually mapped every inch and certified to reverse at 10-12 lbs.

[Jerry Peck]

Here it is in the DASMA door maintenance link I posted:
DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association (http://www.dasma.com/safetygdmaint.asp)

And this is what it says: (Bruce, you keep digging the hole you are in deeper and deeper)
- Reversal Test
- - Make sure your opener has a reversing feature. If a reversing feature is not present, the opener should be replaced.
- - Garage door openers manufactured after January 1, 1993, are required by federal law to have advanced safety features that comply with the latest UL (Underwriters Laboratories) 325 standards. Contact your manufacturer or installer for additional information.
- - Test the reversing feature every month.
- - - 1. First, test the balance of the door. If the door is properly balanced, then proceed.
- - - 2. With the door fully open, place a 1-1/2" thick piece of wood (a 2" X 4" laid flat) on the floor in the center of the door.
- - - 3. Push the transmitter or wall button to close the door. The door must reverse when it strikes the obstruction. (Note that the bottom part of "one-piece doors" must be rigid so that the door will not close, but will reverse when it contacts the obstruction.)
- - - 4. If the door does not reverse, have it repaired or replaced. Have a qualified technician adjust, repair, or replace the opener or door.

Question: Which test does it state to do every month?
Answer: "Test the reversing feature every month."

You keep trying to redirect this from the discussion of testing the auto reverse on a 2x4 to testing it for auto reverse with your hand, then try again to redirect this to testing for force, when the one and only test being discussed, and the one and only test being called for on a regular basis is: the reversing test.

You keep posting links to documents which support what I, and others, are saying, and for that I thank you. I just cannot figure out why you are not reading what you link to before you link to it???? :confused:

[Bruce King]

Its right there in that link, I put it below, again, please read it.

"Take a few minutes to inspect and test your complete garage door system. Make monthly inspection and testing a part of your regular routine..."

"Force Setting Test
Test the force setting of your garage door opener by holding the bottom of the door as it closes. If the door does not reverse readily, the force setting may be excessive and need adjusting. See your owner’s manual for details on how to make the adjustment."


Its right next to that little picture showing two people doing the force check on a door.
The document's intent is for INSPECTION and maintenance, don't try to spin this one Jerry, you lost.

[Jerry Peck]

Question: Which test does it state to do every month?
Answer: "Test the reversing feature every month."


Its right there in that link, I put it below, again, please read it.

"Take a few minutes to inspect and test your complete garage door system. Make monthly inspection and testing a part of your regular routine..."

"Force Setting Test
Test the force setting of your garage door opener by holding the bottom of the door as it closes. If the door does not reverse readily, the force setting may be excessive and need adjusting. See your owner’s manual for details on how to make the adjustment."

You must be not only NOT reading the documents you are linking to, you must also be NOT reading my posts, or, perhaps, anyone else's posts for that matter.

Title of this thread: "Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing."

The discussion has been, and still is, about testing garage doors, and that test is the auto reverse test, and the documents you link too says that is the test to perform.

Your keep trying to redirect the question to test performed during adjustment and maintenance of the door ... I must have missed it when you posted that you adjusted and performed maintenance on the overhead garage doors you should be inspecting ... I did not realize that you were using home inspections as a lead in to your garage overhead door maintenance business ... oh, wait, is it ethical to use home inspections as a lead in to a overhead garage door maintenance business?

Home inspectors should be TESTING garage overhead doors ... NOT MAINTAINING AND ADJUSTING them. :rolleyes:

[Bruce King]

You are getting psycho Jerry, really worried about you here.....
Were you just really a minimal code inspector when you were being paid to inspect houses?


Here is ANOTHER link to a credible site that SAYS TO CHECK THE FORCE MONTHLY!

"Monthly force setting test (if your door is equipped with an automatic opener system). With the door fully open, push your garage door opener’s transmitter or wall button to close the door. As the door is closing, hold up the bottom of the door with your hands outstretched and stiff. If the door does not easily reverse and continues to close, pull your hands away immediately. The closing force is excessive and the door should be serviced by a trained service technician."


Garage door maintenance checklist, tips, tests - garage door tests to keep your garage door system running properly (http://www.garagedoorcare.com/garage-door-operation/garage-door-maintenance.html)

[Jerry Peck]

Novice Inspectors should not do this and they should follow the Garage manufacturer.

Correct - they should not be testing force as force is not a test which is performed outside of maintenance and adjustment of the door, and, yes, "they should follow the Garage manufacturer" and they say to test the reversing feature by using the 2x4 test. :D

Thank you, Kevin. :p

Bruce and Kevin are so far out of whack on this that I will just have to let them post what they do, hoping that real home inspectors have read the different manufacturers' information that they themselves have linked to and recognize that the manufacturers specify performing the reversing test and that the manufacturers' reversing test is done on a 2x4.

I have, hopefully, alerted all to Kevin's and Bruce's links and that those links state to perform the reversing test on a 2x4 ... I will now let Bruce and Kevin try to wow you with their musings on doing an unspecified and uncalled for test which has no relationship to the reversing test called for and which has been the subject of the thread and discussion.

Kevin, Bruce, continue pontificating on this matter. :rolleyes:

[Bruce King]

This is getting fun.........

Here is another one that supports what I am saying:

Tip: Look at item number 9 on this professional garage door inspector checklist

HABPRO Garage Doors | Garage Door Installation Buford | Garage Door Repair Lawrenceville | Garage Door Repair Buford | Garage Doors Buford | Garage Doors Lawrenceville | 15-Point Service Checklist (http://www.habprogaragedoors.com/_/garage-door-repair-checklist/)

[BridgeMan]

And exactly how many little kids' skulls have we prevented from being crushed by this discussion?

[Raymond Wand]

I hope the door is also going to reverse when it's closing and comes into contact with the car trunk, or roof, or hood... too.

[Lawrence Thomas]

I would NEVER be able to get away with the "Failed During Test" defense. The realtors and the seller Always consider it to be my fault if the garage door gets bent.

This usually happens with an older opener that also has been reinforced before with a 2 x 4 at the bracket and the thinnest door ever (the ones that I call a tin-foil door). When there is not an optical reverse, I almost think that there must be a pressure reverse. Even using a 2 x 4 under the door sometimes results in the top panel getting wrinkled.

I have a local overhead door company on speed dial. It usually costs be about $80 - $90 to repair and that comes out of my inspection fee. It's a tragedy all around, but I must test the reverse, If it fails and causes damage that is my fault and I must repair it to stay in good standing with the realtors.

This happens to me about once a year and I just consider it a business expense. All of those inspectors who say "Failed During Test" would have a business that "Failed By Methods" in my area.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Both Jerry P. and Scott P. fail to realize that a "test" requires a series of steps be employed PRIOR to the operation of an OH garage Door with an obstruction in the path for it to be a LEGITIMATE test; and most importantly, if the system fails and those steps have not been strictly adhered to, it is neither legitimate "test", nor can the Inspector" claim resulting damage(s) is(are) due to "failure under 'testing'": they would be due to a failure of the Inspector to properly inspect and follow the steps necessary to actually "test" the entrapment reversal feature CORRECTLY AND SAFELY, according to the accepted manufacturer (both openers & OH garage doors) industry standards, CPSC directives, etc. and most likely would therefore be (contributory) negligent & liable.

[Lon Henderson]

All of those inspectors who say "Failed During Test" would have a business that "Failed By Methods" in my area.

You have to do what you have to do. There are differences between communities and what is considered "normal practices". We have our idiosyncrasies around here too.

But H. G., I disagree with your interpretation of the liability. The problem with your interpretation is that it relies on what order you conduct an inspection of a door. Maybe in some states, there is a prescribed schedule for inspection of a garage system, but here, nothing like that exists. So, for states without a prescribed schedule, then who is to say what constitutes the correct procedures? It has been shown in this discussion that not even garage opener manufacturers agree on procedures for setup and inspection. While it is smart to inspect the entire door for problems before using the block test, it doesn't, in my barely humble opinion, increase your liability if you do the block test first. It is an important safety feature for the door to properly auto reverse regardless of other problems seen or not seen.

From the evidence presented in this discussion, it appears that the block test is universal and required by the UL for their approval of door openers.

This has been an informative discussion despite some of the "heat". Going forward, I am going to write a better disclaimer comment whenever I don't use the block test. I think I'll write something like "Due to loose hinges, or loose brackets, or damage to door or damage to railing, auto parked in garage, etc.(pick the issue), I was unable to perform the industry approved 2X4 block test. I recommend that the auto reverse feature of the door opener be tested using the block test once repairs are completed or the auto is out of the garage."

Kinda wordy but you get the idea. Almost as wordy as this discussion over a three to five minute part of our overall inspection.

[Rick Cantrell]

Both Jerry P. and Scott P. fail to realize that a "test" requires a series of steps be employed PRIOR to the operation of an OH garage Door with an obstruction in the path for it to be a LEGITIMATE test; and most importantly, if the system fails and those steps have not been strictly adhered to, it is neither legitimate "test", nor can the Inspector" claim resulting damage(s) is(are) due to "failure under 'testing'": they would be due to a failure of the Inspector to properly inspect and follow the steps necessary to actually "test" the entrapment reversal feature CORRECTLY AND SAFELY, according to the accepted manufacturer (both openers & OH garage doors) industry standards, CPSC directives, etc. and most likely would therefore be (contributory) negligent & liable.

NO BODY has said the only test is by using a 2x4
NO BODY has said that a compleat inspection of the garage door not be done.
It looks like everyone agrees that the door is to be inspected BEFORE using a 2x4. The point of discussion is some say not use a 2x4 during the test, and some say to use one.

Ether you are just to lazy to actually read what has been written, to stupid to understand what has been written, or lying just to confuse the discussion and cause trouble.
I don't think your to lazy to read, and I don't think your stupid. I do think that you would say almost anything to discredit someone (especially Jerry).
It seems that you think that by discrediting someone else, it will make you look better. It does not.

If I said something to offend you, get over it.

BTW Scott said he DOES NOT use a 2x4


A prime example of why we should not test the pressure reverse feature. Test the electric eyes and the balance of the door all day long.... Disclaim that you did not test this feature and go on with life, I do.

If the top panel did not have a support brace running across it then it was installed wrong. All door manufactures require a support brace on the top panel and then a properly attached bracket. If you did not see the brace you should not have tested the door. ...


I don't think I posted anything about testing with a 2x4 even though that is the proper method.

Jerry states that the door should be inspected BEFORE using a 2x4

...
I do agree that the HI should look the door over first ...

...
As has been said, make a good visual of the door first before testing, ...

[Garry Sorrells]

Jerry,

Would you assume the force needed to stop and reverse at two or three feet off the floor is acceptable (10-12lbs) if you saw the door contact a 2x4 and reverse quickly with little bow in the opener track? yes or no


Bruce,
Knew someone would bring this question into the discussion. Pressure of the door contacting an obstruction. Back in April after an exhaustive exploration we found that there is no criteria dealing with the actual pressure required in any of the testing for entrapment.

The reversal test using either a 1" or a 1.5" dimension can crush the life out of the obstruction and will pass the test if it reverses. If door bows like a banana and then reverses it meets the reversal test.

[Garry Sorrells]

Jerry,
If we were in France we would not be flogging the dead horse, it would have been cut into steaks by now.

Though in this area of a Home Inspection to many just do not understand what is going on with a garage door and its operator. Of all of the things which are observed, operated and tested it may be the item that offers the most potential hazard.

So going back over it can not hurt and hopefully will aid in the understanding of testing methods used. So to resurrect the past thread:


http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/exterior-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/30046-garage-door-retractor-2.html

#165

The original question of the post: "Is there a minimum / max pressure for the physical retracting mechanism, not the lower eye."

There is an answer.

Thinking there should be a specification in PSI to trigger reversal from obstruction contact, even though it may not be referenced to by manufactures in their installation, operation or maintenance manuals due to the equipment required perform such a test.

After reviewing Underwriters Lab and Consumer Product Safety Commission and then consulting a Senior Project Engineer at UL this is the short answer. [ a little CYA ] (( all should look at the full texts in their original forms and not use the following as their final reference))))

There is no PSI specification for doors without an edge sensor.
The anti-entrapment standard for the door is one that requires the door to reverse after 2 seconds and retract a minimum of 2 inches. There is no min/max specification on the amount of force exerted during those 2 seconds.

An operator using an edge sensor on the bottom of the door does require a pressure 15 lbs. or less to activate the sensor switch.


The following is condensed and highlighted for the areas of interest in this topic area.

Underwriters Laboratories ( UL )
UL 325 Sec. 36
36 Edge Sensors
36.1 Normal operation test
36.1.1 When installed on a representative residential door edge, an edge sensor shall actuate upon the application of a 15 lbf (66.7 N) or less force in the direction of the application. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a sectional door, the force is to be applied by the longitudinal edge of a 1-7/8 in (47.6 mm) diameter cylinder placed across the sensor so that the axis is perpendicular to plane of the door. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a one piece door, the force is to be applied so that the axis is at an angle 30 degrees from the direction perpendicular to the plane of the door. See Figure 36.1.
36.1.1.1 When installed on a representative commercial door edge, an edge sensor shall actuate upon the application of a 15 lbf (66.7 N) or less force in the direction of the application. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a commercial door, the force is to be applied by the longitudinal edge of a 1-7/8 in (47.6 mm) diameter cylinder placed across the sensor so that the axis is perpendicular to plane of the door at a distance of 6 in (152.4 mm) from the fully closed position. See Figure 36.1.
36.1.2 With respect to the test of 36.1.1 and 36.1.1.1, the test is to be repeated at various representative points of the edge sensor across the width of the door.

Consumer Product Safety Commission

PART 1211—SAFETY STANDARD FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title16-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title16-vol2-part1211.pdf (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title16-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title16-vol2-part1211.pdf)

§ 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements.
(a)(1) Other than for the first 1 foot (305mm) of door travel from the full upmost position both with and without any external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b)(1) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and at various heights under the edge of the door and located in line with the driving point of the operator. When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high. In the test installation, the bottom edge of the door under the driving force of the operator is to be against the floor when the door is fully closed.

(2) For operators other than those attached to the door, a solid object is not required to be located in line with the driving point of the operator. The solid object is to be located at points at the center, and within 1 foot of each end of the door. ….

(f)(1) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that monitors the actual position of the door,…….. The entrapment protection system shall monitor the position of the door at increments not greater than 1 inch (25.4 mm). …..

§ 1211.8 Secondary entrapment protection requirements.
(a) A secondary entrapment protection device supplied with, or as an accessory to, an operator shall consist of: (1) An external photoelectric sensor that when activated results in an operator that is closing a door to reverse direction of the door and the sensor prevents an operator from closing an open door,
(2) An external edge sensor installed on the edge of the door that, when activated results in an operator that is closing a door to reverse direction of the door and the sensor prevents an operator from closing an open door,……..

§ 1211.9 Additional entrapment protection requirements.
(a) A means to manually detach the door operator from the door shall be supplied. The gripping surface (handle) shall be colored red and shall be easily distinguishable from the rest of the operator. It shall be capable of being adjusted to a height of 6 feet (1.8 m) above the garage floor when the operator is installed according to the instructions specified in § 1211.14(a)(2). The means shall be constructed so that a hand firmly gripping it and applying a maximum of 50 pounds (223 N) of force shall detach the operator with the door obstructed in the down position. …..

§ 1211.12 Requirements for edge sensors.
(a) Normal operation test. (1) When installed on a representative door edge, an edge sensor shall actuate upon the application of a 15 pounds (66.7 N) or less force in the direction of the application. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a sectional door, the force is to be applied by the longitudinal edge of a 17⁄8 inch (47.6 mm) diameter cylinder placed across the switch so that the axis is perpendicular to the plane of the door. For an edge sensor intended to be used on a one piece door, the force is to be applied so that the axis is at an angle 30 degrees from the direction perpendicular to the plane of the door. See figure 6.
(2) With respect to the test of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the test is to be repeated at various representative points of the edge sensor across the width of the door.
(3) Exception: The edge sensor need not be sensitive to actuation two inches (50.4mm) or less from each end of the intended width of the door opening.

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Garry/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image002.gif

§ 1211.13 Inherent force activated secondary door sensors.
(a) Normal operation test. (1) A force activated door sensor of a door system installed according to the installation instructions shall actuate when the door applies a 15 pound (66.7 N) or less force in the down or closing direction and when the door applies a 25 pound (111.2 N) or less force in the up or opening direction. For a force activated door sensor intended to be used in an operator intended for use only on a sectional door, the force is to be applied by the door against the longitudinal edge of a 17⁄8 (47.6 mm) diameter cylinder placed across the door so that the axis is perpendicular to the plane of the door. See Figure 6 of this part. The weight of the door is to be equal to the maximum weight rating of the operator.
(2) The test described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is to be repeated and measurements made at various representative points across the width and height of the door. For this test, a door sensor system and associated components shall withstand a total of 9 cycles of mechanical operation without failure with the force applied as follows:
(i) At the center at points one, three, and five feet from the floor,
(ii) Within 1 foot of the end of the door, at points one, three, and five feet from the floor,
(iii) Within 1 foot of the other end of the door at points one, three, and five feet from the floor.

§ 1211.14 Instruction manual.
……..8. After installing opener, the door must reverse when it contacts a 11⁄2 inch high object (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) on the floor. …..

[Garry Sorrells]

If door bows like a banana and then reverses it meets the reversal test. LOL:D


Yes sadly. Since there is no requirement for the amount of pressure required to cause the door to reverse. Just that it reverses within time frame specifs.

[Stuart Brooks]

Excerpt from Rick C., " ... Ether you are just to lazy to actually read what has been written, to stupid to understand what has been written, or lying just to confuse the discussion and cause trouble..."

The other option is if a premise isn't something with which they agree then it's false and just stupid. If something on a web site contradicts overwhelming evidence, then the information found on the web is the absolute truth and fact because it supports their point. I think Nicko's association recommends a hand hold test.

Heck most inspectors around here MAY check that the opener raises and lowers the door and that's it. If the SOP doesn't require it, they don't bother. Or, they don't follow any SOP other than Endorse-the-Check before depositing. :eek:

[Dan Harris]

To be fair there is an Article and specific Education on Garages and Garage doors.
Nachi TV
Garage Doors and Openers - InterNACHI (http://www.nachi.org/garage-doors-openers.htm)

To be fair, this is just another perfect example why many of the state goverments felt there was a need for state regulations on home inspectors.

[Gene South]

Hey Chris, welcome to the "I just tore up a garage door club". We have many members.

[Lon Henderson]

To be fair, this is just another perfect example why many of the state goverments felt there was a need for state regulations on home inspectors.

The state regs are always written by the guys or gals who yelled the loudest or wore the other consultants down. Just cuz it is in the state regs doesn't make it the best or smartest, although it certainly relieves a lot of liability when you follow the prescribed procedures.

(of course, in Colorado any Tom, Debra, or Harry can hang their shingle and call themselves a big bad house inspector and judging from a few that I have met, some have done just that.)

[Lon Henderson]

Hey Chris, welcome to the "I just tore up a garage door club". We have many members.

