Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 131 to 194 of 194
  1. #131
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.

    Inspection Referral SOC

  2. #132
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells View Post
    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 : 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 Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  3. #133
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.


  4. #134
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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 : 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.


  5. #135
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    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.


  6. #136
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Garry,

    Quote Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells View Post
    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?

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  7. #137
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Caledon, Ontario
    Posts
    5,005

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.


  8. #138
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.




  9. #139
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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
    .

    Last edited by Garry Sorrells; 08-03-2012 at 09:41 AM. Reason: spelling - spacing

  10. #140
    Darrel Hood's Avatar
    Darrel Hood Guest

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.


  11. #141
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte NC Licensed in NC and SC
    Posts
    597

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darrel Hood View Post
    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


    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.

    Bruce King, B.A. King Home Inspections, LLC
    www.BAKingHomeInspections.com
    Certified Master Inspector, Independent Inspectorwww.IndependentInspectors.org

  12. #142
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darrel Hood View Post
    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.


  13. #143
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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?


  14. #144
    Darrel Hood's Avatar
    Darrel Hood Guest

    Smile Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.


  15. #145
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    McKinney Texas
    Posts
    475

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.



  16. #146
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southern Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,549

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gene South View Post
    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.

    John Kogel, RHI, BC HI Lic #47455
    www.allsafehome.ca

  17. #147
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

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


  18. #148
    Darrel Hood's Avatar
    Darrel Hood Guest

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

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


  19. #149
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southern Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,549

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darrel Hood View Post
    Gene,
    What is the technical reason the feet must be pointing into the garage?
    Feet in the driveway might upset the neighbors.

    John Kogel, RHI, BC HI Lic #47455
    www.allsafehome.ca

  20. #150
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,394

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

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


  21. #151
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    24

    Smile Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.


  22. #152
    brent mckenney's Avatar
    brent mckenney Guest

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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


  23. #153
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by brent mckenney View Post
    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.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  24. #154
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

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


  25. #155
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,394

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.


  26. #156
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.


  27. #157
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee Wa
    Posts
    301

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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/Publication...ial/TDS167.pdf

    Don Hester
    NCW Home Inspections, LLC
    Wa. St. Licensed H I #647, WSDA #80050, http://www.ncwhomeinspections.com

  28. #158
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Hester View Post
    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/Publication...ial/TDS167.pdf

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


  29. #159
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Loveland
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.


  30. #160
    Garry Blankenship's Avatar
    Garry Blankenship Guest

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.


  31. #161
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garry Blankenship View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  32. #162
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    1,181

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by William Zoller View Post
    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

    Phoenix AZ Resale Home, Mobile Home, New Home Warranty Inspections. ASHI Certified Inspector #206929 Arizona Certified Inspector # 38440
    www.inspectaz.com

  33. #163
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by William Zoller View Post
    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.


  34. #164
    tom dunnavant's Avatar
    tom dunnavant Guest

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.


  35. #165
    Ray Sandbek's Avatar
    Ray Sandbek Guest

    Smile Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Skoczylas View Post
    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.


  36. #166
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,394

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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......

    If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

  37. #167
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Loveland
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.


  38. #168

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.


  39. #169
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Charlotte NC
    Posts
    2,303

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.

    The beatings will continue until morale has improved. mgt.

  40. #170
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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 #165 for some more information.

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


  41. #171
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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_i...retractor.html

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  42. #172
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    No. San Diego Co., CA
    Posts
    562

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.


  43. #173
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by William Zoller View Post
    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.


  44. #174
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

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


  45. #175
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vern Heiler View Post
    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.


  46. #176
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vern Heiler View Post
    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, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  47. #177
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  48. #178
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Charlotte NC
    Posts
    2,303

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.

    The beatings will continue until morale has improved. mgt.

  49. #179
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.


  50. #180
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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?


  51. #181
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Charlotte NC
    Posts
    2,303

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells View Post
    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.

    The beatings will continue until morale has improved. mgt.

  52. #182
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  53. #183
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vern Heiler View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vern Heiler View Post
    .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.


  54. #184
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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.


  55. #185
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells View Post
    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, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  56. #186
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.

    Attached Files Attached Files
    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  57. #187
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,394

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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?

    If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

  58. #188
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Charlotte NC
    Posts
    2,303

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.

    The beatings will continue until morale has improved. mgt.

  59. #189
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    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.


  60. #190
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Charlotte NC
    Posts
    2,303

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells View Post
    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.

    Last edited by Vern Heiler; 12-10-2012 at 09:08 AM.
    The beatings will continue until morale has improved. mgt.

  61. #191
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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 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.






  62. #192
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vern Heiler View Post
    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.


  63. #193
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,252

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    (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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  64. #194
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,778

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    (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/pro...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.


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •