TGD - Minimum Height of Entrance Door in a Dwelling

braftery

Hi All,

Can anyone let me know is there any "Minimum Height" set in the Current TGD's for the Entrance Door in a "Dwelling".

If so can you let me know where in the TGD, I can not find it.

I have a memory of there being a minimum clear opening of 2000mm but I can not find any reference to this in the current TGD's.

Thanks for your help.

B

kkelliher

In various sections of Part M, it makes reference to a minimum headroom of 2.1m in order to protect those with sight difficulties. This relates to obstructions (sloping ceilings, stair soffits etc). I cant see why a door height would need to be regulated (there is regs relating to min glass heights, handles etc for those in wheelchairs etc) and I have never seen anything relating to it previously

braftery

Thank you kkelliher.

I had found the references to the minimum headroom of 2100mm under "approaches", but can find nothing that relates directly to door "clear opening" heights.

It appears that it is ok to have a door with clear ope 1800mm in height !!

kieran.

TGD Part B

1.4.5 Height of Escape Routes
All escape routes should have a minimum clear
headroom of not less than 2 m and there should be
no projection below this height, except for any door
frame, which would impede the free flow of persons
using them.

Think this is the section you are looking for.

braftery

+1

Thank you kieran !

I knew there was a reference to 2m somewhere, but this excludes the door frame.

fclauson

Brian - this I think would be unacceptable in terms of door height !!!:P

braftery

Agreed fclauson !

I am trying to make some people understand that 2100mm from screed to lintel is really too small an opening for a door.

And more importantly trying make some other people understand that FFL is not screed level !!

muffler

braftery wrote: »

Agreed fclauson !

I am trying to make some people understand that 2100mm from screed to lintel is really too small an opening for a door.

And more importantly trying make some other people understand that FFL is not screed level !!

I dont understand either of those comments.

2100mm high lintel height (measured from floor) has always been the accepted norm.

FFL has always been referred to as being the top of the screed. If people want to put down carpet, laminate etc then that is referred to as floor covering.

braftery

muffler wrote: »

I dont understand either of those comments.

2100mm high lintel height (measured from floor) has always been the accepted norm.

FFL has always been referred to as being the top of the screed. If people want to put down carpet, laminate etc then that is referred to as floor covering.

When you say "(measured from floor)" do you mean screed or top of floor covering ?

I think I am correct in assuming that "FFL" mean Final Floor Level.

While it is common practise among builders (in Ireland only) to refer to FFL as screed level, as far as I am aware this is never the Final Floor Level.

Most architects drawings I see show FFL as the top of the floor finish in the building.

This is part of the reason for my question about the minimum height.

An opening of 2100mm from screed to lintel, will mean a clear opening of

2100mm less
Floor covering -20mm
tolerance for the unit at the lintel -10mm
Top Frame dimension (in modern door systems) - 80mm
Threshold -15mm

Clear ope of door: 1975mm

Less than 2m ... but the door frame is excluded from the 2m dimension, so there is no issue.

However, I do think that a door will be nicer if the clear ope in the unit is over 2m.

muffler

braftery wrote: »

When you say "(measured from floor)" do you mean screed or top of floor covering ?

Top of screed

braftery wrote: »

I think I am correct in assuming that "FFL" mean Final Floor Level.

Finished Floor Level

braftery wrote: »

While it is common practise among builders (in Ireland only) to refer to FFL as screed level, as far as I am aware this is never the Final Floor Level.

Its all I have ever known it to be.

braftery wrote: »

Most architects drawings I see show FFL as the top of the floor finish in the building.

In a domestic situation its highly unlikely that the architect would be aware of what finish/covering is to be applied to the floors and thus the industry norm to recognise the top of screed as being the finished floor.

braftery wrote: »

This is part of the reason for my question about the minimum height.

An opening of 2100mm from screed to lintel, will mean a clear opening of

2100mm less
Floor covering -20mm
tolerance for the unit at the lintel -10mm
Top Frame dimension (in modern door systems) - 80mm
Threshold -15mm

Clear ope of door: 1975mm

Less than 2m ... but the door frame is excluded from the 2m dimension, so there is no issue.