I think I have told this story before, but many years ago. I pressed the opener button and up goes the door. I press the button again and the door jerks and comes crashing down. As the dust boils around me and the buyer, I hear his voice say, "I am your witness, all you did was press the button."

No one asked me to pay for a door, nor would I have, even if in Idaho Falls.:p

[Dan Harris]

The state regs are always written by the guys or gals who yelled the loudest or wore the other consultants down. Just cuz it is in the state regs doesn't make it the best or smartest, although it certainly relieves a lot of liability when you follow the prescribed procedures.

(of course, in Colorado any Tom, Debra, or Harry can hang their shingle and call themselves a big bad house inspector and judging from a few that I have met, some have done just that.)

Agreed. At least state requirements require if you don't inspect a required item, the inspector is required to state so, and make a recommendation ...

With this vague inspection training/information [below] from some one that "certifies" new inspectors based on their on-line courses. Why would a new inspector attempt to inspect the safety devices at all.
Not to mention the photo shows testing the door by hand , a completey different method from the way most manufactures and the Consumer Product Safety Commission recommend testing the openers safety adjustment.

2.Some sources recommend placing a 2x4 piece of wood on the ground beneath the door, although there have been instances where this testing method has damaged the door or door opener components.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

NO BODY has said the only test is by using a 2x4
NO BODY has said that a compleat inspection of the garage door not be done.
It looks like everyone agrees that the door is to be inspected BEFORE using a 2x4. The point of discussion is some say not use a 2x4 during the test, and some say to use one.

Ether you are just to lazy to actually read what has been written, to stupid to understand what has been written, or lying just to confuse the discussion and cause trouble.
I don't think your to lazy to read, and I don't think your stupid. I do think that you would say almost anything to discredit someone (especially Jerry).
It seems that you think that by discrediting someone else, it will make you look better. It does not.

If I said something to offend you, get over it.

BTW Scott said he DOES NOT use a 2x4




Jerry states that the door should be inspected BEFORE using a 2x4

Mr. Cantrell,

Again, it is you, whom projects, and again you, whom forgets, what has been written, said, and what the INDUSTRY standards are.

Mr. PECK stated back up on post 8:


I usually agree with what Scott P. says, however, in this case Scott is w-a-y off base in my opinion.

Scott would be correct to chastise you for using your hand and not the approved and only recognized reversal test - the 2x4 on the floor and done correctly (many, if not most, HIs seem to not do this test correctly, and thus are afraid of this test).

"Failed under testing" if how I have handled it in the past ... I cam up with that phrase after a garage door fell off the tracks.

With regard to the garage door "operating properly" before it damaged ITSELF (you did NOT damage the door, it damaged ITSELF), if the door was "operating properly" prior to the test, the door would have have damaged itself.

I do agree that the HI should look the door over first for things like damage to the top of the door where the operator connects to the door - it is not uncommon at all to find doors which do not have the required stiffener brace installed at that location and you will find many doors which are wrinkled/crinkled at that connection point. Me, I tested those doors anyway, but damage like that is reason enough to write the door up for repair without testing ANYTHING - if you are not going to test the entrapment avoidance systems - ALL of them - don't bother trying to fool your client by only testing the easy ones. You could create a false sense of 'the door operates properly' in the client because you, the professional, did not feel the need to test the auto-reverse feature.

Either test the door or don't test the door, but don't do a half-arsed test by testing only the easy stuff. Crimeny

He said: "I tested those doors anyway". To have done so, when "those doors" failed the visual examination, (i.e. missing brace, or wrinkled/damaged door), meant that proceeding with an OPERATION, BEYOND the accepted standard testing protocols was inproper, inppropriate, unsafe, and was in no-way a proper "TEST". If ANY of the multi-step, multi-examination, multi-test procedure steps in the ORDER they are to be performed on the system is a "no-pass" or "stop", one STOPS the "TESTING PROCEDURE" and writes it up for correction.

I wouldn't recommend even MANUALLY OPERATING an OH door which has wrinkled or is damaged, or is in anyway not in an acceptable state or condition of installation, maintenance, etc.

This conversation has been repeated, many times. I remind you that it was you, who confused participants in the previously referenced discussion thread, and who skipped, as has Peck, what the standards are.

BEFORE testing the auto reversing feature(s), there are BOTH inspections AND TESTING PROCEDURES which MUST be employed PRIOR to "doing the 2x4" test. Testing the force & balancing are two such tests which MUST be performed (AND PASSED) PRIOR, as well as TESTING the MANUAL OPERATION OF THE DOOR (following a visual INSPECTION of the door system, track, spring, reinforcement, and that of the opener system, etc.).

Mr. Peck continues to INSIST the actual 2x4 "test" is the ONLY test. It is a multi-step, multi-test, PROCEDURE, which meets the STANDARDs. It includes a visual inspection of the door & system, checking the manual operation of the door/system, the balance, the force test, checking the (manually triggered) STOP/REVERSE function BEFORE checking an auto/reverse function.

It is not unlike a HI "testing" an Oven without FIRST looking inside said oven for materials within (like plastic, pans, a can of oven cleaner, a bullet, etc.); "testing" a fireplace without FIRST assuring the damper is OPEN; "testing" a washing machine or dryer without first looking INSIDE same AND verifying the drainage hose or discharge vent connector is attached; "testing" the ability to hold water and/or the drainage of a kitchen sink, or "testing" a disposer, or "testing" a DW, without FIRST looking UNDER the SINK to make sure there actually IS DRAINAGE PIPING PRESENT - or FIRING up a fuel-fired forced air furnace, without FIRST assuring there is a VENT PIPE attached, connected, etc.; or stepping off a roof without FIRST visualizing/finding/feeling for the LADDER!

[Rick Cantrell]

Mr. Cantrell,

Again, it is you, whom projects, and again you, whom forgets, what has been written, said, and what the INDUSTRY standards are.

Mr. PECK stated back up on post 8:


He said: "I tested those doors anyway". To have done so, when "those doors" failed the visual examination, (i.e. missing brace, or wrinkled/damaged door), meant that proceeding with an OPERATION, BEYOND the accepted standard testing protocols was inproper, inppropriate, unsafe, and was in no-way a proper "TEST". If ANY of the multi-step, multi-examination, multi-test procedure steps in the ORDER they are to be performed on the system is a "no-pass" or "stop", one STOPS the "TESTING PROCEDURE" and writes it up for correction.

I wouldn't recommend even MANUALLY OPERATING an OH door which has wrinkled or is damaged, or is in anyway not in an acceptable state or condition of installation, maintenance, etc.

This conversation has been repeated, many times. I remind you that it was you, who confused participants in the previously referenced discussion thread, and who skipped, as has Peck, what the standards are.

BEFORE testing the auto reversing feature(s), there are BOTH inspections AND TESTING PROCEDURES which MUST be employed PRIOR to "doing the 2x4" test. Testing the force & balancing are two such tests which MUST be performed (AND PASSED) PRIOR, as well as TESTING the MANUAL OPERATION OF THE DOOR (following a visual INSPECTION of the door system, track, spring, reinforcement, and that of the opener system, etc.).

Mr. Peck continues to INSIST the actual 2x4 "test" is the ONLY test. It is a multi-step, multi-test, PROCEDURE, which meets the STANDARDs. It includes a visual inspection of the door & system, checking the manual operation of the door/system, the balance, the force test, checking the (manually triggered) STOP/REVERSE function BEFORE checking an auto/reverse function.

It is not unlike a HI "testing" an Oven without FIRST looking inside said oven for materials within (like plastic, pans, a can of oven cleaner, a bullet, etc.); "testing" a fireplace without FIRST assuring the damper is OPEN; "testing" a washing machine or dryer without first looking INSIDE same AND verifying the drainage hose or discharge vent connector is attached; "testing" the ability to hold water and/or the drainage of a kitchen sink, or "testing" a disposer, or "testing" a DW, without FIRST looking UNDER the SINK to make sure there actually IS DRAINAGE PIPING PRESENT - or FIRING up a fuel-fired forced air furnace, without FIRST assuring there is a VENT PIPE attached, connected, etc.; or stepping off a roof without FIRST visualizing/finding/feeling for the LADDER!

Mr Watson
I'm not being funny, mean, nasty, or sarcastic, you need to get help.
I'm not saying you're crazy, but something is just not right.

[Eric Van De Ven]

I would NEVER be able to get away with the "Failed During Test" defense. The realtors and the seller Always consider it to be my fault if the garage door gets bent.

This usually happens with an older opener that also has been reinforced before with a 2 x 4 at the bracket and the thinnest door ever (the ones that I call a tin-foil door). When there is not an optical reverse, I almost think that there must be a pressure reverse. Even using a 2 x 4 under the door sometimes results in the top panel getting wrinkled.

I have a local overhead door company on speed dial. It usually costs be about $80 - $90 to repair and that comes out of my inspection fee. It's a tragedy all around, but I must test the reverse, If it fails and causes damage that is my fault and I must repair it to stay in good standing with the realtors.

This happens to me about once a year and I just consider it a business expense. All of those inspectors who say "Failed During Test" would have a business that "Failed By Methods" in my area.

There is one other issue here. The "failed under testing" statement doesn't hold water. Here is a situation that happened to me about a year ago. I was doing an inspection and testing a window. It opened and because the springs were shot, fell and the glass broke. Failed under testing? Not according to the attorney that was called by the Realtor right after it happened. "The inspector is employed by the Buyer and the Buyer is responsible for any damage done to the property, no matter how it occurred."

I worked out a deal with my client and no money changed hands,but, I would caution those who think that they can break things in peoples homes and not face any repercussions.

As to the garage door, Jerry is correct that you should inspect the door before you operate it. When the Florida SoP comes out, there this section,
(8) Inspectors are not required to perform any procedure or operation which will, in the opinion of the inspector, likely to be dangerous to the inspector or other persons or damage the property or its systems or components. This situation will be noted in the home inspection report.

That gives you the opportunity to not inspect something if you feel it may be damaged during the testing. I would say that the standard also warns you about testing a door that shows damage, and then it fails. You will be paying for that door.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

There is one other issue here. The "failed under testing" statement doesn't hold water. Here is a situation that happened to me about a year ago. I was doing an inspection and testing a window. It opened and because the springs were shot, fell and the glass broke. Failed under testing? Not according to the attorney that was called by the Realtor right after it happened. "The inspector is employed by the Buyer and the Buyer is responsible for any damage done to the property, no matter how it occurred."

I worked out a deal with my client and no money changed hands,but, I would caution those who think that they can break things in peoples homes and not face any repercussions.

As to the garage door, Jerry is correct that you should inspect the door before you operate it. When the Florida SoP comes out, there this section,
(8) Inspectors are not required to perform any procedure or operation which will, in the opinion of the inspector, likely to be dangerous to the inspector or other persons or damage the property or its systems or components. This situation will be noted in the home inspection report.

That gives you the opportunity to not inspect something if you feel it may be damaged during the testing. I would say that the standard also warns you about testing a door that shows damage, and then it fails. You will be paying for that door.


EXACTLY!

[Ron Bibler]

Dang... What to do with all of this...? Old Cars. No Testing for me. Door has any kind of damage or missing parts. No testing for me.

Some things you just got to do or test and roll with it or get the owner to test/open. I had a breaker that was in the off position last month. Told the agent and the buyer i could not move that to the on position. This lady agent went over to the panel and move the breaker to the on position the AC unit kick on and that was the last inspection i will be doing for her.

It would have been kool:cool: if the breaker sucker had started smoking or sparking...

Guys we just make our own calls every day...

Just my 2 cents.:D

Best

Ron

[Chris Stichter]

We all take risks in this business and minimize them when we can....I always prefer to have a witness when testing, be it the buyer, seller (even if they get pissed if something goes wrong)..or agent (worst case scenario).

[Eric Van De Ven]

Dang... What to do with all of this...? Old Cars. No Testing for me. Door has any kind of damage or missing parts. No testing for me.

Some things you just got to do or test and roll with it or get the owner to test/open. I had a breaker that was in the off position last month. Told the agent and the buyer i could not move that to the on position. This lady agent went over to the panel and move the breaker to the on position the AC unit kick on and that was the last inspection i will be doing for her.

It would have been kool:cool: if the breaker sucker had started smoking or sparking...

Guys we just make our own calls every day...

Just my 2 cents.:D

Best

Ron

Had a Realtor do the same thing for a pool pump breaker....After the paramedics left, I finished the inspection. :eek:

[Lon Henderson]

There is one other issue here. The "failed under testing" statement doesn't hold water. Here is a situation that happened to me about a year ago. I was doing an inspection and testing a window. It opened and because the springs were shot, fell and the glass broke. Failed under testing? Not according to the attorney that was called by the Realtor right after it happened. "The inspector is employed by the Buyer and the Buyer is responsible for any damage done to the property, no matter how it occurred."

Not impressed.......you could have found an attorney (probably on your first call) who would have said that you had no liability at all. If we have liability for anything that doesn't work or quits working or breaks under normal use (or testing), then none of us could afford the insurance premiums. That attorney or a lying Realtor bluffed you.

It's ok to get fooled once. Those are lessons that we remember.

[Eric Van De Ven]

Not impressed.......you could have found an attorney (probably on your first call) who would have said that you had no liability at all. If we have liability for anything that doesn't work or quits working or breaks under normal use (or testing), then none of us could afford the insurance premiums. That attorney or a lying Realtor bluffed you.

It's ok to get fooled once. Those are lessons that we remember.

It is in the real estate contract that the buyer signed.

[Garry Sorrells]

Well from the war stories of doors failing without warning makes me feel lucky or at least reassured in the methods I use. I have never had a door have a catastrophic failure that I did not expect/anticipate to fail. Haven't ever (unintentional) damaged a door from inspecting and testing. I have stopped the process of operating a door's seeing that it was failing or would fail. I have demonstrated, under a controlled situation, to owners that a door being replaced was ready to fail and why.

Either it has been plain dumb luck or it is the method and process employed.

I hope that it has been as a result of process and method and not luck. Being lucky is not dependable nor consistent. Caution trumps luck. Knowledge and experience trumps caution.

[Eric Van De Ven]

Fortunately, I have had only one garage door incident. The chain broke, whipped around and nearly decapitated the homeowner. No one got hurt, but, it was a scary moment for sure. I, whenever possible, try to have people around when I test the doors, just in case.

Getting back to my previous post.
Lon, I am not trying to "impress" anyone. Merely stating the facts. I spoke to the attorney and asked him for his clients homeowners insurance policy number since he had asked for my GL insurance number. He asked why and I said, because I cut myself and since I was injured on your clients property, I am going to have to go to the hospital, get an exam, etc..
That pretty much ended the discussion about the $100.00 piece of broken window glass.

[Lon Henderson]

Eric, one of the problems with print is that it is easy to be misunderstood. My "impress" comment was directed toward the real estate agent that tried to intimidate you.

Your response was excellent and I'll remember that.

Colorado laws are different. While a buyer is responsible for damaging a house, it is generally interpreted that they are only responsible for breaking something while acting beyond normal behavior or using something beyond its intended use. For instance, like the garage door that crashed down while I was inspecting. All I had done was press the opener button and no one even considered asking the buyer or me to pay for repairs. In fact, the buyer requested the door be repaired in his Inspection Notice to the seller.

I gotta say that doing inspections in Florida sounds like a riskier business than here. I would have written some checks over the years if I had to pay for some things that "broke" under normal use.

[Terry Griffin]

I agree with Scott. The door may have already been damaged and testing the manual reverse may finish it off. Play it safe.

[Raymond Wand]

... I spoke to the attorney and asked him for his clients homeowners insurance policy number since he had asked for my GL insurance number. He asked why and I said, because I cut myself and since I was injured on your clients property, I am going to have to go to the hospital, get an exam, etc..
That pretty much ended the discussion about the $100.00 piece of broken window glass.

Love it! Great retort to a lawyer! Thanks for that.

[Eric Van De Ven]

Eric, one of the problems with print is that it is easy to be misunderstood. My "impress" comment was directed toward the real estate agent that tried to intimidate you.

Your response was excellent and I'll remember that.

Colorado laws are different. While a buyer is responsible for damaging a house, it is generally interpreted that they are only responsible for breaking something while acting beyond normal behavior or using something beyond its intended use. For instance, like the garage door that crashed down while I was inspecting. All I had done was press the opener button and no one even considered asking the buyer or me to pay for repairs. In fact, the buyer requested the door be repaired in his Inspection Notice to the seller.

I gotta say that doing inspections in Florida sounds like a riskier business than here. I would have written some checks over the years if I had to pay for some things that "broke" under normal use.

I have been very fortunate in my 20+ year career in that I have only had to give back around 2,400.00 dollars. 2K of it was due to an attorney client who know how to use, er, abuse the legal system.
That would be my main point to other inspectors, do what you can to avoid conflict and an appearance in court.
In the case above, I could have fought it and won, even with free legal services from a friend, it would have probably cost 5-10K to defend.
As a former roofer friend once said to me, it is easier to push the pencil than the hammer. The 2K spread out over six months,and one payment in all singles, seemed the way to go!

[Rolland Pruner]

You can put all the tech stuff you want, but I am telling you you will be sorry someday. Read my earlier reply.....

[Matt Fellman]

That's an all too common misconception home inspectors have of how to test a garage door, with or without a 2x4. And this has been said over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over ... (whew, enough already) ... and over again time after time by myself and others - yet some apparently *ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION* to what is being said:
- 1) The garage door *is not* supposed to reverse on pressure on the 2x4 and you do not measure the pressure the garage door exerts before it reverses.
- 2) The garage door *is* supposed to reverse ... ON CONTACT WITH ... yes, that is correct, ON CONTACT WITH ... the 2x4.

If you stand there watching the door operator force the door downward while the track arches upward and then, finally, the door reverses ... THE AUTO REVERSE FAILED.



If you place the 2x4 *where the 2x4 is supposed to be placed* and the door makes contact with the 2x4 ... the door is supposed to reverse, right then and right there.

So many home inspectors think that the door is supposed to partially crush the 2x4 before the door reverses and that there is no way they would want "my child having the resistance of a 2X4 to survive" ... DUH!

"ON CONTACT WITH"

Why don't you guys understand that and get that? It IS that easy.

As I've stated in posts above: "Sounds like someone does NOT know how to test garage doors with the 2x4, which is the recognized method for testing the auto-reverse mechanism."

The 2x4 test really is not that difficult to understand.

By this logic a marshmellow would also work....

[Eric Van De Ven]

By this logic a marshmellow would also work....

A very old one might.....:D

[Garry Sorrells]

After replacing 3 garage doors and openers in the past FROM testing with a 2x4 as most people have stated here, I learned NOT to test garage door openers, I simply disclaimed why in my reports and attempted to explain what it is suppose to do! I told them I would test if home owner approved.

I say pay the man & manup!

Retired Home Inpsector after 24 years.


(my opinion) if it counts

Rolland,
Had to go back to see what you posted. Had let it go by without comment. But could not pass it twice. Please do not take the following to personal. No desire to distress you, just concerned how someone may take your advice and excuse themselves from inspecting a garage door.

