Thread: GArage door

Originally Posted by Door Guy

JP you buying what I'm selling yet? Or at least recognize the point here?

You are Kristi are selling nothing but tainted koolaid.

No way am I going to be buying that tainted drink - this is no Jonestown here.

Thanks, Randy, for chiming in - though we haven't managed to convince JP of anything! I imagine everyone else got bored with the discussion long ago. Not surprising; so did I. I sure liked Jerry's spiffy diagrams, though! The thread was worth it just for that.

I just wanted to comment about this little tidbit from many posts back: "Whenever I pass through an exterior door, I always look down for an elevation change." This isn't actually considered an exterior door since it leads into an attached garage. A small point, but it does make a difference code-wise...but you probably realized that.

Dana, the hinges on outward swinging exterior doors (those designed for exterior applications) are tamper-proof, so not a concern.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

Thanks, Randy, for chiming in - though we haven't managed to convince JP of anything! I imagine everyone else got bored with the discussion long ago. Not surprising; so did I. I sure liked Jerry's spiffy diagrams, though! The thread was worth it just for that.

I just wanted to comment about this little tidbit from many posts back: "Whenever I pass through an exterior door, I always look down for an elevation change." This isn't actually considered an exterior door since it leads into an attached garage. A small point, but it does make a difference code-wise...but you probably realized that.

Dana, the hinges on outward swinging exterior doors (those designed for exterior applications) are tamper-proof, so not a concern.

Kristi
The point you seem to be missing is that with or without an elevation change an inward swinging door allows the transgressor the ability to view what's ahead before crossing the threshold. The swing of the door prevents forward movement until the door is open - at least to 90 deg. (+/-), thereby alerting the user to the potential hazard which may be some 3' - 4' away at that point (assuming he/she is looking where they are going). Even so, a small change in elevation may not be noticed but is likely expected. The outward swinging door affords no such warning - unless the user actively stops their forward movement before crossing the threshold. Any change in elevation is an obvious hazard but providing a landing infront of the (outward) swinging door, when an elevation change exists, minimizes a trip/fall, especially when an elevation change may not be expected. Remember, not everyone passing over the threshold will be familiar with what lies beyond and will likely expect a large surface to step onto with only minimal change in elevation.

Perhaps you did get this point but it was not clear in your postings.

Originally Posted by Ian Page

Kristi
The point you seem to be missing is that with or without an elevation change an inward swinging door allows the transgressor the ability to view what's ahead before crossing the threshold. The swing of the door prevents forward movement until the door is open - at least to 90 deg. (+/-), thereby alerting the user to the potential hazard which may be some 3' - 4' away at that point (assuming he/she is looking where they are going). Even so, a small change in elevation may not be noticed but is likely expected. If it's not noticed, why would it be expected anymore than if the door swung outward? Plus most door leading to garages are not normal interior doors, so the person would likely expect at least a threshold to step over, and once they see that, they see the step down. The outward swinging door affords no such warning - unless the user actively stops their forward movement before crossing the threshold. Any change in elevation is an obvious hazard but providing a landing infront of the (outward) swinging door, when an elevation change exists, minimizes a trip/fall, especially when an elevation change may not be expected. Remember, not everyone passing over the threshold will be familiar with what lies beyond and will likely expect a large surface to step onto with only minimal change in elevation.

Perhaps you did get this point but it was not clear in your postings.

Well, that's a good point. But I also think a landing could be a trip hazard for people not watching where they're going, especially if they enter the garage through a different door. And in my mind I still come back to the way the code is worded. I just can't see the door swinging over stairs in this case. Maybe it's just a matter of the way it was written - the intent is there, it just doesn't come through for me. It should say, "swinging over stairs or at a higher elevation that the floor beyond," something like that.

Ach, I'm ready to just give up and concede the argument just to be done with it.