However, I do think that a door will be nicer if the clear ope in the unit is over 2m.

Different floor coverings will have different depths/thickness and as I said before its important that there is a universally recognised and accepted height for lintels based on the same recognised base. Block layers just cant go and ask the client "hey, what are you covering your floor with as we have to adjust the lintels accordingly"

braftery

... Finished Floor Level .. thank you for the correction.

Does this mean that when the TGD mention "floor level" they mean "FFL aka screed level" or they mean "FFL aka Finished Floor Covering Level"

For example, I am thinking about Part B "Fire Safety" of the TGD, where will the 800mm be measured from ?

1.5.6 (b)

The bottom of the window opening should benot more than 1100 mm and not less than 800
mm (600 mm in the case of a rooflight) above the
floor, immediately inside or beneath the window
or rooflight. As an exception to the general
guidance in TGD K (Stairways, Ladders, Ramps
and Guards) that guarding be provided for any
window, the cill of which is less than 800 mm in
height above floor level, guarding should not be
provided to a rooflight opening provided in
compliance with this paragraph.

kieran.

Finished floor level ie FFL is the final/finished level of the floors including all finishes, not the screed level as perceived by most builders.

An issue were this arises is the first riser on a stair case.

Example:
Mr Builder orders the stairs with this say a 175 rise as per the spec however when the client installs his nice marble floors the first riser is only 150mm therefore making the stairs non complaint with part K ,all risers and going should be the sames size.

Point being FFL is ALWAYS the final floor level.

sydthebeat

kieran. wrote: »

Finished floor level ie FFL is the final/finished level of the floors including all finishes, not the screed level as perceived by most builders.

An issue were this arises is the first riser on a stair case.

Example:
Mr Builder orders the stairs with this say a 175 rise as per the spec however when the client installs his nice marble floors the first riser is only 150mm therefore making the stairs non complaint with part K ,all risers and going should be the sames size.

Point being FFL is ALWAYS the final floor level.

i think youd be hard pressed finding a building control office / judge that would deem that situation to be 'non compliant'

the regulation simply states

Stairways, ladders and ramps shall be such as to afford safe passage for the users of a building.

in order to be "non compliant" a BCO / Judge would need to determine that the 25mm less on the bottom step resulted in make the passage unsafe for users.

This is why opinions on compliance were offered, and why the TGDs are only a 'de facto' means of compliance and not a statutory means.

ergo why the situation you describe is accepted by many certifiers as being compliant, as would a 2.1 lintel for a door over a screed.

braftery

Thanks Syd and kieran.

I understand that custom and practise is that builders call screed level FFL, but I am still wondering when measuring heights of upstairs openings of floor level as per the TGD's where will the measurement normally be taken from ... the screed level or the finished floor level ?

A hypothetical question, if someone had the misfortune to fall from a window where the clear opening was 780mm above the finished floor level, where the floor covering is 25mm tall and this fact came to light, is this opening compliant with current building regs and will it be covered by an insurer ?

kieran.

sydthebeat wrote: »

i think youd be hard pressed finding a building control office / judge that would deem that situation to be 'non compliant'

the regulation simply states


in order to be "non compliant" a BCO / Judge would need to determine that the 25mm less on the bottom step resulted in make the passage unsafe for users.

This is why opinions on compliance were offered, and why the TGDs are only a 'de facto' means of compliance and not a statutory means.

ergo why the situation you describe is accepted by many certifiers as being compliant, as would a 2.1 lintel for a door over a screed.

If someone trips and falls in a Public Building an sues I personally think they would have a very good case.

TGD Part K

Rise, Going and Pitch
1.1.4 In any stairs -
(a) all of the steps should be of appropriate
dimensions and be of suitable construction,
(b) all steps should have the same rise,
(c) all parallel steps should have the same going,

As a certifier you must ensure as passage unsafe for all users, a varied thread heigh is a trip hazard IMO. A detailed specification/drawing will alleviate this issue.

sydthebeat

kieran. wrote: »

If someone trips and falls in a Public Building an sues I personally think they would have a very good case.