You replaced doors and openers. You really must not have known how to inspect the doors and operator. Also, to wreck both the door and the opener is a trick in and of itself. You must have had a unique technique for testing. I can understand how you would be afraid to get involved with the garage door. But it would have been better to develop the knoweledge of how to inspect a door and operator and know when and where to stop before causing damage. Telling a client that I am afraid to operate the garage door and you have to take your chances with it on your own. I would have been ashamed with myself as being so incompetent.

I only comment on your post because I just could not let it go by twice. The suggestion not to learn how to do something correctly is an extremely bad message to send to anyone that looks to this forum for insight.

[Garry Sorrells]

By this logic a marshmellow would also work....

If it would not compress past 1 inch.

It is not about the pressure, which is adjustable, it is about reversal.
But, to prevent the possibility that excessive force is exerted causing the door to buckle and deform you should determine the amount of force the operator is exerting. This is done before using a fixed (solid) obstruction to test the reversal function. Testing the reversal at the floor with anything is the last thing that is done in the door/operator inspection.

If testing the door operation with a 2x4 is the first thing that you do then you will be headed for an uncontrolled potential failure.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

If it would not compress past 1 inch.

It is not about the pressure, which is adjustable, it is about reversal.
But, to prevent the possibility that excessive force is exerted causing the door to buckle and deform you should determine the amount of force the operator is exerting. This is done beforeusing a fixed (solid) obstruction to test the reversal function. Testing the reversal at the floor with anything is the last thing that is done in the door/operator inspection.

If testing the door operation with a 2x4 is the first thing that you do then you will be headed for an uncontrolled potential failure.

Exactly what I've been saying on this and other threads.

[John Kogel]

After replacing 3 garage doors and openers in the past FROM testing with a 2x4 as most people have stated here, I learned NOT to test garage door openers, I simply disclaimed why in my reports and attempted to explain what it is suppose to do! I told them I would test if home owner approved.

I say pay the man & man up!

Retired Home Inspector after 24 years.


(my opinion) if it countsRoland, I had to search thru 'all posts by' you to find that sucka! :D
PS, thanks for the veteran's point of view. It counts in my book.

PPS Per the manufacturers, garage doors go out of adjustment and need to be tested and readjusted on a regular basis. You tested it, big deal. No guarantee the door will be ok a month from now when they move in. :confused:

[Ian Page]

The original post clearly identified existing damage and a suspect repair but not until after the door had failed, i.e. looking for the cause of failure. Those issues should have been seen and noted before the door's operation, That IMO is where some liability falls squarely on the OP's shoulders. He tested a door that had an inherrent defect, which was not observed prior. A crucial visual first step in the door's inspection/examination was not performed or at least not performed thoroughly. Had the repair been identified then he would have had good reason not to make any further testing or at least limit the extent of testing and include those limitations and reasons in the report. With the existence of damage/repair both noted and of understanding possible consequences, he would have been forewarned as to a potential mishap. The fact that the repair was not identified until afterward only provides for some limited mitigation.

Any attorney, in court need only ask two questions ..."Did you examine the door prior to testing?" If the answer is "Yes" then the next question is, "...But you went ahead and tested it anyway?" If the answer is "No." The next question is, " Why not, isn't that a Standard Proceedure?" The attorney's next line is, " You failed to perform your duties, I rest my case."

[Jerry Peck]

Any attorney, in court need only ask two questions ..."Did you examine the door prior to testing?" If the answer is "Yes" then the next question is, "...But you went ahead and tested it anyway?" If the answer is "No." The next question is, " Why not, isn't that a Standard Proceedure?" The attorney's next line is, " You failed to perform your duties, I rest my case."

And the answer to the last question is "I did not fail to perform my duties in accordance with the SoP as the SoP DOES NOT REQUIRE the testing, operation, or inspection of ANYTHING that the inspector feels is unsafe." The attorney that asked that question and went in that direction is now dead in the water - he just lost the case for his client.

[Ian Page]

And the answer to the last question is "I did not fail to perform my duties in accordance with the SoP as the SoP DOES NOT REQUIRE the testing, operation, or inspection of ANYTHING that the inspector feels is unsafe." The attorney that asked that question and went in that direction is now dead in the water - he just lost the case for his client.

Jerry... But you HAVE to know - or believe/feel it to be unsafe before declining to test, giving reasons, which should be documented. Hence one of the purposes for performing an examination in the first place, which is the underlying reason before conducting any physical check of the apperatus/appliance etc. Visual examinations (of whatever) are in all aspects of all HI's SoPs. Not only to determine if it is in good, safe working order and performing as it should but also to determine if it is safe to perform further testing. Attorney for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's case, still alive and well....Judgement for the Plaintiff.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry... But you HAVE to know - or believe/feel it to be unsafe before declining to test, giving reasons, which should be documented.

You don't have to document *why* you think it is unsafe, in fact, some here think it is unsafe to test the overhead garage door with the approved 2x4 test. That in and of itself is sufficient for those people to deem the test unsafe.


Attorney for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's case, still alive and well....Judgement for the Plaintiff.

Judgement was for the plaintiff and the plaintiff was the inspector as the client was withholding payment because the inspector did not test the garage door, thus the inspector sued the client for payment. :)

[Ian Page]

You don't have to document *why* you think it is unsafe, in fact, some here think it is unsafe to test the overhead garage door with the approved 2x4 test. That in and of itself is sufficient for those people to deem the test unsafe.



Judgement was for the plaintiff and the plaintiff was the inspector as the client was withholding payment because the inspector did not test the garage door, thus the inspector sued the client for payment. :)

Responding to your first para. above: Those reasons for not performing this test or any other, absent signs of existing critical condition, would be based on prior (preferably first-hand) experience, knowledge, expertise and, if necessary previously documented and reported incidents of failure known to the inspector. I believe you should document why you believe it to be unsafe (to perform a specific test) in support of your reasoning not to test. IMO it would be improper to simply say "Test not performed" without giving rationale, as your post implies. That would not be fulfilling duties under most HI contracts, unless the contract specifically identifies that such testing will not be conducted.

2nd para....Oh, come on:rolleyes: ...Nice try but no chicken dinner.

[Lon Henderson]

Who'd a thunk that testing a garage door could generate so much controversy.......?

At the risk of stating the obvious, the block test is a test of the opener. It should work properly regardless of the condition of the door. It could easily be argued that even if you see damage or some problem with the door, the block test should always be done. The block test isn't about testing to see if the door falls apart but rather if a child or puppy would be pinned or worse.

After 30 some odd years of being around the real estate biz, I can tell you that you cannot depend on judges to have common sense. You can find yourself on the wrong side of a decision no matter what you do. So, my two cents is to make your decision, based on the arguments that you feel confident presenting to a judge and move on.

So, out of curiosity, if there is still anyone following this thread, I am wondering if any of you have changed how you test garage doors. I started using the block test after our last discussion. So, I am calling for a show of hands, so to speak. Has this discussion changed anyone's mind and practice?

[Garry Sorrells]

Lon and others,
So many seen to be hung up on the use of a 2x4 and the resulting damage.
The real issue is what was done before that 2x4 test.
Provided that, there was neither notification by the owner nor a notice posted on the door and its controls that alerted against operating the door.
First a systematic examination of the door, installation and its operator must lead you to believe that the door should function as designed.

Following that you further inspect the door and test its operation for its reversal function on meeting resistance in movement above the floor (3 ft, 6 ft it does not matter)

Now be aware that some of the newer circuit boards in the openers actually determine lack of movement of the door rather than a load on the motor as the determinate trigger. But that is a discussion for another day.

Presuming you have determined that the door operator will recognize that the door has been obstructed and reacts. Then and only then should a prudent inspector move to the last ( and I stress LAST ) part of the doors inspection/operation which is using an obstruction placed on the floor.

All of the prior is the essence of the inspection procedure to insure that the inspector understands and can describe what occurred when an obstruction was placed on the floor. It may be that the inspector halts the inspection for a preceding reason and does not complete testing/operations using an obstruction on the floor beneath the door. Else the inspection of the doors operation would culminate in placing a 1 inch thick obstruction to test the final function of the door's operator.

That is the essence of an inspection which is different than reasonable expectation of a door's operation. The reasonable expectation that a home owner maintains the property against hazards and maintains the equipment to minimal specifications. It is the owners responsibility that a garage door and its operator is operating correctly. It is by the owners testing and maintenance he assures proper function and safety. The fact that most do not is not a valid argument not to be responsible for the testing and maintenance.

Devils advocate.
Under normal operation of the door by an electric opener it is by default expected to reverse with an obstruction 1 inch or greater. It is an instrumental part if the normal operation of the opener and door. Thus, it is expected to function correctly at all times. Anyone at anytime can place an object under the door and have the expectation of it reversing. Damage to the door is not relevant to the reversal function, though it should be addressed in the proper installation of the electric opener to that door. Under the condition that the installation, maintenance/testing was performed correctly the door will not be damaged by meeting the obstruction.

So, if a HI that is dumber than dirt following a check list inspection on his first inspection places a 2x4 under the garage door as it closes, should under reasonable expectations believe that the door will reverse and not be damaged. Why ? The door and opener are to installed correctly and the owner is to maintained the door and opener to manufacture specifications. Thus failure and damage is the owner's responsibility not the HI nor any person allowed on the property. In fact a thief may have recourse it the thief was injured/killed by the door as he was leaving the property (depending on the Judge and jury here in absurdistan).

You could argue both sides of the issue. Though bottom line the HI should have the knowledge that separates them form the common folk. It is their job to know what to do, how to do it and when not to do something. But, foremost to understand why and to be able to communicate effectively to the client and others.

[Jack Feldmann]

Jerry,
According to ASHI SOP 2.2.B.4...
The inspector shall: Report: "on any systems and components designated for inspection in these SOP which were present at the time of the Home Inspection but were not inspected and the reason they were not inspected".

I believe you have to give a reason why something is not inspected.

[Mark Krajcar]

Not impressed.......you could have found an attorney (probably on your first call) who would have said that you had no liability at all. If we have liability for anything that doesn't work or quits working or breaks under normal use (or testing), then none of us could afford the insurance premiums. That attorney or a lying Realtor bluffed you.

It's ok to get fooled once. Those are lessons that we remember.

+1.

Any decent attorney will tell you it is your fault and you are responsible whether or not it is true. If you take the bait, then they have won and they and their clients are happy. It may be that the attorney did not know all the facts and was going from hat his client, next door neighbor, golfing buddy had told him. You need to stick to your your guns on this and say no, and then call an attorney or your E&O provider. If it was something truly not your fault and they know it but were just trying to get you to pay for it. It usually goes away just as fast as it appeared. That has been my experience and is my 2 cent legal advice! For better advice, talk to an attorney. A 30 minute consultation is not much money and will give you a lot of knowledge.

[Mark Krajcar]

Dear Home Owner
I regret the garage door was damaged and understand your concerns.
However, I did not cause the damage. The damage was caused by EITHER improper MONTHLY MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDED maintenance, OR IMPROPER INSTALLATION.
The garage door sustained damaged during normal operation and testing methods. Had the garage door been maintained in normal operating condition, no damage would have occurred.
Operation and testing methods used, were in accordance with state requirements, Federal Government safety standards, manufacturers instructions, and industry standards.
(Home buyers having a home inspection performed have every reason to expect the inspection to include operation and testing of the garage door and related safety features. Would you expect less from an inspection on a home you are about to purchase? )
Thank you[/quote] (change to SINCERELY)

Nice letter. I added a couple possible changes for consideration. The fact that it failed is all you really know. You don't know who installed it and to what standards they installed it to. Could have been the original opener was installed perfectly, then broke, was replaced by the previous owner (not the current owner) who with the help of a 6-pack and a neighbor installed this one improperly.
Do you know as it has been written above that in fact the manufacturer of that unit said to do monthly testing? If you do not know this, then eliminate the bit about monthly testing. Example. We bought our home a year ago, it has 2 openers, no optical eyes and no documentation. As homeowners, we have no idea how these things work or are supposed to be maintained. Like all homeowners, we know that when we push a button the door is supposed to go up or down.

The 2nd big red change is to eliminate that whole paragraph. It could easily be taken as very condescending at best. It is not needed for any reason IMHO and could further fan the flames you are trying to put out. Keep it short, sweet, to the point and be respectful.

[Rick Cantrell]

Hi Mark
Thanks for the feedback
My original post did not say "monthly " anything.



I would also send the HO a written response, such as;

Dear Home Owner
I regret the garage door was damaged and understand your concerns.
However, I did not cause the damage. The damage was caused by improper maintenance.
The garage door sustained damaged during normal operation and testing methods. Had the garage door been maintained in normal operating condition, no damage would have occurred.
Operation and testing methods used, were in accordance with state requirements, Federal Government safety standards, manufacturers instructions, and industry standards.
Home buyers having a home inspection performed have every reason to expect the inspection to include operation and testing of the garage door and related safety features. Would you expect less from an inspection on a home you are about to purchase?
Thank you

[Mark Krajcar]

Hi Mark
Thanks for the feedback
My original post did not say "monthly " anything.

Hi Rick,

No, it did not. It is unfortunate, but our society seems to always want to blame the other guy. It is never that person's fault.

If you knew they had an owners manual that mentioned monthly checks and all, then bringing this to their attention should let them know who was responsible. Who knows, maybe they did do their monthly checks and the last one did pass, just not this one and now we have damages.

I liked your letter, just made a couple suggestions that could, or not, be incorporated into it. Fact is, even though this has yet to happen to me (it will I am sure) I copied the letter into a word document to be used when I need it. Thanks for the letter!

Mark

[Rick Cantrell]

Hi Rick,
...
I liked your letter, just made a couple suggestions that could, or not, be incorporated into it. ... I copied the letter into a word document to be used when I need it. Thanks for the letter!

That is why I posted it, someone may be able to use it, or a version of it



...Fact is, even though this has yet to happen to me (it will I am sure)

Not likely to happen to you, or anyone else with due caution.
Of the people that have read this thread, about how many garage doors have been tested? 10,000, 7,000, maybe only 5,000. And of those 5,000- 10,000 that have been tested, how many resulted in damage? 15 maybe 20. Of that 15-20 damaged doors how many were already damaged and the inspector did not catch it? At least 1.
Anyhow it is highly unlikely that you will damage a garage door, especially if you do an inspection of the door before you ever touch the "OPEN" button.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry,
According to ASHI SOP 2.2.B.4...
The inspector shall: Report: "on any systems and components designated for inspection in these SOP which were present at the time of the Home Inspection but were not inspected and the reason they were not inspected".

I believe you have to give a reason why something is not inspected.

Jack,

Is there a list of reasons which is "unacceptable" to use for not testing something? ;)

I.e., "I didn't test the garage door with my hand for downward travel resistance because there is not verifiable test for what the result should be and because I am not adjusting the door." :)

I.e., "I didn't test the garage door with the standard 2x4 test because I have heard so many horror stories about causing damage." :D

This is from higher up in the thread, I let it go by because I am such a nice guy :) , but this is a good time to point out that it is totally incorrect:

The reversal test using either a 1" or a 1.5" dimension can crush the life out of the obstruction and will pass the test if it reverses. If door bows like a banana and then reverses it meets the reversal test.

Nope, that door does not pass just because it "bows like a banana and then reverses it meets the reversal test" - the requirement is that it reverse .. (most people seem to have gotten this, others seem to still have missed it) ... ON CONTACT with the 2x4.

While you are standing there watching the door and track bow up and then watching it reverse, you have plenty of time to write that sucker up for having failed the reversal test. :D

[Rick Cantrell]

... - the requirement is that it reverse .. (most people seem to have gotten this, others seem to still have missed it) ... ON CONTACT with the 2x4.
...

Jerry I think the standard is within 2 seconds of contact.
Correct me if I'm in error.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry I think the standard is within 2 seconds of contact.
Correct me if I'm in error.

Rick,

A review of the links in this thread reveal:
- http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/523.pdf :
"Place*a*2x4*on*the*floor*of*the*garage*in*the*door 's*path.*If*the*door*does*not*properly*reverse*whe n*striking*the*2x4*then*the*garage*door*opener*sho uld*be*disengaged*until*the*unit*is*either*adjuste d*according*to*the*instructions*in*the*owner’s*man ual,*repaired,*or*replaced*with*a*new*garage*door* opener.**"

- http://www.gatestore.com/garage_door_openers/pdf/CLM-3265.pdf :
"TEST
• With the door fully open, place a 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) board (or a 2x4 laid flat) on the floor, centered under the garage door.
• Operate the door in the down direction. The door must reverse on striking the obstruction."

- DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association (http://www.dasma.com/safetygdmaint.asp) :
"Test the reversing feature every month.
1. First, test the balance of the door. If the door is properly balanced, then proceed.
2. With the door fully open, place a 1-1/2" thick piece of wood (a 2" X 4" laid flat) on the floor in the center of the door.
3. Push the transmitter or wall button to close the door. The door must reverse when it strikes the obstruction. (Note that the bottom part of "one-piece doors" must be rigid so that the door will not close, but will reverse when it contacts the obstruction.)
4. If the door does not reverse, have it repaired or replaced. Have a qualified technician adjust, repair, or replace the opener or door."

- Garage door maintenance checklist, tips, tests - garage door tests to keep your garage door system running properly (http://www.garagedoorcare.com/garage-door-operation/garage-door-maintenance.html) :
"With the door fully open, lay a piece of wood such as a section of a 2 x 4 on the floor in the center of the garage door opening where the door would touch the floor. Push your garage door opener’s transmitter or wall button to close the door. When the door strikes the wood, the door should automatically reverse. If the door does not automatically reverse, the door should be serviced by a trained service technician."

Okay, so all of the information which would normally be read by most people states (basically) 'on contact with' in their various wording on when it should reverse.