Kristi
Any raised threshold, (as would be typical with a garage door) in and of itself, presents something of a trip hazard. We, as humans, are conditioned to expect such a hazard when stepping over things raised off the floor plane and we take care to avoid the danger, some are more adept than others. We are also conditioned to expect a sure and broad-based footing on the other side of the door. When things are not as expected, then trips/falls occur. This is especially true for the elderly and/or infirm.

By example, I recently installed a threshold on a garge door step for an elderly female, where no threshold of draught stop previously existed. The gap between the door and hw floor was excessive and draught prone. Installing both a threshold and draught excluder on the bottom of the door prevented any further draught. Even though the threshold was no more than 1/2" high (x 2" wide) it was not what the homeowner was accustomed to and she had to use extreme care for several days to avoid tripping over it.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

Thanks, Randy, for chiming in - though we haven't managed to convince JP of anything! I imagine everyone else got bored with the discussion long ago. Not surprising; so did I. I sure liked Jerry's spiffy diagrams, though! The thread was worth it just for that.

I just wanted to comment about this little tidbit from many posts back: "Whenever I pass through an exterior door, I always look down for an elevation change." This isn't actually considered an exterior door since it leads into an attached garage. A small point, but it does make a difference code-wise...but you probably realized that.

Dana, the hinges on outward swinging exterior doors (those designed for exterior applications) are tamper-proof, so not a concern.

Yes, I know it's considered interior. Don't see too many interior doors leading from the house to the garage though. I should have said doors with a sill.

Rats, lines and indents didn't work, will need to add drawing of it instead.

Refer to drawing.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Rats, lines and indents didn't work, will need to add drawing of it instead.

Refer to drawing.

The top and bottom lines are what happens to your heart after you drink the koolaid

Inside joke....

I think we have pretty much killed this thread!

Originally Posted by Door Guy

I think we have pretty much killed this thread!

Nope.

Still seem to be a couple of people who don't understand what a stair is, and some call it a step, so we can start with either, then understand what the different parts of the "step" are called, and then what the code calls those parts, and then what the code actually calls the "step" (hint: the first two letters are the same, the last two letters are different ).

It seems that only after what the components are called can one understand what the code says about them (which, when you think about it, makes perfect sense, if one calls the vertical part a "step" then one would not make the connection when the code refers to the vertical part by a different name).

This is not one of those things where one party blindly goes off saying 'we will just have to agree to disagree' as there is no disagreement in the code, the code is quite explicit about this stuff, and if one wants to go off and disagree, that indicates that they either do not understand the terminology or do not wish to understand the terminology, which means that one does not really want to agree to disagree, only that one does not want to understand what the code says.

If one does not want to understand what the code says - that is okay too, but then one should not try to think code about other stuff as we would know that they do not want to understand code. If that is the case, then one should just say so and then drop any mention of code or pretend to think they understand code.

This is really a very clear cut issue.

I get it JP, and I know what a stair is and I completely understand the code section here and I understand what is required by the code and I would write it as a code violation if I ran across it. So if you are trying to convince me of something, it's already a done deal.

Originally Posted by Door Guy

So if you are trying to convince me of something, it's already a done deal.

Not you ...

There is someone else who said "We'll have to simply disagree."

Jerry, I hate to say it, but your little diagram of a stairway, and "what is this?" is just silly. I mean, what do you expect me to say?

The issue I have with the wording is the "swinging over" part. You said earlier, "A does not "swing" when it is closed, the door "swing" is from being open to being closed - the door swing is anyplace between fully open and fully closed. And that swing is not allowed to be out over a riser." The door is only fully over the riser when it's closed, and not swinging. But hey, it's true that part of the door is over the riser as it's swinging until it's (nearly) perpendicular to the wall, something I said ages ago, so I can see your point, if that is your point. On the other hand, if the door swung inwards it would be the same: if the outside of the door is flush with the garage side of the wall, the door would be partially over the riser (not to mention the stair) for much of its swing.