TGD Part K

Rise, Going and Pitch
1.1.4 In any stairs -
(a) all of the steps should be of appropriate
dimensions and be of suitable construction,
(b) all steps should have the same rise,
(c) all parallel steps should have the same going,

As a certifier you must ensure as passage unsafe for all users, a varied thread heigh is a trip hazard IMO. A detailed specification/drawing will alleviate this issue.

The purpose of my reply is to highlight the fact that there will be individual "grey areas" in most builds with building regulations due to the nature of building.

The standard method of construction for domestic houses is laying a concrete lintel at 2.1 above the screed level. This works to suit stock doors and block courses (9 courses and a soap bar). If by the addition of a thick floor finish and say,a door saddle this dimension finishes at 1975mm then what i am saying is that that doesnt mean it is suddenly "non compliant".

Like with your stair example, just because it doesn't correlate with the TGD certainly does not mean that it becomes "non compliant" by default. Non compliance with building regulations can only be determined by a Building Control Officer from the local authority and, ultimately, a judge in litigation.

Your opinion would be that the 25mm smaller dimension on a bottom step is a tripping hazard. The opinion of a BCO may be different and of course, the opinion of a court judge may be different too.

braftery

Thanks Sydthebeat.

I think the issue is not about compliance or non compliance, the issue is more that throughout a buildings life, from birth to death, the "floor level" is used as a reference point for measurements.

As far as I can figure out, custom and practise in Ireland appears to be, that "floor level" starts out being "screed level" in the early construction phase and at some point changes to become "the finished (covered) floor" in the later stages of construction and on into the buildings life.

Or am I wrong in my assumption ?

sydthebeat

braftery wrote: »

Thanks Sydthebeat.

I think the issue is not about compliance or non compliance, the issue is more that throughout a buildings life, from birth to death, the "floor level" is used as a reference point for measurements.

As far as I can figure out, custom and practise in Ireland appears to be, that "floor level" starts out being "screed level" in the early construction phase and at some point changes to become "the finished (covered) floor" in the later stages of construction and on into the buildings life.

Or am I wrong in my assumption ?

I always use the designation FFL which i have always believed means "finished floor level"

When i dimension a working drawing i dimension from the top of screed level and never the floor finish level. The dimension i show will always be the one the builders work off. This is because the exact floor finish is usually not selected at the time of specification.

If this dimension reduces because of a 20mm floor finish so be it.

using the premise that from 'birth to death' the floor level is to remain constant, i would argue then that its more correct to refer to the finished screed level as the floor finish because actually aesthetic finishes such as tiles, carpet and timber flooring can change over time. Similarly with a first floor, the floor finish is the T+G / sheeting / screed level.

As the difference we are talking about is generally 1% of the over all floor to ceiling dimension so in most cases of "common sense" its deemed insignificant and de minimus.

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

I always use the designation FFL which i have always believed means "finished floor level"

When i dimension a working drawing i dimension from the top of screed level and never the floor finish level. The dimension i show will always be the one the builders work off. This is because the exact floor finish is usually not selected at the time of specification.

If this dimension reduces because of a 20mm floor finish so be it.

using the premise that from 'birth to death' the floor level is to remain constant, i would argue then that its more correct to refer to the finished screed level as the floor finish because actually aesthetic finishes such as tiles, carpet and timber flooring can change over time. Similarly with a first floor, the floor finish is the T+G / sheeting / screed level.

As the difference we are talking about is generally 1% of the over all floor to ceiling dimension so in most cases of "common sense" its deemed insignificant and de minimus.

Thats pretty much what I was saying earlier in the thread but you have put it more eloquently

braftery wrote: »

A hypothetical question, if someone had the misfortune to fall from a window where the clear opening was 780mm above the finished floor level, where the floor covering is 25mm tall and this fact came to light, is this opening compliant with current building regs and will it be covered by an insurer ?

None of us can be responsible for what coverings people use on their floors and that, as previously stated, is why there has to be a national/universally recognised base point from which dimensions can be taken whether that be a working drawing or a measurement stated in a regulation.

In the hypothetical situation you mentioned I agree with sydthebeat in that the difference between "on site" dimensions and "regulation" dimensions would be classed as de minimus. But if you were still concerned then just ensure the bottom of the window openings are located about 825mm above finished floor level (FFL/top of screed) and you cant go wrong then.