Now, once we get into the actual CFR standard, if one wanted pull out one section and say that 2 seconds is allowed, then one must also know all the other entrapment requirements, which, along with that 2 seconds, makes the entrapment protection work - testing just one section of the entire standard is like being one of the blind men describing an elephant and that blind man happens to be holding the elephant's trunk - his description of the elephant is not going to amount to anything different than trying to apply one section of the standard. If you want to pull out that 2 seconds time, then you need to make sure that all other aspects of the standard are also working as stated in the standard, and if you want to do that, then most of what we have discussed in this thread is just kid stuff anyway:
- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title16-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title16-vol2-part1211.pdf :
"§ 1211.6 General entrapment protection requirements.
- (a) A residential garage door operator system shall be provided with primary inherent entrapment protection that complies with the requirements as specified in § 1211.7.
- (b) In addition to the primary inherent entrapment protection as required by paragraph (a) of this section, a residential garage door operator shall comply with one of the following:
- - (1) Shall be constructed to:
- - - (i) Require constant pressure on a control to lower the door,
- - - (ii) Reverse direction and open the door to the upmost position when constant pressure on a control is removed prior to operator reaching its lower limit, and
- - - (iii) Limit a portable transmitter, when supplied, to function only to cause the operator to open the door;
- - (2) Shall be provided with a means for connection of an external secondary entrapment protection device as described in §§ 1211.8, 1211.10, and 1211.11; or
- - (3) Shall be provided with an inherent secondary entrapment protection device as described in §§ 1211.8, 1211.10, and 1211.12.
- (c) A mechanical switch or a relay used in an entrapment protection circuit of an operator shall withstand 100,000 cycles of operation controlling a load no less severe (voltage, current, power factor, inrush and similar ratings) than it controls in the operator, and shall function normally upon completion of the test.
- (d) In the event malfunction of a switch or relay (open or short) described in paragraph (c) of this section results in loss of any entrapment protection required by §§ 1211.7(a), 1211.7(f), or 1211.8(a), the door operator shall become inoperative at the end of the opening or closing operation, the door operator shall move the door to, and stay within, 1 foot (305 mm) of the uppermost position.
[57 FR 60455, Dec. 21, 1992, as amended at 65 FR 70657, Nov. 27, 2000]

§ 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements.
- (a)(1) Other than for the first 1 foot (305mm) of door travel from the full upmost position both with and without any external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. After reversing the door, the operator shall return the door to, and stop at, the full upmost position. Compliance shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.
- - (2) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when the operator senses a second obstruction during the upward travel.
- - (3) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).
- (b)(1) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and at various heights under the edge of the door and located in line with the driving point of the operator. When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high. In the test installation, the bottom edge of the door under the driving force of the operator is to be against the floor when the door is fully closed.
- - (2) For operators other than those attached to the door, a solid object is not required to be located in line with the driving point of the operator. The solid object is to be located at points at the center, and within 1 foot of each end of the door.
- - (3) To test operators for compliance with requirements in paragraphs (a)(3), (f)(3), and (g)(3) of this section, § 1211.10(a)(6)(iii), and § 1211.13(c), a solid rectangular object measuring 4 inches (102 mm) high by 6 inches (152 mm) wide by a minimum of 6 inches (152 mm)long is to be placed on the floor of the test installation to provide a 4-inch (102 mm) high obstruction when operated from a partially open position.
- (c) An operator is to be tested for compliance with paragraph (a) of this section for 50 open-and-close cycles of operation while the operator is connected to the type of residential garage door with which it is intended to be used or with the doors specified in paragragh (e) of this section. For an operator having a force adjustment on the operator, the force is to be adjusted to the maximum setting or at the setting that represents the most severe operating condition. Any accessories having an effect on the intended operation of entrapment protection functions that are intended for use with the operator, are to be attached and the test is to be repeated for one additional cycle.
- (d) For an operator that is to be adjusted (limit and force) according to instructions supplied with the operator, the operator is to be tested for 10 additional obstruction cycles using the solid object described in paragraph (b) of this section at the maximum setting or at the setting that represents the most severe operating condition.
- (e) For an operator that is intended to be used with more than one type of door, one sample of the operator is to be tested on a sectional door with a curved track and one sample is to be tested on a one-piece door with jamb hardware and no track. For an operator that is not intended for use on either or both types of doors, a one-piece door with track hardware or a one-piece door with pivot hardware shall be used for the tests. For an operator that is intended for use with a specifically dedicated door or doors, a representative door or doors shall be used for the tests. See the marking requirements at § 1211.16.
- (f)(1) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that monitors the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position in the event the inherent door operating ‘‘profile’’ of the door differs from the originally set parameters. The entrapment protection system shall monitor the position of the door at increments not greater than 1 inch (25.4 mm).
- - (2) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the upward travel.
- - (3) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).
- (g)(1) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that does not monitor the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall return the door to and stop the door at the full upmost position, when the lower limiting device is not actuated in 30 seconds or less following the initiation of the close cycle.
- - (2) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the upward travel. When the door is stopped manually during its descent, the 30 seconds shall be measured from the resumption of the close cycle.
- - (3) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm). When the door is stopped manually during its descent, the 30 seconds shall be measured from the resumption of the close cycle.
- (h) To determine compliance with paragraph (f) or (g) of this section, an operator is to be subjected to 10 open-and-close cycles of operation while connected to the door or doors specified in paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section. The cycles are not required to be consecutive. Motor cooling-off periods during the test meet the intent of the requirement. The means supplied to comply with the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section and § 1211.8(a) are to be defeated during the test. An obstructing object is to be used so that the door is not capable of activating a lower limiting device.
- (i) During the closing cycle, the system providing compliance with §§ 1211.7(a) and 1211.7(f) or 1211.7(a) and 1211.7(g) shall function regardless of a short- or open-circuit anywhere in any low-voltage external wiring, any external entrapment devices, or any other external component.
[65 FR 70657, Nov. 27, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 54817, Sept. 27, 2007]

(and I still have more sections to post if you want to start discussing the actual standard, but, for the sake of the others, I will not post the rest of the entrapment sections)"

So, Rick, do you want to talk CFR standard requirements or the other links above we have been discussing? Your call.

[Rick Cantrell]

I don't recall where I read it.

[Rick Cantrell]

This may be where I saw

Federal law required manufacturers of residential GDO's to change the way they make their products. Residential
GDO's manufactured on and after January 1, 1993 must have the following:
1) A automatic inherent reverse feature, that reverses after 2 seconds upon sensing an obstruction;
http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publications/TechDataSheets/OperatorElectronics/TDS351.pdf

[Rick Cantrell]

also

Safety Reversal System Test
1 Lay a 2 x 4 board fl at on the fl oor where it will be struck
by the center of the door as it closes.
2 Verify that the door reverses when it strikes the board.
The door must reverse within two seconds after
striking the board

http://www.linearcorp.com/pdf/manuals/LDCO800_user.pdf

[Jerry Peck]

I don't recall where I read it.

Rick,

Look at the following in the above sections of the standard I posted:
§ 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements.
- (a)(1) Other than for the first 1 foot (305mm) of door travel from the full upmost position both with and without any external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. After reversing the door, the operator shall return the door to, and stop at, the full upmost position. Compliance shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.

I intentionally did not highlight anything as one should not extract that 2 seconds out of the standard and try to apply it without also applying *everything else in the standard*.

[Mike Borchardt]

Hi Chris:

I was a professional garage door installer for seven years and installed hundreds of doors, openers, and did repairs. I'm posting this to give some insight to what to do when inspecting a door and opener prior to testing the door and opener. These are the tihngs I did and what you need to look at. In most cases the door was closed when I arrived on a job unless the door was hit or jamed in the opening or just plain stuck open. Anyway, look at the springs and whether the're extention or torsion. Take note if any are broken. If the're extention, check for a safety cable running through them. Check the cables. Note if there is any fraying or rust especially at the lower corners of the door where they connect to the door reguardless of the type of springs. If tortion springs, check the cables at the cable drums for proper positioning on the drum. they should be in the correct grove and not jumped groves. If extention springs, chect the sheaves on the spring and door track. They should be 90 deg to the bolt securing them. Look at the hinges for loose, bent, rusted or broke. Look at the rollers to be sure there arn't any missing rollers and not that just the roller shaft exists. Look to see if the door appears level in the opening. A level is not necessary. In most cases you will find something wrong with the door but that doesn't necessarly mean the door can't be opperated unless you feel its unsafe to do so. Everything I mentioned so far is hands off inspection unless you want to take the risk of loosing a finger. If there's an opener, pull the disconnect while the door is closed and manually open and close the door. This is the only way you know if the door opperates properly. Now, getting to the opener. Look at the way the opener arm is connected to the door. If it looks shabby, or it isn't mounted with the mount provided by the opener manufacture, then you need to make the call if its good enough. There are also mounts made by third parties which are much better but rarly found on residential doors. Open the door. The garage door opener "rail" is the eight foot metal bar that the arm rides on. If the Rail is three or more inches above the top edge of the door,
DO NOT DO A SAFETY REVERSE CHECK BY HAND. Why you ask??? The opener arm is pinned to the mount on the door. The opener arm is also pinned to the traveler on the opener rail. Ideally, both these pins should be horizontal to each other when the door is open, but not in reality. The pin on the traveler will always be slightly higher then the one on the door. When you close the door via the opener, the door will be pushed horizontaly with slight pressure vertically on the top edge of the door. The higher the "rail" is above the top edge of the door when closing, the more vertical force will be applied to the top of the door. Simple mechanics. If the rail is say, five inches above the top edge of the door and you do a safety reverse check, you will bow the top of the door to the point of dammage before the opener realizes enough resistance to reverse even if the reverse sensitivity is set low. when the rail is that high your applying leverage to the arm that the opener can't sense. The opener should have safety beams not mounted six inches above the floor. Interupting the beam while the door closes should reverse the door. Any opener without beams shoud be noted as not in compliance and no door company on earth will service it. As for added strength to the top of the door, eight and nine foot wide doors don't usually have them. If the opener is installed by a good door company and they give a darn, they will install a "U" bar to the door. Yes thats what is called, "U" bar. On ten, twelve, sixteen, eighteen, and anything in between, the "U" bar should always be there for added strenght but won't do alot of good if the traveler is to high. As for your current situation I won't make a comment. I don't know what you did prior to the dammage but I hope things work out for you.

[Lon Henderson]

Mike,
Good stuff, but you didn't mention using the 2X4 block of wood to calibrate the pressure sensor for the opener. Are we to assume that you didn't do this even though it seems to be an industry wide procedure?

[Garry Sorrells]

Mike,
Good stuff, but you didn't mention using the 2X4 block of wood to calibrate the pressure sensor for the opener. Are we to assume that you didn't do this even though it seems to be an industry wide procedure?


Lon,
There is no pressure sensor involved with the typical door opener.
There are sensors that can be added to a door.

The industry standard is a result of gov design requirements requiring reversal at a 1" obstruction that are relaxed to testing with a 2x4 (1.5" x 3.5 ") on the flat side to floor.

There are also reversal requirements for a door that stops moving downward.

[Lon Henderson]

The pressure sensor is in the opener itself. It senses obstructions before the closed position and should reverse. You can and should adjust the sensor (labeled "Force" on my opener) to reverse on contact with an obstruction.

Maybe this is just semantics, but it acts as a sensor, i.e., sensitivity to resistance as the door closes. Of course, there is a similar "sensor" on upward movement but the door just stops when that resistance is encountered.

[Mike Borchardt]

Hi Lon:

In reguards to the 2x4 on the floor. I never heard of putting a 2x4 on the floor to test reversability of an opener. Let me put it this way, yes I have heard of putting a 2x4 on the floor but I never understood why. If its an industry standard I would like to know the reasoning behind it, who came up with it and how it became a standard. Its probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. while were talking 2x4's, Common pratice when installing an opener is to lay a 2x4 of at least 8' long on the top edge of the door when the door is open to allow proper clearance between the door and opener rail. I would secure the rail to the header above the door opening, hold the motor end up using a step ladder to rest it on. I would then open the door, slide a 2x4x8 foot on to the top edge of the door running parallel to the top of the door and set the rail of the opener on it. this would hold the motor end in place for me as I secured it to the ceiling or rafter ties. Once done I remove the 2x4 and the result will be about one inch between the door and rail. But getting back to the 2x4 on the floor. Once the top rollers of the door start entering the radius of the track, you know, the part of the track that connects the vertical and horzontal tracks together, the top section starts going from a horzontal position to a vertical position. The door opener arm also starts going more vertical. The more vertical the arm gets, the more pressure is applied to the door and the less sensitive the reversing sensing gets. By the time the door is 1- 1/2 inches off the floor there is hundreds of pounds of pressure being applied to the door before the reversing mechanism senses this. Using this technique of putting a 2x4 on the floor will most likely dammage the door, opener, or both. The proper way of testing the reversing of an opener is to bend your arm 90 deg so your hand is shoulder height. Close the door on to your hand to deturmine the down pressure. Here's the reasoning behind this. Testing the down pressure while the door is at least half open assures the two pinned points of the arm (remember the arm is pinned to the bracket on the door and also pinned to the traveler on the opener) are still as horizontal as possiable. The horizontal push is much greater than the vetical down force on the top edge of the door. This will give the most accurate down pressure test with out dammaging the door or opener. Also resting the door on your hand will relieve any pressure on your back so you don't get injured. If placing a 2x4 on the floor made any sense, wouldn't it be better to use a bathroom scale on the floor. If this technique made any possiable sense, which it doesn't, the scale would certainly give a better reading of the down pressure, which it wont, because of the position of the arm in realtion to the rail. If using a 2x4 on the floor is industry standard, Its stupid, useless, and I'm not dumb enough to even think of doing it. After many law suits and lobbying in congress, the garage door opener industry was forced to adopt light beams to the opener precisly because of the situation. this also why the beams should not be any higher than 6 inches off the floor. Infants are usually thicker than 6 inches and will break the beams. If beams are to high, an infant can crawl under them.

[Jerry Peck]

Good stuff, but you didn't mention using the 2X4 block of wood to calibrate the pressure sensor for the opener.

Lon,

As Garry said, the 2x4 test is a reversing test, it is not used to calibrate anything.

[Jerry Peck]

I was a professional garage door installer for seven years and installed hundreds of doors, openers, and did repairs.


In reguards to the 2x4 on the floor. I never heard of putting a 2x4 on the floor to test reversability of an opener. Let me put it this way, yes I have heard of putting a 2x4 on the floor but I never understood why. If its an industry standard I would like to know the reasoning behind it, who came up with it and how it became a standard. Its probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Mike,

The 2x4 test is in every installation instructions for overhead garage doors, and it is in the CFR 1211.6 I posted part of, by the way, "CFR" stands for "Code of Federal Regulations".

Not trying to come down hard on you, but if you installed overhead garage doors professionally for 7 years and what not aware of, and did not perform, the 2x4 test, then just how did you install garage doors ... if not by their installation instructions?

[Garry Sorrells]

Jerry,
In Mikes defense, even though he does not understand the basis of much of what he did for 7 years. He was probably taught as a see it do it installation method. Instructions are usually the first thing most installers through out. Yet the door installation, as he would install it, would pass the 2x4 obstruction test. His testing of the reversing function and followed with the adjustment of the stopping point of the door in the down position would result in the door being adjusted so that it would reverse with an obstruction on the floor.

He just never was taught the method and reasoning. In installations it is about getting the job done, it working and move on. I would personally want every installer of garage doors to understand all of the aspects, but that is not going to happen.

[Jerry Peck]

In Mikes defense, even though he does not understand the basis of much of what he did for 7 years. He was probably taught as a see it do it installation method. Instructions are usually the first thing most installers through out.

Garry,

I agree with that assessment.


Yet the door installation, as he would install it, would pass the 2x4 obstruction test.

I disagree with that assessment.

His comments about the bathroom scale show his lack of understanding of the process and reasoning - there is no 'pressure' to measure, the door is to reverse *on contact with* the obstruction ... thus no watermelon would be crush (testing with a watermelon makes for a nice visual but does nothing to test the reversing mechanism), not kitty cat would be crushed, no baby would be crushed either.

Have you read through the part of the standard I posted? If you did, what were the first things you picked up on?

[Mike Borchardt]

I'm glad to see Jerry has read every single garage door opener installation manual ever produced on every opener by every manufacture out there. Thats amazing. Next time I have a question I'll know who to ask. My installations were done with safety as #1. To reverse a door only took a pound or two of pressure, no 2x4 will change that. The light beams were set to the approporate height, no 2x4 will change that. I live in a climate where we swing from 20 below to 90 above. The perimeter weather strip can cause more drag on the door during winter. This alone can cause false reversing. Nutone developed a screw drive opener and the MANUAL instructed the installer to mount the opener one foot from the ceiling. the machine was so high the arm pulled the door shut and the door would stop short.
Our company was a Nutone dealer and were called to correct the problem. I am not or will not defend the way I did installation. So here I come, mr home inspector. I'm going to test the reverse mechanism on the door opener. I'll open the door, chuck a 2x4 on the floor and close the door. Without ever knowing if the things going to reverse, i'll just let it close and see what happens. And if it doesn't reverse I'll just watch the rail bend straight up an inch and a half provided the arm doesn't bend or the bracket get ripped off the door. If I check the reversing by letting it come down on my hand first, it will give me a good idea what the pressure is. If I can stop the door with little effort, OF COURSE A 2x4 WILL. Why would I do the 2x4 test? Oh and by the way, the installation manual doesn't mention the gear box in the opener is made of PLASTIC and that excisive force can dammage it. but the installation manual does have an address as to where you can buy replacement parts. I've been there, done that, and have seen almost every problem. Dont think for one minute it was a get on and get off the job experence. I take pride in my work and will stand behind it 100 percent. And untill the Einstein's that write the manual actuall get off there fat buts and do some installations, poeple like Jerry will believe everything they read. And not knowing anything about me and the work I do, there sure are the critics out there. I've written all I'm going to on this topic. Take it for what its worth. For those who read my posts with open minds, I hope this helps. And for those who choose to find fault with anything anybody writes, you can't be helped.

[Rick Cantrell]

I'm glad to see Jerry has read every single garage door opener installation manual ever produced on every opener by every manufacture out there. ...

Oh and by the way, the installation manual doesn't mention the gear box in the opener is made of PLASTIC and that excisive force can dammage it.


And I suppose you have personally dissembled EVERY opener ever made by ALL manufacturers.


Thats amazing. Next time I have a question I'll know who to ask. My installations were done with safety as #1. To reverse a door only took a pound or two of pressure, no 2x4 will change that. The light beams were set to the approporate height, no 2x4 will change that. I live in a climate where we swing from 20 below to 90 above. The perimeter weather strip can cause more drag on the door during winter. This alone can cause false reversing. Nutone developed a screw drive opener and the MANUAL instructed the installer to mount the opener one foot from the ceiling. the machine was so high the arm pulled the door shut and the door would stop short.
Our company was a Nutone dealer and were called to correct the problem. I am not or will not defend the way I did installation. So here I come, mr home inspector. I'm going to test the reverse mechanism on the door opener. I'll open the door, chuck a 2x4 on the floor and close the door. Without ever knowing if the things going to reverse, i'll just let it close and see what happens. And if it doesn't reverse I'll just watch the rail bend straight up an inch and a half provided the arm doesn't bend or the bracket get ripped off the door. If I check the reversing by letting it come down on my hand first, it will give me a good idea what the pressure is. If I can stop the door with little effort, OF COURSE A 2x4 WILL. Why would I do the 2x4 test? Oh and by the way, the installation manual doesn't mention the gear box in the opener is made of PLASTIC and that excisive force can dammage it. but the installation manual does have an address as to where you can buy replacement parts. I've been there, done that, and have seen almost every problem. Dont think for one minute it was a get on and get off the job experence. I take pride in my work and will stand behind it 100 percent. And untill the Einstein's that write the manual actuall get off there fat buts and do some installations, poeple like Jerry will believe everything they read.



And not knowing anything about me and the work I do, there sure are the critics out there. .

Actually we only know what you have told us about yourself.
In seven years of installing garage door openers you never read the installation manual.
You never read the manual because you know more than those fat butt Einsteins that designed and built the openers.