To me the code definition of stair is so vague that it's daft in the first place. There is no dimensional aspect. What if the change in elevation were an inch and a half? Would you need a landing an inch and a half high? Now there's a trip hazard! A stair consists of one or more risers, and a riser is "The vertical component of a step or stair." (Yes, Jerry, it says "step"!) That's not very helpful here, when the stair in question doesn't have a component separate from the wall as a whole. So where are the limits of the stair here? How thick is the riser, and how deep is the stair, since the riser is by definition only a component of it? Is the riser in your view the outer surface of the wall under the door? The area of drywall under it?

If this were as clear cut as you think, there would be no argument.


Here's a framing definition: "Riser:

The vertical stair member between two consecutive stair treads."

And here's OSHA's definition: ""Riser." The upright member of a step situated at the back of a lower tread and near the leading edge of the next higher tread."

Inspectapedia: "Definition of stair risers: a stair riser is the vertical space between stair treads (treads are what you step on)."

All of these share as part of the definition of riser the fact that stairs also have treads, which Code apparently ignores.

Jerry, I hate to say it, but your little diagram of a stairway, and "what is this?" is just silly.
You have been provided the code, had the code explained to you, and even been provided diagrams... and Jerry is "silly"?

I mean, what do you expect me to say?
Something like
Now I understand, Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me.
or
I still do not understand, but Thank you for taking time to explain it to me

The issue I have with the wording is the "swinging over" part. You said earlier, "A does not "swing" when it is closed, the door "swing" is from being open to being closed - the door swing is anyplace between fully open and fully closed. And that swing is not allowed to be out over a riser." The door is only fully over the riser when it's closed, and not swinging. But hey, it's true that part of the door is over the riser as it's swinging until it's (nearly) perpendicular to the wall, something I said ages ago, so I can see your point, if that is your point. On the other hand, if the door swung inwards it would be the same: if the outside of the door is flush with the garage side of the wall, the door would be partially over the riser (not to mention the stair) for much of its swing.
I think that most people that speaks English understand what "swinging over " is describing.


To me the code definition of stair is so vague that it's daft in the first place.
Take it up with people that write the code


There is no dimensional aspect. What if the change in elevation were an inch and a half? Would you need a landing an inch and a half high? Now there's a trip hazard! A stair consists of one or more risers, and a riser is "The vertical component of a step or stair." (Yes, Jerry, it says "step"!) That's not very helpful here, when the stair in question doesn't have a component separate from the wall as a whole. So where are the limits of the stair here? How thick is the riser, and how deep is the stair, since the riser is by definition only a component of it? Is the riser in your view the outer surface of the wall under the door? The area of drywall under it?

If this were as clear cut as you think, there would be no argument.
Either
(1)you don't understand it, in which case I don't think there is anything else Jerry can do to explain it to you
(2) You think you can change the code by arguing about it
(3) You just want to argue

Accept it, move on to something else

I never said Jerry was silly, I said the diagram was. Big difference. His other diagrams I praised, but that one was condescending, if anything. I'm not stupid, I know what a riser is.

I said several posts ago I was ready to concede the argument and be done with it. But that evidently wasn't enough.

I don't know why I'm not allowed to have my own opinion. Maybe it will change in a week or month or year, I don't know. Since I'm not an HI it doesn't make any difference, anyway.

I'm done with this.

As a mew member I've been following this with interest. Almost was convinced by Kristi but now see that Jerry must be right. A one riser stair between two floors is still a stair, where each floor is actually the tread.
So the code govering landing requirements would have to apply.
Good argument though.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

(<snipped> from her imbedding in a quote)
No - a stairway with no risers has no risers, period. A riser is a component of a stair. You are equating "rise" with "riser" and that's wrong. Your drawing shows the garage side of the door flush with the wall, which in this case is acting as the riser (though I don't consider it actually a riser)...the door when shut is over the "riser."

It is you who are wrong! A stairway does not exist without a riser.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

I understand the code, but this argument has reached the point of silliness, I think. We'll have to simply disagree.