[Garry Sorrells]

Jerry, ((sorry that this became so long winded))))
A little while back we had a thread where I posted information on the issue of pressure and the reversal function (anti-entrapment). Where there is no consideration on the amount of pressure exerted on any obstruction by the manufactures, government regs nor the testing labs (UL). I again admit that I thought, during 35+ years on installation experience, there was some PSI rating (gov reg or manufacture). But again, as I found out there is no test/design consideration for the PSI subjected on an obstruction. Which is why I never heard of any testing procedure for PSI of the installed door.

Openers typically can and are adjusted on-sight. They typically can be adjusted for to respond to an obstruction. But that does not mean that they are adjusted to a set consistent level other than that they will reverse on meeting an obstruction causing a lack of movement of the door.

You are wrong about not crushing a watermelon or cat.
If the opener is not adjusted it will exert a tremendous amount of force on the obstruction.
Sorry you are wrong Jerry when saying:
"""".. the door is to reverse *on contact with* the obstruction ... thus no watermelon would be crush (testing with a watermelon makes for a nice visual but does nothing to test the reversing mechanism), not kitty cat would be crushed, no baby would be crushed either....."""
Watermelon, cat, 2x4, baby; the operator does not know what it is contacting and is not self adjusting.

As far as:
"""...His comments about the bathroom scale show his lack of understanding of the process and reasoning - there is no 'pressure' to measure, the door is to reverse *on contact with* the obstruction ......."""

It was not until I engaged many resources that I did not understand that there was no PSI rating involved in the obstruction test and reversal function. Though I would as most installers will, determine crudely, the amount of pressure that it takes to cause the reverse function to activate. I say pressure since it is the way I sense the downward force exerted. I never attempted to test the actual PSI. To much bother and time. It was/is a mater of how the door feels in my hand. Which is the practical and most expedient method in adjusting an operator. Which is what Mike has done and what other installers do. Which will cause the door to pass the 2x4 obstruction reversal test. In the manual or not, that is the way it is done in the field. The last thing an installer wants to do is pay for a damaged door. it is called "lunching it" because you have to eat the cost.

Contact reversal is a mater of time that the door movement has had it movement stopped. Therefore the question is how much force can be exerted during that period of time. and there are no specifications. The practical answer is dependent on how it is adjusted. It can be little or great. Though I do not think it is possible to adjust the operator so as to not damage a watermelon. If it was just a mater of contact an egg would be safe to use.

The newest doors are being designed with different design in sensing an obstruction/malfunction in the doors movement. But that does apply to the older systems in use. There are modifications, contact sensor, that can be added to the a door which will actually sense an obstruction on contact. But we are not talking about them, nor are the widely used.

So, though Mike may not know the "why" and may not follow a manual, he in fact installed a door that will reverse on contact with an obstruction. Furthermore he adjusted the operator so as not to damage the door and he further attempts to reduce the potential damage to the obstruction. His reasoning for the height at which he would first test the reversal may be faulty it still works for the initial adjustment of the operator.

Mike may take umbrage with comments with some of the comments directed toward him. I am sure that he has looked at the manuals along the way, but does not rely on them to apply to each installation. Installers adapt the installation to situation presented to them. Good installers/mechanics adapt and overcome the abnormal every day. Manuals are written for the perfect generic situation. To many engineers and designers work in an insulated environment. Furthermore to many also have no real mechanical ability.

Mike,
This forum can be harsh at times. But it is with good intention. Do not take it to personally.

[Jerry Peck]

You are wrong about not crushing a watermelon or cat.
If the opener is not adjusted it will exert a tremendous amount of force on the obstruction.
Sorry you are wrong Jerry when saying:
"""".. the door is to reverse *on contact with* the obstruction ... thus no watermelon would be crush (testing with a watermelon makes for a nice visual but does nothing to test the reversing mechanism), not kitty cat would be crushed, no baby would be crushed either....."""
Watermelon, cat, 2x4, baby; the operator does not know what it is contacting and is not self adjusting.

As far as:
"""...His comments about the bathroom scale show his lack of understanding of the process and reasoning - there is no 'pressure' to measure, the door is to reverse *on contact with* the obstruction .......""".

Garry,

Sorry, Garry, but you are the one who is wrong.

Go back and read my post and words again - you will see that a garage door, which is installed and adjusted properly, and which reverses "on contact" with the obstruction ... read that again, and what I wrote in the post you quoted from again ... and you will see that, for a properly installed and adjusted door (something home inspectors do not do, buy our new member Mike did, and, hopefully, did correctly), the door will reverse "on contact" with the obstruction.

Garry, I asked this in my previous post, you did not answer it:
"Have you read through the part of the standard I posted? If you did, what were the first things you picked up on?"

[Stuart Brooks]

I'm glad to see Jerry has read every single garage door opener installation manual ever produced on every opener by every manufacture out there. Thats amazing., ...

Actually Mike, the manufacturer adjustment and maintenance instructions are the Federal Regulations abbreviated and reworded in a more readable and usable context. They are included in every garage door opener sold in the U.S. Where the individual manufacturer places them in the installation and maintenance instructions may vary.

The installation package also includes a safety label that is required to be installed adjacent to the the door control switches. The Federal regulations provide explicit specifications regarding the size, color, wording and location of the label. The regulations also specify the minimum height at which the control switches are to be located.

So you see Mike, neither Jerry, you, nor I have to read every single garage door opener installation manual. But it would behoove you and all installers to read the manuals from time to time. Things do change and it could be your neck on the block if something goes wrong that results in damage or personal injury especially when the point of contention was covered in the instructions.

[Garry Sorrells]

Stuart,
Yep, the Federal Regs. gives you the general requirements.
The specific manuals and installation instructions really just clue you in on specific changes to the product.

[Garry Sorrells]

Garry,

Sorry, Garry, but you are the one who is wrong.

Go back and read my post and words again - you will see that a garage door, which is installed and adjusted properly, and which reverses "on contact" with the obstruction ... read that again, and what I wrote in the post you quoted from again ... and you will see that, for a properly installed and adjusted door (something home inspectors do not do, buy our new member Mike did, and, hopefully, did correctly), the door will reverse "on contact" with the obstruction.

Garry, I asked this in my previous post, you did not answer it:
"Have you read through the part of the standard I posted? If you did, what were the first things you picked up on?"


Jerry,
I have read your posts and your own conflicting comments/interpretations in those postings. I also have read the Fed Regs. and the UL specifications. Along with contacting UL and manufactures. Remember back in April of this year I went on a quest to determine what I was sure had to be specified somewhere in the design and operation specifications of garage door openers. Only finding that a PSI force requirement did not exist. I was wrong. I feel that there should be a PSI force specification dealing with the openers. If there is one being used by the manufactures they are telling.


Now remember you are not dealing with H.G. and this is not about ego. Definitely not about the ability to cut and past. And not a shouting match.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now back to your posting questions in post # 139 Your questions to me.

Jerry you stated “…read my post and words again - you will see that a garage door, which is installed and adjusted properly, and which reverses "on contact" with the obstruction …” Well no one should approach a garage door as if it was installed correctly and that the owner has maintained the door and its adjustments. That position is a disaster waiting to happen.


If you are referring to post #37 , # 41, # 57 or # 122 ?
I have highlighted parts of your post to make it less confusing for others to follow.
And listed my responses to your posts as (Garry).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Jerry) Post # 37
“…2) The garage door *is* supposed to reverse ... ON CONTACT WITH ... yes, that is correct, ON CONTACT WITH ... the 2x4.

If you stand there watching the door operator force the door downward while the track arches upward and then, finally, the door reverses ... THE AUTO REVERSE FAILED.

If you place the 2x4 *where the 2x4 is supposed to be placed* and the door makes contact with the 2x4 ... the door is supposed to reverse, right then and right there.

So many home inspectors think that the door is supposed to partially crush the 2x4 before the door reverses and that there is no way they would want "my child having the resistance of a 2X4 to survive" ... DUH!

"ON CONTACT WITH" …”

-----------------------------------------------
(Garry) Well lets separate things you posted.

You are trying to redefine the term “on contact with “ , it has to be taken in context with the specifications. You may want it to be instantaneous, but that is not how it is written. Nor was it the intentions of UL nor as written in the Fed Regs.

The operator can cause “…the tracks to arch upward…” if the operator is out of adjustment and it still may reverse in the prescribed time of 2 seconds. Remember it is not about force, its about movement of the door.

The door is not required to reverse “ right then and right there “. It has 2 seconds to reverse. Again its about time and movement not force.

The fact that the 2x4 does not compress is why wood is used other that its dimensions. Its about thickness and non compressibility or lack thereof.

The specifications have no real concern on “…child having the resistance of a 2X4 to survive" ….”. It is about the child not being trapped under the door, It is not about the damage done to the child.



=====================================

(Jerry) Post # 41
“…..ADJUST
- - - - • If the door stops on the obstruction, it is not traveling far enough in the down direction. Increase the DOWN limit by turning the DOWN limit adjustment screw counterclockwise 1/4 turn.
- - - - - NOTE: On a sectional door, make sure limit adjustments do not force the door arm beyond a straight up and down position. See the illustration on page 21.
- - - - • Repeat the test. …..”
-----------------------------------------------------------

(Garry) Installer has to adjust the door on installation.
Owner has to maintain door and adjustments for its operation

=========================================

(Jerry) Post # 57
“…..Now, I admit that I may be missing it, but I do not see anything about testing the force in those important safety instructions ... “(Garry) The force is not tested other than noting that the “…limit adjustments do not force the door arm beyond a straight up and down position. …” They refer to forcing the door arm, which is not quantitative but an observation of the force exerted by the electric opener.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Garry) If you were to use a hand grasp you could develop a sense of the force exerted by the operator prior to it meeting the floor as its full closed cycle.

================================================

(Jerry) Post # 122


“…. § 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements.
- (a)(1) Other than for the first 1 foot (305mm) of door travel from the full upmost position both with and without any external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. After reversing the door, the operator shall return the door to, and stop at, the full upmost position. Compliance shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.

(b)(1) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and at various heights under the edge of the door and located in line with the driving point of the operator. When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high. In the test installation, the bottom edge of the door under the driving force of the operator is to be against the floor when the door is fully closed. ….”
-----------------------------------------------------------------

(Garry) SO “… garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction …” . “…Compliance shall be determined…” “…When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high …”

==================================================

Now I question you as to you reading my previous posts and remembering the thread Garage door retractor (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/exterior-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/30046-garage-door-retractor-2.html) where we went into depth regarding entrapment protection and pressure exerted by the door prior to reversal.

Where I was in contact with UL and having a written response from them.

From Underwriters Lab. 4/21/2012
“…Residential garage door operators are also required to be provided with inherent entrapment protection (in addition to the external entrapment protection), where the door is required to reverse within 2 s a minimum of 2 in. But there are currently no requirements for the amount of the force that is allowed, just needs to reverse.
Regards,

Jim Miller, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer “”””

==================================================
Jerry, and others;

Inspection of the of the Inherent entrapment protection requirements.

It is about what is being done in the field and why. Pratctical experience and knowledge. This is not about SOPs or State regs. It is not about following a myopic interpretation of a manufactures installation instructions. It is about a understanding of a method to inspect a garage door and its electric opener. That understanding of method is about real world application of the inspection. In the real world damage canbe mitigated by process. Written or not, there are accepted procedures that installers go through. A HI is not an installer but should understand the installation process as well as methods to use so potential damage can be mitigated. When a garage door is inspected/operated. It is visually inspected to determine if there is a potential for failure or damage in its operation. The operation of the opener has its own method and process so potential damage is mitigated. Testing the operator for its various functions requires a process to mitigate damage. In testing the operator for its safety features it is wise to approach in a manor as to mitigate potential damage. One aspect of that process involves determining if the door will reverse and the force that is required to trigger that reversal on meeting an obstruction. If the door operator is out of adjustment there is a potential of damage to the door. Therefore it is best to subject the door to a obstruction in a manor that will give the inspector a sense as the potentiality of failure in later operation and testing. There is a method to determine if there is a probable expectation of damage when the door encounters an obstruction on the floor at 1” to 1.5” prior to its complete closed cycle. Which is the function of the opener to prevent entrapment by the door. By checking that the door reverses at a point above the 1” to 1.5” finial travel point it can be determined if the reversal function is operating. By using some method to determine the force that the operator is exerting prior to reversal the inspector can determine if there may be enough force as to cause damage in the finial entrapment test. The method can be as simple as using your hand to restrain the door as it closes. Using the hand grasp has the least potential for injury to the inspector as well as the chance to cause damage to the door. If after training in how to perform the hand grasp test method the inspector determines that there may be reason not to perform the entrapment floor test to protect the door from potential damage. It would be reasonable to discontinue the inspection of the door sighting your concerns. If after using the hand grasp test it is determined that the force to cause reversal is such that it should not cause damage to the door and the subsequent entrapment test causes damage to the door then the door failed due to its own defects and all precautions were taken to mitigate the potential damage. And that is the condensed version. Power point presentation, maybe some day.

=============================================

To return to the issue of damage to a door that you are inspecting, if in fact it is being inspected as just operated (run it up then run it down then run away).

The entrapment test short cut approach that will yield a result is to hit the opener switch, run the door up and down, then place a 2x4 on the floor and take your chances for damage.

The short cut approach will yield a result. Any failure and damage can be attributed to the owner. As the owner failed to maintain the door and its adjustments for function and operation.

The longer professional and considerate approach will attempt to mitigate the potential for damage as much as possible by using a hand grasp to determine reversal and the force being exerted prior to reversal.

Is the longer approach mandated?

That is a mater of ethics, professionalism, concern for the owners property, State requirements and how you defend your actions if questioned.

Will you find the longer approach instructions in a owners manual, probably not. They are concerned about liability. They will tell you to obtain the services of an installer who will test with a hand grasp in some manor.

As with most things is about knowledge and understanding. The Marine Corp Manual tells you everything about being a Marine, but it doesn’t tell you where the Mess Hall is you have to figure that for your self. The entrapment testing may be somewhat like that. You must figure it out for your self and maybe with a little help. You will not find it in the book.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Residential garage door operators are also required to be provided with inherent entrapment protection (in addition to the external entrapment protection), where the door is required to reverse within 2 s a minimum of 2 in. But there are currently no requirements for the amount of the force that is allowed, just needs to reverse.
Regards,

Jim Miller, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer

Inherent entrapment protection - door reverses a minimum of 2 inches above within 2 seconds - of contact with the 1" block (or the 2x4" on the flat) of unspecified species, grade, compressive strength, etc..

That's not 'reversal on contact', nor 'reversal upon contact", neither is it "instantaneous reversal". It most certainly is not a complete stopping of any and all forward (to further close or compress) travel at the moment of first contact.

That's an accomplishment of a door elevation of 2 inches above the original obstruction surface elevation at 2 seconds after first contacting the original surface elevation of the obstruction. The post-contact compressed surface elevation of the obstruction not addressed in the above.

Clock starts at first contact - elevation of 2 inches (or more), 2 seconds later - clock stops.

[Garry Sorrells]

HG,
Door has 2 sec before it has to reverse. Then has to move 2 inches. Not required to move 2 inches in 2 seconds.

But that is not what the original question put to UL. It dealt with PSI on contact.


HG You should chime in on the effects of Obama care in the other thread. How it will effect you and your services. Or their reduction.

[Jerry Peck]

Now remember you are not dealing with H.G. and this is not about ego. Definitely not about the ability to cut and past. And not a shouting match.

I fully agree, but this is the part I was referring to, not from my posts, but from the CFR standard: (bold and underlining are mine)
§ 1211.6 General entrapment protection requirements.
- (a) A residential garage door operator system shall be provided with primary inherent entrapment protection that complies with the requirements as specified in § 1211.7.
- (b) In addition to the primary inherent entrapment protection as required by paragraph (a) of this section, a residential garage door operator shall comply with one of the following:
- - (1) Shall be constructed to:
- - - (i) Require constant pressure on a control to lower the door,
- - - (ii) Reverse direction and open the door to the upmost position when constant pressure on a control is removed prior to operator reaching its lower limit, and
- - - (iii) Limit a portable transmitter, when supplied, to function only to cause the operator to open the door;
- - (2) Shall be provided with a means for connection of an external secondary entrapment protection device as described in §§ 1211.8, 1211.10, and 1211.11; or
- - (3) Shall be provided with an inherent secondary entrapment protection device as described in §§ 1211.8, 1211.10, and 1211.12.
- (c) A mechanical switch or a relay used in an entrapment protection circuit of an operator shall withstand 100,000 cycles of operation controlling a load no less severe (voltage, current, power factor, inrush and similar ratings) than it controls in the operator, and shall function normally upon completion of the test.
- (d) In the event malfunction of a switch or relay (open or short) described in paragraph (c) of this section results in loss of any entrapment protection required by §§ 1211.7(a), 1211.7(f), or 1211.8(a), the door operator shall become inoperative at the end of the opening or closing operation, the door operator shall move the door to, and stay within, 1 foot (305 mm) of the uppermost position.
[57 FR 60455, Dec. 21, 1992, as amended at 65 FR 70657, Nov. 27, 2000]

I was referring to these requirements, one of which is required in addition to the inherent entrapment provisions, i.e., in addition to the auto reversing mechanism.
- 1211.6(b)(1) The operator control requires constant pressure to lower the door.
- - I have seen a few of these, but not many, and they were older doors. A remote would work, but you had to keep the remote's button held down until the door closed all the way. These were not convenient nor practical to use.
- 1211.6(b)(2) External entrapment protection, i.e., photo cells, but the photo cells must be as described in 1211.8 and 1211.10 and 1211.11.
- - 1211.10 is probably the hardest one to meet because of 1211.10(a)(3).
- 1211.6(b)(3) External entrapment protection, i.e., edge protection, but the edge protection must be as described in 1211.8 and 1211.10 and 1211.12.
- - 1211.10 is probably the hardest one to meet because of 1211.10(a)(3).

- 1211.10(a)(3)
- - (3) The device is to be installed and tested at minimum and maximum heights and widths representative of recommended ranges specified in the installation instructions. For doors, if not specified, devices are to be tested on a minimum 7 foot (2.1 m) wide door and maximum 20 foot (6.1 m) wide door.

If we pull the auto reverse test out and try to grab that 2 second limit for time to reverse, then we need to pull out the section which requires the photo cells be tested at minimum and maximum heights, typically 4" above the floor and 6" above the floor.

I was mainly aiming the above to those wanting to pull out the 2 second time for reversing, but I figured if you read through it you would also grasp what needed to be done :cool: : that we cannot just pull out one requirement (the 2 second allowance to reverse) without actually doing all ... all ... of the other requirements.

And I did not even post all of the requirements - too many requirements and that post of mine was already getting too long ... ;) :)

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

The 'ol 2x4" on the flat test is for a) A residential garage door operator system shall be provided with primary inherent entrapment protection that complies with the requirements as specified in § 1211.7.The door has 2 seconds from contact to stop forward movement, overcome inerta, and begin the upward acceleration.During those 2 seconds post-contact it (the door) may continue contact, apply pressure, squash a block of wood, break a bone, collapse/crush an airway, smash a watermelon, etc.There is no immediate, 'reverse on contact', 'reverse upon contact', or stop any continued closing motion, or alleviation of pressure upon contact requirement.

[Garry Sorrells]

I was referring to these requirements, one of which is required in addition to the inherent entrapment provisions, i.e., in addition to the auto reversing mechanism.
- 1211.6(b)(1) The operator control requires constant pressure to lower the door.
- - I have seen a few of these, but not many, and they were older doors. A remote would work, but you had to keep the remote's button held down until the door closed all the way. These were not convenient nor practical to use.
- 1211.6(b)(2) External entrapment protection, i.e., photo cells, but the photo cells must be as described in 1211.8 and 1211.10 and 1211.11.
- - 1211.10 is probably the hardest one to meet because of 1211.10(a)(3).
- 1211.6(b)(3) External entrapment protection, i.e., edge protection, but the edge protection must be as described in 1211.8 and 1211.10 and 1211.12.
- - 1211.10 is probably the hardest one to meet because of 1211.10(a)(3).

- 1211.10(a)(3)
- - (3) The device is to be installed and tested at minimum and maximum heights and widths representative of recommended ranges specified in the installation instructions. For doors, if not specified, devices are to be tested on a minimum 7 foot (2.1 m) wide door and maximum 20 foot (6.1 m) wide door.

If we pull the auto reverse test out and try to grab that 2 second limit for time to reverse, then we need to pull out the section which requires the photo cells be tested at minimum and maximum heights, typically 4" above the floor and 6" above the floor.

I was mainly aiming the above to those wanting to pull out the 2 second time for reversing, but I figured if you read through it you would also grasp what needed to be done :cool: : that we cannot just pull out one requirement (the 2 second allowance to reverse) without actually doing all ... all ... of the other requirements.

And I did not even post all of the requirements - too many requirements and that post of mine was already getting too long ... ;) :)


Jerry , (post # 145 )
I am working hard to understand how your are supporting your comments.
Quoting long sections of the Regs. with parts that really do not have a direct connection to the testing for entrapment tends to clutter things up a bit.

I will highlight parts of your post as to narrow things down.

1) "....we pull the auto reverse test out........we need to pull out the section which requires the photo cells..."
-
No. - The two are required but are to function independently.
The discussion revolves around the entrapment/obstruction/contact reversal of the operator and how to best test it without/minimize damage to the door.
-
2) "....those wanting to pull out the 2 second time for reversing, ...."
Well, that is what the process relating to the damage of the door contacting a 2x4 on the floor is all about. Since there is not a requirement/specification for a maximum PSI nor a specification for instantaneous reversal on contact. The time in contact with an obstruction becomes a large factor in the amount of damage that can be done to the different components of the door and associated assembly.
-
3) "...And I did not even post all of the requirements - too many requirements ..."
There is no need to post all of the requirements. Switch design, door dimensions, photo sell location and all of the rest that just does not have a bearing on the discussion only seems to clutter things up. Anybody trying to follow the discussion will start glazing over and not see the specific parts that are the most relevant to the specific topic.
-
4) "...I was referring to these requirements, one of which is required in addition to the inherent entrapment provisions, i.e., in addition to the auto reversing mechanism. ..."
-
The design and function Regs. for garage doors have many items that are required. Most must be incorporated in the design of the door and operator. Most are required independently of the others yet must function in conjunction with all the specifications. Where by each is tested independently for function.
----------
-------
The reoccurring point of the discussion is the testing of a garage door operator's anti entrapment function by use of an obstruction (solid/non compressing) having a height from 1" to 1.5". And how to best perform this test on a door with witch you have no previous knowledge of nor experience. How best to perform a test and mitigate the potential damage to the door and assembly. Where you do not just put an obstruction under the door and hope for the best.
----------------------------------
--------------
Jerry,
1) Can you agree that the operator exerts a force on an obstruction placed on the floor under the door?
2) Is the amount of force that is experienced on the object unregulated and not specified?
3) Can you agree that when inspecting a garage door the inspection must be approached expecting/anticipating that the door has not been maintained?
4) Can you agree that if it is possible to do something which will possibly mitigate the potential damage to a door?
5) Can you agree that there is typically no contact sensor on a garage door?
6) Can you suggest a method to determine the potential of damage occurring to a door that will be tested for reversal upon meeting an obstruction 1" prior to its complete closure cycle.

[Garry Sorrells]

The 'ol 2x4" on the flat test is for a) A residential garage door operator system shall be provided with primary inherent entrapment protection that complies with the requirements as specified in § 1211.7.The door has 2 seconds from contact to stop forward movement, overcome inerta, and begin the upward acceleration.During those 2 seconds post-contact it (the door) may continue contact, apply pressure, squash a block of wood, break a bone, collapse/crush an airway, smash a watermelon, etc.There is no immediate, 'reverse on contact', 'reverse upon contact', or stop any continued closing motion, or alleviation of pressure upon contact requirement.


Yes H.G., I think you have it.
It does seem that the Regs. would be written differently if injury was a concern. It seems that they were written to prevent an entrapment only, without regard to the injury that may occur in the process. Maybe it was due to the opener industry saying the costs would be to great to design it into the opener. Or, they did not want to have to deal with the logistics of supplying a contact sensor strip that would have to be added to the doors of various widths.

[Jerry Peck]

Garry,


Jerry,
1) Can you agree that the operator exerts a force on an obstruction placed on the floor under the door?

Can you agree that I've never said otherwise? OF COURSE the door operator exerts a force on the obstruction, that is how it knows to reverse.

Can you agree that you can place your thumb on a desk top and put presure on the desk top? Can you agree that when your thumb begins to hurt that you are likely to stop putting pressure on the desk top with your thumb?

Without being able to recognize that an object is there (i.e., but bumping against it), how will the door operator know when to reverse?


2) Is the amount of force that is experienced on the object unregulated and not specified?

Can you agree that I've never said it was regulated or specified, in fact I. and others, have stated there is no specified pressure rating.


3) Can you agree that when inspecting a garage door the inspection must be approached expecting/anticipating that the door has not been maintained?

Can you agree that I, and others, have stated that the home inspector needs to inspect the door visually FIRST?

When is the last time you have had your garage door maintained by a professional who replace worn parts and adjusted your garage door operator?

The last time I had it done was last December.


4) Can you agree that if it is possible to do something which will possibly mitigate the potential damage to a door?

Can you agree that your statement is not a complete thought? 'if it is possible to do something' ... what'?

Can you agree to re-word you question so it completes the thought of what you were intending to ask?


5) Can you agree that there is typically no contact sensor on a garage door?

Can you agree that the mechanism senses contact and that is what reverses the door as required?

If you disagree, then what causes the door to reverse as it should?


6) Can you suggest a method to determine the potential of damage occurring to a door that will be tested for reversal upon meeting an obstruction 1" prior to its complete closure cycle.

Can you agree that the home inspector should visually inspect the door before testing the auto reverse? If so, then you have your method right there.

7) Can you agree that there are two separate things being discussed in this thread: a) the reversing test as defined and addressed in the instruction manuals; b) the entrapment standards in the CFR?

[Raymond Wand]

Interesting stats
Philadelphia Garage Door Injury Attorneys - Garage Door Defect Lawyers Pennsylvania (http://www.reiffandbily.com/garage-door-injuries.html)

[Garry Sorrells]

Jerry,
From your responses I am generally saddened. By the tone and structure of your responses.

You failed to accept my responses to your postings as an attempt to correct some opinions and interpretations that were wrong. You seem to have taken the exchange as a personal attack where there was none. Unlike your discourse with H.G.W. that turn into entrenched attitudes of defiance, I looked to an informed discussion and reasoned debate.

Post # 142 and post # 147 was an attempt to discuss interoperations and develop a common ground in the topic. Especially in post 147 the questions were an attempt to create that common ground and be able to understand where there was a difference of opinion. .

Regrettably your response in post 149 demonstrated my failures for that reasoned discourse I was hoping for. Again so sad. and I regret that I failed.

If I may interoperate your responses in post 149.to post 147
1) YES
2) YES
3) YES
4) Sorry for fragmented sentence.
Corrected: Can you agree that if it is possible to mitigate the potential damage to a door, it is worth the effort?
5) No…There is no difference in a contact sensor and that the mechanism senses contact.
6) “Can you agree that the home inspector should visually inspect the door before testing the auto reverse? If so, then you have your method right there.”
--
Referencing # 5
The intention was to differentiate between an actual Contact Sensor and the opener having the ability to determine (sense) lack of movement of the door. The Contact Sensor is typically a strip which is added to the bottom edge of the door and is not part of the normal garage door opener package. Knowing that you like to be correct in nomenclature as not to confuse others thus the differentiation

-
In your view the “…the mechanism senses contact and that is what reverses the door…” (your words not mine).
-
When in fact the mechanism moving the door is stopped by something and it is the lack of movement that is sensed causing the reversal. Stoppage can be caused by many things, such as a car in the opening.
-
Referencing # 6
I was looking for you to define your interpretation of the best method to inspect the reversal function of the door opener. And define the parameters of the inspection as you see them. Seemingly that you feel there is no need or suggestion to determine the amount of force being exerted by the opener as it is moving prior to meeting an 1” obstruction at the floor.

-
Referencing your added item # 7.
I have to somewhat disagree that there are actually two thing being discussed. The instruction manual and the entrapment standards in the CFR. The manual is used to implement the entrapment standards as set by theCRF.
-
What I see as being discussed is how to best perform the test of the anti entrapment function of the opener. In that there are methods that can be used to mitigate the damage of operator that is out of adjustment prior to the final test using an obstruction at 1” from floor.
-
The method is the central issue of the debate. The reasoning of the method is why we have discussed the CFR specifications. And then what they are really saying and what they are not saying.
-
Referencing your question in # 3
No intention to ignore your question.
“….When is the last time you have had your garage door maintained by a professional who replace worn parts and adjusted your garage door operator?....”
Not to be cheeky in a response, but my first paid installation was some 35 years ago. I have installed, adjusted, repaired and maintained garage doors and openers now for many years. In fact I serviced a door 2 days ago. Garage doors are not a day in day out part of my life. That may be why I am not so complacent when dealing with them. I have seen almost every problem a door can have. I will admit that my experience in the one-piece up-swing (California Style) door is more limited due to them loosing favor in the mid Atlantic region during the last 50 years. And some jurisdictions not allowing their installation. With the sectional roll up door now being the predominant door installed. Which is why I have not raised the methods of inspecting the out-swing door. They are truly a horse of a different color but you do see them out there.

The general public do not bother with their garage door or its opener once it is installed unless there is a problem. So it is good that you had someone come to service yours. I will not question how often you inspect and test your door’s operating functions. I would assume that you do on a regular basis.

Again I regret that my interoperation of you’re your responses were of a personal and defensive nature.

[Garry Sorrells]

Hopefully not beating a dead horse......;)
.
.
Some, not all,, of the basic points about garage door opener reversal and primary inherent entrapment protection functions. (simplified).

. --------------------------------
There is a difference between meeting and obstruction and the primary inherent entrapment protection.
.
If the opener is caused to stop before its complete cycle at any point during that cycle it will reverse.
You might think of this as secondary inherent entrapment protection, though it is not refereed to in that manor.
.
The door is not required to reverse immediately on contact with an obstruction. The requirement is a reversal in 2 seconds.
.
There are no requirements as to the SPI of the force exerted by the opener during the 2 second requirement prior to reversal.
.
The door is required to reverse if it meets an obstruction or other cause for the movement of the door to stop during its cycle; such as a car in door opening or door out of alignment causing it to bind in the track.
.
The primary inherent entrapment protection is a requirement for the door to reverse after meeting an obstruction 1” from the floor.
.
The door opener does not typically have a Contact Sensor on the bottom edge of the door and are not required at this time.
.
.
With consideration of the basic points listed above:
.
If the opener’s primary inherent entrapment protection is tested using a 1” to 1 ½ “ non compressive obstruction placed on the floor, there is a possibility for damage to the opener, door, tracks and hardware; if the opener is not adjusted to prevent such damage.
.
It is possible to determine the opener’s adjustment as to the amount of force that is exerted by the opener to move the door during its cycle.

If there is an unreasonable/unnecessary amount of force being exerted by the opener it can be extrapolated to the force exerted at the primary inherent entrapment protection point at 1” from the floor. This force may cause damage to the door or other components.
..
Using caution, the door as it is closing can be held using a hand to determine how much relative force is required to cause the door opener to reverse. It can be expected that that amount of force or greater will be exerted at 1” from the floor.
.
In general HI performs a visual inspection as stated in their SOP if any are used.
In general His exceed the SOPs during an inspection.
So after a visual inspection of the door and its basic door operation and before attempting to test the primary inherent entrapment protection, it seems reasonable to determine the force that may be exerted on the system by a secondary reversal test.
.
.

For those who want the requirement:
The reading is tedious at times due to the requirements and specifications for everything involved in the opener design and function.
.
1211—SAFETY STANDARD
FOR AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL
GARAGE DOOR OPERATORS
.

[Darrel Hood]

There are some statements that the operator is sensing that the door is not moving to cause the reversal. This doesn't match my daily experience. I use the method of catching the door bottom with my hand to cause reversal. Typically, after the door contacts my hand, door movement continues until the reversal occurs. In other words, I typically do not have to stop the movement to cause the reversal. Just an observation.

[Bruce King]

There are some statements that the operator is sensing that the door is not moving to cause the reversal. This doesn't match my daily experience. I use the method of catching the door bottom with my hand to cause reversal. Typically, after the door contacts my hand, door movement continues until the reversal occurs. In other words, I typically do not have to stop the movement to cause the reversal. Just an observation.


You are correct, these openers are designed with optical motor shaft revolution sensors that use the reduced speed of the door to assume/detect obstructions.

The response time is slow which is why the DASMA instructions say to do the hand reverse test also. DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association (http://www.dasma.com/safetygdmaint.asp)


Its basically easy:

Check the parts visually including height of sensors and height of wall switch.

Operate the door manually.

Check the force reverse threshold using your hand.

Check the anti-entrapment reversal with a 1x4 or 2x4.


Did anyone else notice the Consumer Product Safety Act regulations for the manufacturer also allows them to use other testing methods?


Pg 386
(3) The Commission will test for compliance
with the standard by using the
test procedures contained in the standard.
However, a manufacturer’s reasonable
testing program may include either
tests prescribed in the standard or
any other reasonable test procedures.


Home inspectors are not expected to or required to follow any procedures other than what they are personally comfortable with. This is even true for the state of NC that has a "reasonable force" threshold in the SOP. If the door can not be safely checked the SOP allows it to be skipped. Home inspectors should list their basic procedure in the report and recommend additional safety tests if all were not done.

[Garry Sorrells]

There are some statements that the operator is sensing that the door is not moving to cause the reversal. This doesn't match my daily experience. I use the method of catching the door bottom with my hand to cause reversal. Typically, after the door contacts my hand, door movement continues until the reversal occurs. In other words, I typically do not have to stop the movement to cause the reversal. Just an observation.

I was probably the one stating the not moving causing reversal. Trying to keep it simple and generalized I guess. I did not want to try to direct the discussion to any one manufacture or model. Depends on the opener's age as to how the reversal function is triggered and how it responds.

But you may have noticed that different door respond differently.

[Garry Sorrells]

Bruce and Darrel,
Do you in the process of inspecting a garage door/opener first the the reversal using your hand before testing using a block on the floor?

[Darrel Hood]

As a matter of courtesy, I will answer that I do not use a block of wood to test garage door openers. However, that has been discussed "to death" in numerous prior threads, so I'm not going to get into the why nots of that business decision again in this thread. It's just what I have decided is right for my business.http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Gene South]

There is another method that you can use to test the door.

Take the hand held remote in your hand and lie down on theconcrete with your feet toward the inside of the garage and your head on thefloor looking up at the bottom of the door. Using the remote, lower thedoor down onto your forehead. It if does not stop and causes pain to your head,then the door should be marked deficient. If it only knocks off yourglasses and goes back up, the door is okay.

[John Kogel]

There is another method that you can use to test the door.

Take the hand held remote in your hand and lie down on the concrete with your feet toward the inside of the garage and your head on the floor looking up at the bottom of the door. Using the remote, lower the door down onto your forehead. It if does not stop and causes pain to your head,then the door should be marked deficient. If it only knocks off your glasses and goes back up, the door is okay.
That's OK, but you should put 'test the remote' on your list of things to test before you do the head crush test. :D

[Garry Sorrells]

Gene,
Do you have to adjust the test interpenetration based on how hard headed the tester is?

[Darrel Hood]

Gene,
What is the technical reason the feet must be pointing into the garage?:D

[John Kogel]

Gene,
What is the technical reason the feet must be pointing into the garage?:DFeet in the driveway might upset the neighbors.

[Lon Henderson]

I have a mental picture of a witch's feet protruding from underneath a wrecked house.

[Robert Slight]

I test the "Blocking" function by applying no more than 15 pound of pressure with a manual hand grip to the door wen it's near 3 to 4' from touching the garage floor. If it doesn't auto-reverse, I write it up.

This same thing happened to me whne I was "Showing" a client how the door failed the blocking test. The CLIENT grabbed the door too high and the top panel bent wen the backey yanked it inward. I still paid for half the door repair as I admitted that I was telling him how to apply pressure. He just applied too much :).

I think these things are the costly lesson we learn in this profession.

[brent mckenney]

Like I said before: "Sounds like someone does NOT know how to test garage doors with the 2x4, which is the recognized method for testing the auto-reverse mechanism."

Testing with steel toe shoe is not an approved method and only shows the lack of knowledge and understanding of proper testing.

i use a roll of toilet paper much safer

[Rick Cantrell]

i use a roll of toilet paper much safer

Don't do anything at all, that is safer.
This job has some risk
This is what we (you) are paid to do
Those that perform a garage door inspection, in an orderly manner according to industry standards are very unlikely to ever have any kind of a problem.

[Garry Sorrells]

Rick,
You are right "Don't do anything at all, that is safer."
I think that was the underlying concept of the SOPs.

[Lon Henderson]

Two weeks ago, I finally had something go wrong while doing the block test. I have been thinking about this thread ever since.

As the door closed on the block, the drive rail bowed up, twisted the mounting bracket on the lintel header and the rail popped loose.

Shoot! or maybe I said another word that starts with "S" and ends with "t".

Shame on me! I had missed that the wire clip or circle cotter for the anchor pin that holds the drive rail in the bracket was missing. When the rail bowed up, the pin came out. It took about 5 minutes to put the thing back together and a few more minutes to clean the chain grease off of me. I wrote up that the wire clip must be replaced.

I have had numerous openers fail to reverse on the block since I started doing this. All just pin the block with no harm to anything, until now. This was a gentle reminder to carefully evaluate the door and assembly, before doing the block test.

[Garry Sorrells]

Lon,
Good example of just a cursory looking over the door and operator is not sufficient

Also, why I would recommend actually installing several door systems so all of the parts have a hands on relationship with the inspector.

It is the little things that will get you into trouble. Good post.

[Don Hester]

Here is the DASMA Sectional Garage Door and Electric Operator
Checklist for Home Inspectors and Consumers.