No, you do not understand the code, this is evidenced repeatedly by most every contribution you have made to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

My point is that as you picture it, the door doesn't swing over stairs (note the code uses the plural),

You make no point. The door does swing over stairs.
THE CODE MAKES NO DISTINCTION the plurality of the word IS IRRELEVANT. You seem to think you have made some sort of "eureka" discovery in your uneducated, untrained, unschooled, use of the code. You have not, and are obviously ignorant of what the code actually says, and how it is used.

Originally Posted by The Code

R201.2 Interchangeability. Words used in the present tense include the future; words in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter; the singular number includes the plural and the plural, the singular

The entirety of your "opinions" on this discussion are ignorant, invalid, incorrect, and downright stupendous.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

There are no stairs for it to swing over! There's no stairway

If you actually bothered to read "the code" in its entirety, you "might" get a "clue".

This is a stairway, more importantly, it is an exit pathway from the garage. A means of egress from the non-habital but occupiable, utility/garage occupancy.

The door is a separation, AND is an EXIT path for the occupied (not habital) Garage/utility occupancy - the door panel may not encumber/encroach the exit pathway STAIR in the direction of travel (exiting garage) the STAIRWAY, and as pictured and diagramed throughout this discussion - it IS a STAIRWAY.

Landing surfaces are just that - they are not necessarily DEDICATED solely to that purpose (intermediate or otherwise), nor are they necessarily CONSTRUCTED (unfinished grade for example, off an exterior deck stair. The code-required landing areas include that at the beginning of a stairway (the bottom), and any flight (code defined) or "flight" of stairs (again, plural/singular irrelevant). A flight may be a single riser stair.

it swings over the garage floor.

Nope, swings out ABOVE the garage floor, well in excess of the threshold elevation limitation. It (The door panel) swings OUT OVER THE RISER, at an elevation ABOVE THE garage floor (the origination landing area), which in this case IS the garage floor.

That is wrong. It is wrong even if there were no change in elevation. It is wrong from a Life Safety, exit/egress standpoint. Regarding the direction of travel for the EXIT pathway FROM the garage (even if there were no change in elevation here) in the event a need to evacuate the garage by a person who was in the garage.

The door is also a SEPARATION door. It must be able to be CLOSED upon EXIT from an emergant (smoke, fire) evacuation FROM the GARAGE, so that same person evacuating can safely continue in the path of travel evenutally to a primary or secondary exit of the attached home, eventually away from the overall structure and to an area of safety.

That the DOOR is also in an exit stairway makes it additionally critical that it (the door panel) NOT SWING INTO the FLIGHT and meet elevation requirements.

A flight begins at its lowest elevation. It terminates at its highest elevation.

... His other diagrams I praised, but that one was condescending, if anything.

Maybe, but Jerry has been known to be MUCH more aggressive that just "condescending"



I don't know why I'm not allowed to have my own opinion.

You think you are treated differently? Well yes, just read how some people are responded to. You have been given consideration.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

I never said Jerry was silly, I said the diagram was. Big difference. His other diagrams I praised, but that one was condescending, if anything. I'm not stupid, I know what a riser is.

I said several posts ago I was ready to concede the argument and be done with it. But that evidently wasn't enough.

I don't know why I'm not allowed to have my own opinion. Maybe it will change in a week or month or year, I don't know. Since I'm not an HI it doesn't make any difference, anyway.

I'm done with this.

No you don't know, or at least fail to demonstrate, just what a rise or a riser is. A "riser" is the specific "RISE" between elevation relationship points.

ELEVATION CHANGE a means to an end. It is NOT limited to a physical constructed element - it is a state, a condition, specifically the relationship of elements in three dimensions at differing elevations. A riser can be OPEN SPACE between two elements at differing elevations.

You also fail to grasp that the swing of a door is code restricted to the elevation of same.

You are not spouting opinions. You do not understand the subject matter that you sbecause you lack information and understanding. The concepts of a stair, a flight, a stairway, are three dimensional not two dimensional. The overall subject, topic of this discussion, and this forum is OYH. If you spent half of the time you spent posting on this forum, reading & studying you might comprehend a thing or two.