I think you would be pretty safe using this protocol-


http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publications/TechDataSheets/CommercialResidential/TDS167.pdf

[Garry Sorrells]

Here is the DASMA Sectional Garage Door and Electric Operator
Checklist for Home Inspectors and Consumers.

I think you would be pretty safe using this protocol-


http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publications/TechDataSheets/CommercialResidential/TDS167.pdf


It may be a start. But it is something created by committee with a concern for the liability of the association.

[William Zoller]

Before even thinking of 'testing' the auto door opener, one should inspect the interior side of the closed door for loose hinges, loose connection at opener to door, cracks or bends at top center of door, cracked tension spring, or frayed cables. Only after you've confirmed the door is safe to operate should you consider testing the auto reverse with a 2 inch block of wood. No hand holding as the door comes down. I can't repeat this enough. I hear it all the time. Keep doing that and you will break a door, I promise.

[Garry Blankenship]

While training w/ a very experienced inspector we were inspecting a high end home w/ a 4 car garage. In stall # 3 was a gorgeous red and white 1958 Corvette. He simply said "we're not testing that one" and skipped right by it w/o a second thought. I suppose, if one feels an explanation for not testing something is necessary, it's easy enough to provide one in your report.

[Jerry Peck]

While training w/ a very experienced inspector we were inspecting a high end home w/ a 4 car garage. In stall # 3 was a gorgeous red and white 1958 Corvette. He simply said "we're not testing that one" and skipped right by it w/o a second thought. I suppose, if one feels an explanation for not testing something is necessary, it's easy enough to provide one in your report.

Garry,

I have made that very same decision many times for the same reason - if I can't afford to buy the car for my fun and play, there is no way that I plan on paying for his car when the door falls off the track (I've had that happen), the track comes apart (I've had that happen), when the door keeps going up and the opener pulls the door off the open end of the top of the track (I've had that happen), or any of the other numerous things I've had happen to garage doors while simply OPERATING them ... I've not had those things happen while testing on the wood block - except for the track coming apart because one bolt was loose and feel out during the reversal test - and if I had seen that bolt was loose I would not have tested the opener ... with a brand new Lexus parked under it (I was lucky, the other bolt held and the collapsing track missed the top of the Lexus by an inch).

If there is an expensive toy (be it a car or anything else) parked under the door, *MY* recommendation is to *NOT* test the door in any way because all those other things happened just by me pressing the opener button to operate the door.

[Dan Harris]

Before even thinking of 'testing' the auto door opener, one should inspect the interior side of the closed door for loose hinges, loose connection at opener to door, cracks or bends at top center of door, cracked tension spring, or frayed cables. Only after you've confirmed the door is safe to operate should you consider testing the auto reverse with a 2 inch block of wood. No hand holding as the door comes down. I can't repeat this enough. I hear it all the time. Keep doing that and you will break a door, I promise.

And if its a repo make sure there not a padlock on the door before pushing the button :)

[Garry Sorrells]

Before even thinking of 'testing' the auto door opener, one should inspect the interior side of the closed door for loose hinges, loose connection at opener to door, cracks or bends at top center of door, cracked tension spring, or frayed cables. Only after you've confirmed the door is safe to operate should you consider testing the auto reverse with a 2 inch block of wood. No hand holding as the door comes down. I can't repeat this enough. I hear it all the time. Keep doing that and you will break a door, I promise.

The first part of your post is exactly correct and to many fail to understand the importance much less exactly how to do it, which is a shame.

We have had this dance before, but lets play the tune again.

!) Please explain in detail exactly why you say "No hand holding as the door comes down.".
2) If you would please include the design, function and operational reasoning behind you statement.
3) Also, would you provide the situation and conditions that support your position along with exactly what will break and the sequencing of those items that will fail.

This is a topic of interest to many as the number of viewer posts demonstrate. So it is a great way to disseminate the information.

[tom dunnavant]

I've had my share of run ins with automatic garage door openers and in particular one contractor who services a large portion of the areas i cover. That company has cost me several hundred dollars because of there poor service practices.

Those guys have standards to follow and the standards require adjustment every time any repair is made. They routinely turn the reversing off and fail to turn it back on after the repair. They are Valley Overhead Door of Decatur and Huntsville Alabama.

As inspectors, we are entrusted by our clients to give them a pathway to a safe and sound home and that means testing and operating everything to the best of our ability. I use my hand in the middle of the door to test for reversing, it the door fails to quickly reverse, i write it up to be adjusted. If the door collapses during the test, i would much rather have had a small repair cost than the bad press i would get from refusing to pay for the repairs to the seller and enjoy the goodwill that i will get from both the seller and the client and their respective agents.

I have two companies i fully trust to make repairs, i often recommend them in wiring in my reports as being fair honest competent people. If i cause an issue, i make an immediate call to one of the companies and a couple times they came right out to make the necessary repairs.

On one such incident, i was testing the door as the buyers agent was walking up the driveway and she saw it folding up and started screaming. That made the sellers agent who was standing in the front yard start running towards the garage. In the haze of the fray i called my contact and went on with the rest of the inspection. The garage tech arrived, made temp repairs and both agents saw me sign a repair ticket. The complete repairs were made the next morning and every body was happy. The sale continued, the home closed and i paid a small bill.

Within a week both agents had brought me new business, when neither had used my services before. Over the next two months i got several inspections from referrals from the seller and the buyer who had others moving into the area with is business. I still have a good working relationship with both agents.

The cost to fix that door was under $300, the inspection fee was $400 and the revenue i received over the next couple months was well over $4000. I'll make that bet again and again. I dont look at every deal/inspection standing on its own, i instead try to look at the whole banana and failing to test the downward pressure of a garage door, unless there is an obvious issue, is a disservice to your company as well as the client.

[Ray Sandbek]

While testing the safety reverse on an automatic garage door opener, the bracket pulled out and bent the top panel of the door. Upon a closer look, it appears the door had been damaged in the past and the bracket poorly installed with (2) 1-1/4" drywall screws.
The home owner says the door was working fine and that I owe him a new door.
How would you handle this?
Been there , done that.
I just call my favorite garage door company and tell them to repair it or replace it and send me the bill. If you do that as soon as it happens, chalk it up to advertisement/pr/marketing. Write a note of apology and go down the highway.
I have not turned the charge over to my G/L insurance company,I just pay it.
I also am very careful to look at the door before I attempt to check the auto / reverse. If I am in doubt, I don't test it.

[Lon Henderson]

We revisit topic from time to time. In general, I think you make a mistake paying for something that breaks during the course of normal use. But, everyone should conduct their business their own way. I had a garage door crash to the floor after doing nothing but pressing the button. I didn't pay for it, nor did anyone ask me to. It failed during normal use. The hand or block test is an industry recognized and recommended test for setting the auto reverse. If a door fails while doing one of those tests, you didn't do anything wrong and you have nothing to pay for.

After 15 years doing this, I have a long list of components that failed while I was using them as designed......

[William Zoller]

Garry Sorrells - I'm happy to respond to your request for a dialogue about this issue. I've had to learn the hard way, breaking two doors doing a hand test. I've never damaged a door doing a block test. The most legitimate defense we have as inspectors is consistency. Inspecting a home exactly the same every time guarantees you cover all your bases and can accurately answer objections later that inevitably arise. Garage doors are no different.
1. Doing a hand hold test lacks consistency and control. There is no way to specifically and accurately judge the exact amount of pressure you are applying to that door each time as it travels downward to the floor. Hand hold testing the door at any height above 2" allows a malfunctioning auto opener to continue moving that same distance creating all kinds of damage that is unstoppable until the door finally reaches the ground.
2. Garage doors fail for many reasons, but are usually the result of worn or loose components. When moving up or down, those same components (hinges, cables, springs, rollers, tracks, opener connection, stressed door panels) experience tension and stress. When anyone of those components fails under pressure, the overall damage to the door can be catastrophic. By testing with a 2" block, the door can be statistically expected to absorb that 2" deflection without substantial damage every time.
3. Of the 2 doors I have broken doing a hand hold test, the door material was that of very thin metal offering no resistance to pressure. In both cases, had I been more diligent in my pre-opening inspection, I would have identified questionable components and made the decision to not test. That is a valid option and should be exercised if there's ever any question.

Hope this helps. I know this is an issue with a lot of opinions, but I believe the record will show many more doors are damaged from hand holding than block testing.

[Rolland Pruner]

Sure a bunch of stuff!! Have you ever tried to stop a door after hitting the 2x4 you have to be pretty fast before any damage!!!If it don't stop!! I say do what you want to do for me I don't test and explain why to my client!!

With electronic eyes I check and recommend they have this feature installed for added safty.

[Vern Heiler]

For those who test the force by hand, not saying should shouldn't, the door operator arm converts from horizontal to vertical force quickly when resistance is applied. For this reason be sure the top panel of the door is nearly vertical before applying resistance. I wait for the door to be 6 - 8" from the floor before I put a hand on it and have never had a problem since I figured this out. NC standards of practice states: "The inspector shall report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse when meeting reasonable resistance during closing." I have trouble equating a piece of 2X4 with reasonable resistance and find the 2X4 to be the entrapment test/adjustment with every installation instruction I have read.

[Garry Sorrells]

William Z.,
I'm pressed for time right now to respond in depth, but I have a little reading for you to review. This present thread is long and still growing. I can understand how a quick reading would leave the reader confused and bewildered from so much misinformation.

This thread started about paying for damage to a door, but again went to how to test the door.

Have a look at the following posting in this thread # 76, # 113, # 142, # 152.
Also go to Garage door retractor (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/exterior-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/30046-garage-door-retractor-2.html) #165 for some more information.

I will be back in the AM hopefully to go into this a little deeper.

[Rick Cantrell]

My goodness people, how much plainer can it be.
THE correct method to test the reversal on a garage door includes using a 2x4.

It's OK to use your hand first, but you must use a 2x4 to determine if the reversal is operating properly. PERIOD

Yes, there is a risk of damage. (Very little if you first inspect the door and hardware, then open and close the door, as you should)
Yes, if there is damage the HO will likely not understand it wasn't your fault.


If you are so concerned about risk, you are in the wrong business.

A lawyer MUST be willing to defend the guilty as well as the innocent.
A roofer must get on roofs and risk falling.
A Doctor or nurse risk getting infection.(ever hear of Hepatitis?)
And a home inspector must be willing to accept the risk associated with performing what they are expected and paid to do.

I mean no offence, but the reason some of you are hesitant is because you do not understand (know) what you are doing, how to do it, or why it's needed. Either that or you don't care. I think, for most of you, it's the former.


Copied form Post #62 http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/exterior-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/30046-garage-door-retractor.html

[Ian Page]

As Garry S recently opined, and myself and others have observed in prior posts, this thread has morphed from a liability issue to one of practice. The OP asked whether he was liable for damages caused during a garage door test. Most of the ensuing posts have argued back and forth about the correct method to examine and test functionality, which also applies to a variety of appliances/apperatus during an inspection.

There are Standards of Practice governing inspections in every State, some more definitive than others. Each and every HI has a Standard of Practice in his business model and hopefully the two (or more if affiliated with a controlling association) are parallel. If deviations are made from the State or governing associations SOP, because of experience/past practice/or simply 'you think you know better', then you just have to be prepared to defend your position should the need arise.

So in response to the original post - liability arose or existed because the OP failed to thoroughly examine the door in the first place prior to any testing. It matters little that the door broke during operation, no matter what methods were utilized during the actual testing phase if it was already defective. the inspector failed to identify the deficiency and continued with testing. Had the defect been noted prior and having the experience to assess possible consequences, he would have had every good cause to not continue further testing, thereby removing himself from liability.

Furthermore, test whatever by whatever means, just be forwarned that deviating from industry, manufacturers, State and association standards can land you in a world of liability hurt unless you have a damn good, articulable reason with supportive evidence. It certainly ain't rocket science.

[Garry Sorrells]

Garry Sorrells - I'm happy to respond to your request for a dialogue about this issue. I've had to learn the hard way, breaking two doors doing a hand test. I've never damaged a door doing a block test. The most legitimate defense we have as inspectors is consistency. Inspecting a home exactly the same every time guarantees you cover all your bases and can accurately answer objections later that inevitably arise. Garage doors are no different.
1. Doing a hand hold test lacks consistency and control. There is no way to specifically and accurately judge the exact amount of pressure you are applying to that door each time as it travels downward to the floor. Hand hold testing the door at any height above 2" allows a malfunctioning auto opener to continue moving that same distance creating all kinds of damage that is unstoppable until the door finally reaches the ground.
2. Garage doors fail for many reasons, but are usually the result of worn or loose components. When moving up or down, those same components (hinges, cables, springs, rollers, tracks, opener connection, stressed door panels) experience tension and stress. When anyone of those components fails under pressure, the overall damage to the door can be catastrophic. By testing with a 2" block, the door can be statistically expected to absorb that 2" deflection without substantial damage every time.
3. Of the 2 doors I have broken doing a hand hold test, the door material was that of very thin metal offering no resistance to pressure. In both cases, had I been more diligent in my pre-opening inspection, I would have identified questionable components and made the decision to not test. That is a valid option and should be exercised if there's ever any question.

Hope this helps. I know this is an issue with a lot of opinions, but I believe the record will show many more doors are damaged from hand holding than block testing.


Thank you for the truthful response. Many would not admit to being responsible for the damage that was a direct result form their failure to perform a test to their own standards and methodology. ((kudos to you)).

You again demonstrate that the testing procedure must be methodical and thorough. As you stated the failures/damage of the door were the result of your negligence, "...had I been more diligent in my pre-opening inspectione, I would have identified questionable components ... ", thus the damage was the testing person and not the method of testing.

I like you can attest to the fact that if you do not thoroughly inspect the door before operating and testing its function, you will increase the probability of liability for damage through inspector negligence.

The amount of resistance required to cause the door to stop/reverse on its downward movement is purely a subjective amount, which is determined with experience. But the operator is designed to stop/reverse direction upon meeting an obstruction or cause for lack of movement at any point of the range of the doors movement, with the exception to the last 1" of cycle. Practically speaking you could test the operator by holding the door on the upward cycle at any point.

As for you beliving "... the record will show many more doors are damaged from hand holding than block testing." , it may be a personal belief but one that could not be substantiated. Many form a belief based on a negative experience, no mater the cause, but in reality is false.

Going back to the original post of this thread on liability and reimbursement for damage caused by the inspector's negligence, the inspector should have paid for the repair of the doors that were damaged. Negligence in that of inspection procedure and oversight.

Therefore, from your explanation of the damage to the doors on two occasions where you restricted the movement of the door during its operation, you were liable for the damage. By not inspecting the door properly prior to movement and testing.

Which is entirely different from a door that failed after a thorough and methodical inspection which included all aspects of the door, hardware, operator and installation.

[Garry Sorrells]

Rick and Ian good posts. You get :):):):):) for your efforts and thoughts. Because system will only allow that as maximum.

[Garry Sorrells]

For those who test the force by hand, not saying should shouldn't, the door operator arm converts from horizontal to vertical force quickly when resistance is applied. For this reason be sure the top panel of the door is nearly vertical before applying resistance. I wait for the door to be 6 - 8" from the floor before I put a hand on it and have never had a problem since I figured this out. NC standards of practice states: "The inspector shall report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse when meeting reasonable resistance during closing." I have trouble equating a piece of 2X4 with reasonable resistance and find the 2X4 to be the entrapment test/adjustment with every installation instruction I have read.

Vern,
It is not about reasonable pressure. In fact pressure has absolutely nothing to do with the test, the test for entrapment as set forth by UL and Fed Reg. is 2 sec upon meeting an obstruction that prevents movement.

By waiting till the door is 6"to 8" from the floor you have reduced the effects of a poor installation that did not add reinforcement to a door that has poor (cheep) structure.

The 2x4 wood (1.5"x 3.5") represents a close and excepted approximation of the requirement of 1" as set forth by UL Lab and Fed Regs. for the distance from the floor. The requirement is to reverse on contact after 2 seconds at 1" from the floor.

[Jerry Peck]

NC standards of practice states: "The inspector shall report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse when meeting reasonable resistance during closing." I have trouble equating a piece of 2X4 with reasonable resistance and find the 2X4 to be the entrapment test/adjustment with every installation instruction I have read.

Vern,

The 2x4 does not have to be "reasonable resistance" to meet the NC standard of practice requirements ... it is the door meeting "reasonable resistance" and then it should reverse - when the door *CONTACTS* the 2x4, the "reasonable resistance" is met, and the door should reverse *ON CONTACT* with that "reasonable resistance".

Allowing the door to continue to try to crush that 2x4 and turn it into a 1x8 is far beyond "reasonable resistance" and therefor should have reversed a long time BEFORE the track bows upward (which happens), or the door bends (which will not happen when the 2x4 is placed properly) or the top of the door folds (which will not happen when a proper brace is installed across the top of the door.

The problem most people have with using the 2x4 is they they seem to think (at least from the posts I've read here) that the 2x4 is supposed to crush down into a 1x8 in order for the 2x4 test to work - very incorrect.

The door is supposed to reverse on contact with, or within a *VERY* short time of *CONTACTING* with the 2x4.

Hope that helps clear up the "reasonable resistance" aspect of the 2x4 test for you. ;)

[Jerry Peck]

I like you can attest to the fact that if you do not thoroughly inspect the door before operating and testing its function, you will increase the probability of liability for damage through inspector negligence.

That is something many of us have stated multiple times in the various threads on this topic of testing garage door operators - inspect the door, tracks, and operator FIRST.

Not unlike one does when you walk into a room to test receptacle outlets - would you go into a room and plug your tester into a receptacle outlet which is hanging by its wires outside the wall? I doubt it, but if you did you would do it very gingerly and be ready to pull back at the very first sign of trouble.

[Vern Heiler]

Vern,

The 2x4 does not have to be "reasonable resistance" to meet the NC standard of practice requirements ... it is the door meeting "reasonable resistance" and then it should reverse - when the door *CONTACTS* the 2x4, the "reasonable resistance" is met, and the door should reverse *ON CONTACT* with that "reasonable resistance".

Allowing the door to continue to try to crush that 2x4 and turn it into a 1x8 is far beyond "reasonable resistance" and therefor should have reversed a long time BEFORE the track bows upward (which happens), or the door bends (which will not happen when the 2x4 is placed properly) or the top of the door folds (which will not happen when a proper brace is installed across the top of the door.

The problem most people have with using the 2x4 is they they seem to think (at least from the posts I've read here) that the 2x4 is supposed to crush down into a 1x8 in order for the 2x4 test to work - very incorrect.

The door is supposed to reverse on contact with, or within a *VERY* short time of *CONTACTING* with the 2x4.

Hope that helps clear up the "reasonable resistance" aspect of the 2x4 test for you. ;)
Jerry you and I have had this discussion before. If you will remember, I did begin to use the 2X4 as a final test of the door after considering points brought out in the previous threads. I will tell you that only one in ten door inspections make it to the 2X4 in my door test. My primary reason for responding to this thread was to help others, who use the hand test, to reduce the possibility of damage by waiting for the top panel to be nearly vertical.

Your interpretation of reasonable resistance should make even you grin when you read it. The NC SOP could have used " ..will preform the 2X4 test" or wording to that end, if that was what they wanted, but they had more insight than that.

[Garry Sorrells]

That is something many of us have stated multiple times in the various threads on this topic of testing garage door operators - inspect the door, tracks, and operator FIRST.

Not unlike one does when you walk into a room to test receptacle outlets - would you go into a room and plug your tester into a receptacle outlet which is hanging by its wires outside the wall? I doubt it, but if you did you would do it very gingerly and be ready to pull back at the very first sign of trouble.
-
My saying : " I like you can attest to the fact that if you do not thoroughly inspect the door before operating and testing its function, you will increase the probability of liability for damage through inspector negligence."

And yes, it is something that has been stated many times and in many ways, yet it still bears repeating.

To many people who look at a garage door system have not learned what they are looking for in an inspection much less its daily operation. Sure, like your example of the receptacle, a blatantly obvious problem is what most will look for and hopefully see; but it is the less noticeable problem in the hardware or how the door was installed that many do not see. Recognizing that a reinforcement is needed on some doors if an electric opener is installed is simple yet complicated since you have to know which doors, the correct type, and under what conditions that reinforcement is to be installed.

It seems that every horror story of a door failure is a result of an oversight of the inspection and methodology. I tend to repeat it since many who view a thread may not have viewed all of the threads on a topic. Some who read over the threads quickly do not readily pick up on the concept. Some are just new to the forum. Others just seem slow to get the idea. So repetition can be beneficial for some though frustrating for otheres.

Like preaching to the choir. But even the choir will come to see the light at times rather than just be present for the sermon.

How many probe the track attachment looking for rotten wood or termite damage? Or, physically take hold of the vertical track and pull back on it as part of their inspection checking for solid attachment? It is more about what is not obvious and understanding how to inspect. Most SOP view the inspection as general and visual, a few have some direction in the area of garage doors. But, it methods are left up to the person inspecting with little to no guidance.

So I understand and regret your frustration on the recurring comments on a topic though I do not apologize for it. :)

[Garry Sorrells]

Vern,
A little lazy on my part not to research figuring you have it closer at hand, but what is the exact wording in the NC SOP for garage door inspection?

[Vern Heiler]

Vern,
A little lazy on my part not to research figuring you have it closer at hand, but what is the exact wording in the NC SOP for garage door inspection?

.1107 EXTERIOR
(b) The home inspector shall:
(3) Operate garage doors manually or by using permanently installed controls for any garage door opener.
(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse when meeting reasonable resistance during closing.

[Jerry Peck]

So I understand and regret your frustration on the recurring comments on a topic though I do not apologize for it. :)

Garry,

Not frustrated, just reminding others through responding to your post that inspecting the door first has been said before - many times.

"Inspecting" the door first is most important. "Properly" "testing" the door comes in after the inspector has determined that the door should survive the standard test - if the inspector determines, or even suspects, that the door will fall/crush/whatever at the time of the test, then the inspector should write the door up for what they saw ... and add that the technician/installer who repairs the door needs to properly and adequately "test" the door after making any/all repairs/adjustments.

I think we just repeated it again. :D

[Garry Sorrells]

For those who test the force by hand, not saying should shouldn't, the door operator arm converts from horizontal to vertical force quickly when resistance is applied. For this reason be sure the top panel of the door is nearly vertical before applying resistance. I wait for the door to be 6 - 8" from the floor before I put a hand on it and have never had a problem since I figured this out. NC standards of practice states: "The inspector shall report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse when meeting reasonable resistance during closing." I have trouble equating a piece of 2X4 with reasonable resistance and find the 2X4 to be the entrapment test/adjustment with every installation instruction I have read.


.1107 EXTERIOR
(b) The home inspector shall:
(3) Operate garage doors manually or by using permanently installed controls for any garage door opener.
(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse when meeting reasonable resistance during closing.


Vern,
It is interesting that the NC SOP is worded as it is. NC has set its own standards for the testing of the door which are considerably different to that of Underwriters Lab and that of the Fed Reg. Reasonable pressure to cause the reversal is quite ambiguous. Especially since the UL requirements have no connection to pressure in the testing specifications and the operator manufacturers build to meet UL/Fed. specifications.

NC may be the only state to incorporate the concept of reasonable pressure in to testing methods. I apologize :( if I had corrected you in the area of "reasonable pressure" since I was speaking to the UL standards not knowing that NC had such a divergence in requirements.

I now understand why you say, "I have trouble equating a piece of 2X4 with reasonable resistance and find the 2X4 to be the entrapment test/adjustment with every installation instruction I have read", because the installation instructions of every operator is designed to meet the UL/Fed. specifications and the use of a 2x4 to test the entrapment/reversal function of the operator. NC has set a higher/different standard than the federal gov., though NC fails to determine the range that their standards cover in the cycle of the operator and define reasonable and also how to test for reasonable resistance.

Again the UL standard for the operator for anti entrapment is that the door will stop and reverse within 2 seconds after meeting an obstruction (on contact) during the downward cycle to a point 1 inch from the floor. UL/Fed Regs allow the the use of a 2x4 as a means for testing in the field. I guess they figure that the common folk will more likely have a 2x4 laying around than a piece of 5/4" stock.

So this is where in the process of inspecting the door operator function the use of ones hand comes into play. If as the door is being lowered by the operator the inspector uses his hand to restrain the doors' downward movement and finds that he is unable to stop the downward movement, the operator is exerting unreasonable resistance to the inspector. Now if unreasonable resistance is found there is a high probability that the door may be damaged if a 2x4 is placed on the floor and the door is lowered onto it. The door operator needs to be adjusted to make the downward force stop/reverse under reasonable resistance. Then if the door is able to be stopped using your hand prior to meeting the floor it will most certainly mot damage the door when using the 2x4 on the floor. Which is why I encourage testing the operator movement using your hand before going to the 2x4 test on the floor.

NC in a round about way is saying that pressure is a factor to be considered in the anti entrapment function of the operator. To bad UL and the Feds didn't approach it in the same manor. Since under the UL standards you could have 2000 PSI or more exerted on the 2x4 for as long as 1.99999 seconds before the operator would have to reverse and the operator would be in compliance with the Fed Requirements.

So in NC you have to test to the manufactures instructions (UL Feds specifications) as well as the states guidelines of reasonable Which is not really a problem, they all can be met easily. I have been doing it that way for decades.

[Garry Sorrells]

Vern,



The problem most people have with using the 2x4 is they they seem to think (at least from the posts I've read here) that the 2x4 is supposed to crush down into a 1x8 in order for the 2x4 test to work - very incorrect.

The door is supposed to reverse on contact with, or within a *VERY* short time of *CONTACTING* with the 2x4.

Hope that helps clear up the "reasonable resistance" aspect of the 2x4 test for you. ;)


Jerry,
We have had the discussion about what on contact means, you may have forgotten that it is 2 seconds of contact and has nothing to do with the amount of force excreted on the 2x4. Remember I had contacted the UL to clear up the pressure issue. Even though I incorrectly thought that there had to be some pressure factor involved in the specifications and testing. So in a mater of speaking the test could be crushing the 2x4 down into a 1x8, since force is not relevant to the specifications. In reality the 2x4 could be compressed to 1" thick and if the operator reversed, it would have passed the UL design test for reversal anti entrapment.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry,
We have had the discussion about what on contact means, you may have forgotten that it is 2 seconds of contact and has nothing to do with the amount of force excreted on the 2x4. Remember I had contacted the UL to clear up the pressure issue. Even though I incorrectly thought that there had to be some pressure factor involved in the specifications and testing.

Garry,

I am aware of the 2 seconds and no pressure, having posted the CFR section years ago and a few other times since - there was no need for you to contact UL, it is in the CFR section for garage door operators.


So in a mater of speaking the test could be crushing the 2x4 down into a 1x8, since force is not relevant to the specifications. In reality the 2x4 could be compressed to 1" thick and if the operator reversed, it would have passed the UL design test for reversal anti entrapment.

Incorrect ... being as you are going to specifics in your post (the 2 seconds), then let's stay with specifics - a 1x8 *is not* the 1" thick board mentioned in the standards for testing the auto-reverse ... a 1x8 is only 3/4" thick. :)

Without going back and looking up the CFR section for garage doors (it is 12:30 here and I am getting ready to hit the sack, as they say), I recall there being two or more test parameters, one being 'on contact with' and the other being '2 seconds', I just do not recall (at this time) the exact wording in which either (or both) applies.

You can do a search for CFR 1211 and you can probably find some of those older posts with CFR 1211 information in them.

[Jerry Peck]

What to heck, here is CFR 1211 (I have it on the computer I am using), it contains an 'on contact with' clause and a 'less than 2 seconds' clause (but not a '2 seconds' clause, along with other tests and requirements - all depending on the type of operator and type and method of sensing the need to reverse.

[Lon Henderson]

Sec. 1211.7(b) is interesting. "A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and at various heights under the edge of the door...."

And then when addressing how to properly use the 1" thick object, it says, "the solid object is to be located at points at the center, and within 1 foot of each end of the door."

I gotta say that I don't use objects of various heights or test using my block within 1 foot of each end of the door. I do use the "hand test" and if it fails that, I write it up.
But it appears that doing a compliant safety test for a garage door opener, would triple the amount of time I typically use on a door.

So, does this become a question of using a common sense approach to testing or rigidly following a government mandated SoP for the industry involved in making openers?

[Vern Heiler]

Thanks Jerry, this is the first time I have seen values given to the pressures.

Sec. 1211.13 Inherent force activated secondary door sensors.
(a) Normal operation test. (1) A force activated door sensor of a
door system installed according to the installation instructions shall
actuate when the door applies a 15 pound (66.7 N) or less force in the
down or closing direction and when the door applies a 25 pound (111.2 N)
or less force in the up or opening direction. For a force activated door
sensor intended to be used in an operator intended for use only on a
sectional door, the force is to be applied by the door against the
longitudinal edge of a 1\7/8\ (47.6 mm) diameter cylinder placed across
the door so that the axis is perpendicular to the plane of the door. See
Figure 6 of this part. The weight of the door is to be equal to the
maximum weight rating of the operator.

The problem with relying on the 2X4 test to confirm the force adjustment is that it assumes all doors have the same slop or flexibility. If a flimsy aluminum door is tested with the 2X4 and the pressure is set high, the door will flex enough to reach the travel limit and the 2X4 will be trapped. If a well built or solid wood door is used under the same circumstances the door will not flex and the travel limit will not be reached before the pressure sense reverses the door, giving the false indication that all is well.

[Garry Sorrells]

Vern,
Sec. 1211.13 Inherent force activated secondary door sensors. Is referring to a sensor added to the bottom of the door. Not the door itself. The added sensor looks like a normal bottom door gasket but has a pressure sensitive bar on its interior. The secondary sensor is independent to the door operator obstruction design.

When reading the various sections don't get confused in the different types of openers that are being used and the type of door that they are attached to. Operators for swing gate type doors are different than that one piece up swinging door and sectional vertical rolling doors all have different specifications for operation and testing.

[Vern Heiler]

Vern,
Sec. 1211.13 Inherent force activated secondary door sensors. Is referring to a sensor added to the bottom of the door. Not the door itself. The added sensor looks like a normal bottom door gasket but has a pressure sensitive bar on its interior. The secondary sensor is independent to the door operator obstruction design.

When reading the various sections don't get confused in the different types of openers that are being used and the type of door that they are attached to. Operators for swing gate type doors are different than that one piece up swinging door and sectional vertical rolling doors all have different specifications for operation and testing.

Then how does it measure the opening force of 25 lbs. or less?

As I stated, this is the first reference to pounds of force, related to the reversing of the door, that I have seen. One would assume that those pressures could be used as "reasonable" with any sensing device.

[Garry Sorrells]

Garry,

I am aware of the 2 seconds and no pressure, having posted the CFR section years ago and a few other times since - there was no need for you to contact UL, it is in the CFR section for garage door operators.



Incorrect ... being as you are going to specifics in your post (the 2 seconds), then let's stay with specifics - a 1x8 *is not* the 1" thick board mentioned in the standards for testing the auto-reverse ... a 1x8 is only 3/4" thick. :)

Without going back and looking up the CFR section for garage doors (it is 12:30 here and I am getting ready to hit the sack, as they say), I recall there being two or more test parameters, one being 'on contact with' and the other being '2 seconds', I just do not recall (at this time) the exact wording in which either (or both) applies.

You can do a search for CFR 1211 and you can probably find some of those older posts with CFR 1211 information in them.

I don't have to contact UL I already had.
In the past there was a question of the PSI (force) on the 2x4 ( Grage Door PSI to trigger reversal of operator (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/exterior-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/30337-grage-door-psi-trigger-reversal-operator.html) 4-23-2012 ) and the response from UL was :

Garry,
UL 325 does not have force requirements for the door itself without an edge sensor.


Doors can be provided with a control that requires constant pressure to close located in the line of sight of the door, or they can be provided with a control that can close the door with momentary contact if it is additionally provided with external entrapment such as a contact sensor (edge sensor) or a non-contact sensor (photoelectric sensor).


Residential garage door operators are also required to be provided with inherent entrapment protection (in addition to the external entrapment protection), where the door is required to reverse within 2 s a minimum of 2 in.



But there are currently no requirements for the amount of the force that is allowed, just needs to reverse.


Regards,

Jim Miller, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer

If you only look at the entrapment 2x4 test there is nothing that alters the pressure that can be exerted on the 2x4.

side note: Yes I know a 2x4 is 1.5"x3.5", 1x8 is 3/4"x7.5" and 5/4 stock is 1" thick. So don't hang your hat on that. You have interchanges 1x and 1" in the past also. Really not the issue. Force exerted on the material is the issue.

We seem to be consistently arguing about different parts of the horse and how they perform independently. Each part of the horse interacts with the other parts. Why not take a holistic approach to the discussion of the garage door?

During the installation of the operator there is typically force adjustment that controls the the sensitivity of the door as it moves through the cycle. That sensitivity is for the potential of the door meeting resistance, causing it to "Reverse direction and open the door to the upmost position when, constant pressure on a control is removed ", from the track or some other factor (inspector standing under the door). You adjust that sensor so that the normal friction does not trigger the sensor. This is where the amount of force exerted on the 2x4 on the floor is derived. So by inspecting the adjustable force sensor you can determine (to some degree) the amount of force that will be applied to the 2x4 before it is applied to that 2x4. Which is separate from the testing of the of the anti-entrapment requirement. If the adjustment is to heave there is a chance of damaging the door. If the adjustment is to light the door will run the cycle to the floor and reverse without compressing the bottom door sealing gasket. As if it were encountering a 2x4 on the floor or some other force acting on the door during the cycle.

Knowing what to expect prior to the door closing on a 2x4 will help prevent potential damage to the door by the inspector. This is where the NC SOP realizes that the door operator can be adjusted and calls out for "reasonable pressure".

The sequencing of the testing is of paramount importance to limit the possibility for damage to the door system. It is not an, either/or, situation it is a combination of the elements of the system.

Sec. 1211.6 General entrapment protection requirements.
(a) A residential garage door operator system shall be provided with
primary inherent entrapment protection that complies with the
requirements as specified in Sec. 1211.7.
(b) In addition to the primary inherent entrapment protection as
required by paragraph (a) of this section, a residential garage door
operator shall comply with one of the following:
(1) Shall be constructed to:
(i) Require constant pressure on a control to lower the door,
(ii) Reverse direction and open the door to the upmost position when
constant pressure on a control is removed prior to operator reaching its
lower limit,


Sec. 1211.14 Instruction manual
4. Test door opener monthly. The garage door MUST reverse on contact
with a 1\1/2\ inch object (or a 2 by 4 board laid flat) on the floor.
After adjusting either the force or the limit of travel, retest the door
opener. Failure to adjust the opener properly may cause severe injury or
death.

From the above the first thing to determine is if the constant pressure is functioning and what it takes to alter that constant pressure. Thus the holding of the door as it closes. Hand Holding......

Maybe it is similar to the other driver getting on the expressway. They have a YIELD sign and you have the right of way, but you still keep an eye on them to prevent being hit by them. You are not independent from the rest of the world. Why should one test be independent from the other factors acting on it.:rolleyes:

[Garry Sorrells]

Then how does it measure the opening force of 25 lbs. or less?

As I stated, this is the first reference to pounds of force, related to the reversing of the door, that I have seen. One would assume that those pressures could be used as "reasonable" with any sensing device.

Kinda like apples and oranges. The accessory sensor strip added to the door bottom is what is being referred to. It is about what activated the sensor internal bar/strip. The UL testing specifications are for that accessory to the door. Though it would seem "reasonable" to make the transference. NC must have realized that field testing would be a problem dealing with a quanatative measurement rather than a more subjective qualative judgement.

Remember you are dealing with the government. It does not have to make sense.

[Jerry Peck]

(bold, italics, and underlining are mine)
Sec. 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements.
(a) Other than the first 1 foot (305 mm) of travel as measured over the path of the moving door, ...

That is referring to the door being all the way open and at the top of its travel, thus that means "other than the first 1 foot of closing travel".

... both with and without any external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction ...

"within" "2 seconds does not mean that each and every door will crush the 2x4 for 2 seconds.

"within" 2 seconds "of contact with" the obstruction - "contact with".

... as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. After reversing the door, the operator shall return the door to, and stop at, the full upmost position, unless an inherent entrapment circuit senses a second obstruction or a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel. Compliance shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.

(b) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and at various heights ...

Remember this part above: Sec. 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements. (a) [B]Other than the first 1 foot (305 mm) of travel as measured over the path of the moving door[/B ?

That is the reason for the "and at various heights" ... to check for reversal at any point after the first foot of travel. The standards that the home inspector is using is to test the door as shown in all of the installation instruction 'testing' instructions, and those state to place the 2x4 on the floor ... which is the test that the home inspector will do, should do.

... under the edge of the door and located in line with the driving point of the operator. When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high. In the test installation, the bottom edge of the door under the driving force of the operator is to be against the floor when the door is fully closed. For operators other than those attached to the door, the solid object is to be located at points at the center, and within 1 foot of each end of the door.

[Garry Sorrells]

(bold, italics, and underlining are mine)

That is the reason for the "and at various heights" ... to check for reversal at any point after the first foot of travel. The standards that the home inspector is using is to test the door as shown in all of the installation instruction 'testing' instructions, and those state to place the 2x4 on the floor ... which is the test that the home inspector will do, should do.

.

Again you are parcing out the instructions. If you are trying to state that the 2x4 reversal test is the only test or the first test. The installation instructions also mention the force adjustment and that the force adjustment is done before the reverse test with the 2x4.
Jerry,
What installation testing instructions are you referring to?
Raynor? Genie? Chamberlain? Have you actually read those instructions?

By example:
GENIE
Model : Powermax manual
http://www.geniecompany.com/data/products/genie_owners-manual_eng.pdf

Contact Reverse Test (page 9) NOTE: The Limit and Force settings MUST BE COMPLETED before performing the Contact Reverse Test.

It is possible that I am miss interpenetrating your post, maybe not.