You characterized the discussion as argument and that Jerry's responsive discussion was silliness early on. You did not merely categorize a singluar diagram as silly.

You were provided with two key CODE definitions early on.

I have only one thing to comment on. I have a lot of respect for Jerry and his knowledge and experience, and never meant to offend or insult him in any way. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I do appreciate the time he has taken to try to explain this point to me. I know it must be frustrating.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

Jerry, I hate to say it, but your little diagram of a stairway, and "what is this?" is just silly. I mean, what do you expect me to say?

I expected you to either call that vertical piece a "riser", or at the very least a "step" - in which case I would then take you to the code definitions and show you what a "riser" is, what a "tread" is, what a "stair" is, and what a "stairway" is.

You may think it is silly to get back to basics, however, you apparently have a severe lacking of understanding of stairs and stairways, thus understanding what the various parts are called is definitely NOT "silly".

The issue I have with the wording is the "swinging over" part.

Your other posts indicated you had more issues than just understanding what "swinging over" is - but I will start with that.

Let's say you are at a window, a casement window, and that the window is on the first floor in the wall about 3 feet above the floor, and that the case swings outward (as a typical casement windows would).

Okay, based on the above, you unlatch the window and swing it open ... do you swing the casement window out ... over ... the wall below? If not, please explain how you are opening that casement and what that casement window is swinging out over.

If you agree that you are swinging that casement window out over the wall below, then do this: replace the casement window with a door, and lower it to the level of the floor - the door would be swinging out over the wall below, so now place a garage next to that door and that wall becomes about 7" tall instead of several feet tall ... the door is still swinging out over what is below it, in this case that wall is now a riser as you step down from the higher floor level to the lower garage level.

You said earlier, "A does not "swing" when it is closed, the door "swing" is from being open to being closed - the door swing is anyplace between fully open and fully closed. And that swing is not allowed to be out over a riser."

Correct, I did say that.

The door is only fully over the riser when it's closed, ...

Incorrect. The door is *not* over the riser at all when it is closed, the typical door is slightly set back from the face of the wall and from the face of the riser, the door is over the higher level floor.

and not swinging.

Correct, the door is not swinging, the door is closed.

But hey, it's true that part of the door is over the riser as it's swinging until it's (nearly) perpendicular to the wall, something I said ages ago, so I can see your point, if that is your point.

That is the point and that is, indeed, when the door is swinging over the riser.

On the other hand, if the door swung inwards it would be the same:

Nope. If that door swung inwards it would swing over *the floor*, *not the riser*.

... if the outside of the door is flush with the garage side of the wall, the door would be partially over the riser (not to mention the stair) for much of its swing.

Nope. *IF* the outside of the door is flush with the garage side of the wall - which is something I have not seen as the doors are always ... er ... typically always ... recessed back in the jambs. One could install a door that way, but if the door were to swing inward then it would be *extremely* difficult to install a door that way as the door would be near the inside edge of the jambs, not the outside edge of the jambs.

To me the code definition of stair is so vague ...

That is because you do not understand it, if you did understand it (the code) then you would understand how precise it is.

What if the change in elevation were an inch and a half? Would you need a landing an inch and a half high?

Depends. What you would be measuring the 1-1/2" from?
- R311.3.1 Floor elevations at the required egress doors.
- - Landings or finished floors at the required egress door shall not be more than 1 1/2 inches (38 mm) lower than the top of the threshold.
- - - Exception: The landing or floor on the exterior side shall not be more than 7 3/4 inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold provided the door does not swing over the landing or floor.
How high is the threshold you would have installed at that door?

A stair consists of one or more risers, and a riser is "The vertical component of a step or stair." (Yes, Jerry, it says "step"!)

Kristi, what code is that out of, thanks.

That's not very helpful here, when the stair in question doesn't have a component separate from the wall as a whole.

Ahh ... but it does have, and is, a component separate from the wall as a whole.

The wall is above the door, to each side of the door, and (typically in a case as is being discussed here, the edge of the raised floor level down to the lower garage level is the edge of the slab, but one could call it a "wall", so I will go with "wall" to be on the same page as you are.

The wall, then, is above the door, to each side of the door (all the way up to the ceiling above and down to the lower garage floor level). The edge of the floor which is below the doorway opening is the "riser". It is a separate component from the wall as a whole.

So where are the limits of the stair here?

The stair is that riser.

How thick is the riser, ...

Why does it matter "how thick" the riser is? Would you not call a 2x8 (1-1/2" thick by 7-1/4" high) a riser? Would you not call an open riser (no thickness, but does have height) a riser? Would you not call a heavy railroad tie a riser when the heavy railroad ties were stacked up as a stair (probably 12" thick)?

How thick is too thick for a riser? How thin is too thin for a riser?
- A. The thickness has nothing to do with something being, or nor being a "riser", the simple "height" difference makes it a "riser".

Is the riser in your view the outer surface of the wall under the door?

Answered above: a "riser" *is* "height", "thickness" has nothing to do with it. I will bring the open riser back up yet again - there is *NO* "thickness" to an open "riser", yet it is still a "riser".

The area of drywall under it?

Could be - if there was drywall on that surface, but installing drywall there creates other potential problems.

If this were as clear cut as you think, there would be no argument.

It is that clear cut, you have just closed your mind to open thinking.

Here's a framing definition: "Riser:
The vertical stair member between two consecutive stair treads."

And here's OSHA's definition: ""Riser." The upright member of a step situated at the back of a lower tread and near the leading edge of the next higher tread."

Inspectapedia: "Definition of stair risers: a stair riser is the vertical space between stair treads (treads are what you step on)."

All of these share as part of the definition of riser the fact that stairs also have treads, which Code apparently ignores.

First, all of those share one thing in common: (see my bold highlighting above)
- The "riser" is the difference in height between one tread and another tread.

Yet again, I go back to the "open riser" stair - what is the "open riser"? It *IS* a "component" of the stair, yet it is nothing, it is air, it is the nothingness between the two treads, yet it is still a "riser".

All of these share as part of the definition of riser the fact that stairs also have treads, which Code apparently ignores.

You say the code ignores threads? Have you not read the code? The code *DOES* address treads. Your post is showing of lot of what is opposite to the normal you - you are apparently speaking of something you have not checked out (you have obviously not read the code, otherwise you would not have said the code ignores treads). Typically I see that you have done your research before posting.

Your post explains VERY WELL WHY COVERING THE BASICS IS NOT "SILLY".

No go. I said I'm done, and I mean it. You've got the last word.

Riser: The vertical component of a step or stair. ICC 2012.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

No go. I said I'm done, and I mean it. You've got the last word.

Riser: The vertical component of a step or stair. ICC 2012.

Found your reference in the 2012 IRC:
- RISER.
- - 1. The vertical component of a step or stair.

Previously those definitions have only been in the IBC, not the IRC. Neither the IBC nor the IRC defines a step, however, both define a stair as:
- STAIR. A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers.

So, you DO understand what a "riser" is, in which case your resistance to using the term "riser" when a "stair" (or "step") is present befuddles the mind. If you know what it is, why insist that one is not present when it is?

No, I really do not expect you to answer. Your last post acknowledging that you understand what a "riser", "stair", and "step" is, combined with totally not recognizing a riser or stair when one is pointed out to you confirms that your mind was closed and that this exchange was just an exercise fin futility.

Oh, and just FYI, I do read the code. I refer to it just about every day. I've read and reread the stuff about egress, and stairs, and stairways, and landings, and nosings... I know the code talks about treads, but not in the context of the definition of riser.

I'm sure you're interpreting the code right. I'm taking too literal a view, and have a different picture in my head of the door and riser in question. I really don't care anymore.

EDIT: Where did you ever get the idea that I am saying there is no riser??? Of course there is!

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

I said I'm done, and I mean it. You've got the last word.

.....

Shud up wit da shuddin up.