Inspecting and Testing Overhead Garage Doors

[Paul MacLean]

FWIW I've been testing garage door openers with the 2x4 method Mike describes for a decade or more and have had only one mishap that I agreed to help pay for, and it wasn't my fault. The opener motor kept running after the door hit the 2x4 and ground up the plastic gears in the case.

If opener fails in the 2x4 test, it fails with the door in the closed position and it's almost impossible for the door to fall and damage anything. When you catch the door in mid-travel, that's when it can jump the track and fall. Use the 2x4 test as Mike outlined. It works.

[hausdok]

Originally posted by Jim Katen

I agree. I think that, from this day forward, I'll be reporting that pre-93 openers that lack photo eyes are flat-out unsafe because they could crush someone and that if the buyer wants a door that's less likely to crush someone, he should replace the opener with a new one that includes modern safety features.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

Or, you could just report that pre-93 openers lack photo-sensors, making them inherently unsafe, and recommend having the opener upgraded with a retrofit kit. Many of the pre-1993 doors can be fitted with a kit but of course some can't, which ultimately means a new opener.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by hausdok

Or, you could just report that pre-93 openers lack photo-sensors, making them inherently unsafe, and recommend having the opener upgraded with a retrofit kit. Many of the pre-1993 doors can be fitted with a kit but of course some can't, which ultimately means a new opener.

OT - OF!!!

M.

Those are *replacement* sensors. According to a local installer, they won't work on 98% of pre-93 openers. He specifically asked our association members to stop recommending aftermarket eyes for this reason.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[hausdok]

Hmmm,

Good information Jim. It doesn't indicate that on this manufacturer's link though. They do indicate where they only work on 95+ doors though. I suppose the garage door guys will know better.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[kurt]

This makes me much more comfortable w/my simple approach; it's new w/safety features that work so it's OK, or it's old, lacks safety features, and is not OK and should be replaced. Why would anyone hesitate to recommend simply replacing a $200 piece of hardware so the family is safe?

And for the record, the Buick Skylark got hammered testing w/ a 2x4; for whatever reason, the little 2x4 dumped the entire door assembly off the track and onto the car. One of the splintered doors was done w/a 2x4 the other (about 15 years ago) was done testing by "hand".

Maybe I shoulda looked harder @ the tracks before testing(?)......

[homnspector]

Jim, you apparently know a lot more than I do about door openers, however, I find it curious that the adjustment is labeled "Down Force" on most openers, Not "reverse sensitivity" or something similar. This indicates to me that the idea is to regulate the force with which the door reverses. What it sounds like you are indicating is that this is NOT a safety feature, so what is the purpose? Is an opener without an electric eye no improvement over an older opener without ANY reverse? Why is it required? Obviously more expensive to produce for no reason other than recovering the cat's body which could be accomplished with another push of the button.

IMO, a simple effective fix would be to require a switch that stops the door 1/2 way down requiring a second push of the button to fully close the door (in addition to the electric eye), but that is probably way too simple.

One issue with the electric eye is that if the sun shines on it when the door is open, the door will not close. I have run into this a few times and it is fairly irritating to the homeowner.

[Phillip Stojanik]

Gee, I think I took part in that discussion on the other forum so I guess I will weigh in here as well.

The 2 by 4 test may be the only one prescribed by law but doing only that test is only doing half the job. The 2 by 4 only tests the travel distance under power to assure that the door will reverse if it encounters a low obstruction.

The other half of the job is testing the amount of force the door exerts when an obstruction is encountered before backing off. As the article pointed out, there is no standard recognized test for that but there is a standard recognized adjustment method in the owners manual of each and every model out there that requires field adjustment.

The model building codes require that the manufacture’s installation instructions be explicitly followed when installing any kind of Listed appliance or device and the manufacturer spells out the proper way to make these adjustments in their installation instruction. There’s the “legalâ€

[Erol]

And for the record, the Buick Skylark got hammered testing w/ a 2x4; for whatever reason, the little 2x4 dumped the entire door assembly off the track and onto the car.

I've also experienced a few door assembly nightmares using the 2x4 test. I read where an inspector uses a roll of paper towels instead. If the door is properly adjusted it will reverse. If not, it is still unlikely that the door will come off the track. That's the theory anyway. Anyone know about this?

[Jim Morrison]

Representatives from the International Door Association (www.doors.org I think) lectured us at ASHI New England a few years back on how to go about testing garage door openers. They pointed out more than once that garage doors are the heaviest moving object in a home, and their safe operation is pretty important -a statement they backed up with some horror stories. They even gave all attendees a free testing object to place under the door when checking the reversal feature. It is a 2x4 with their logo on it.

Click over here to read what they have to say about testing these suckers: http://www.doors.org/AM/Template.cfm?Se ... isplay.cfm

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by homnspector

Jim, you apparently know a lot more than I do about door openers, however, I find it curious that the adjustment is labeled "Down Force" on most openers, Not "reverse sensitivity" or something similar. This indicates to me that the idea is to regulate the force with which the door reverses. What it sounds like you are indicating is that this is NOT a safety feature, so what is the purpose?

Of course it's a safety feature. It's there to prevent you from being pinned under the door. The adjustment is labeled "down force" because it's intended to adjust the amount of force necessary to cause the door to reverse. Seems pretty simple to me. Why is that curious?

Is an opener without an electric eye no improvement over an older opener without ANY reverse? Why is it required?

To prevent entrapment. One can trap you, the other can't. That's an improvement.

Obviously more expensive to produce for no reason other than recovering the cat's body which could be accomplished with another push of the button.

Unless you happen to be the one pinned under there and you can't reach the button.

IMO, a simple effective fix would be to require a switch that stops the door 1/2 way down requiring a second push of the button to fully close the door (in addition to the electric eye), but that is probably way too simple.

I don't see how that would be any safer.

One issue with the electric eye is that if the sun shines on it when the door is open, the door will not close. I have run into this a few times and it is fairly irritating to the homeowner.

It's a rare case when the eyes can't be installed in such a way as to keep them out of the sun. In those cases, you can install a shade on the receiving sensor. A toilet paper tube works just as well.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by hausdok

Hmmm,

Good information Jim. It doesn't indicate that on this manufacturer's link though.

Actually, it does. The name of the product is "Digi-Code Universal Safety Beam Sensor Replacement Kit CR-2149." The description says,"Now you can go out to a job site with one of these universal beams on the truck and feel comfortable that you can solve the beam sensor problems without having to return."

The instructions all describe replacing existing non-working eyes.

None of the instructions says anything about how to hook these up to an opener that doesn't already have provisions for eyes.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[monte]

Jim Morrison web site is right. Like they say “First, test the balance of the door (see "Testing and Maintaining the Garage Door."). If the door is properly balanced, then proceed"

It sounds like everyone does not do Step Number 1.

I have always instructed our Inspectors to check the balance of the overhead door before testing the operator. The 2X4 method works better because the hand method can sometimes unravel the wire on the spool.

The "Down Force Adjustment Screw" is used to counteract the tension on the springs after the balance point, so that the door can be closed.

[Brandon Chew]

Originally posted by Jim Katen

Originally posted by Brandon Chew

. . . To base the reverse mechanism on the force applied, would probably require either fitting the entire door bottom edge with a pressure sensor, or a redesign of the linkage between door and motor so there is very little "slop" in this linkage, and then in some manner measuring the strain being placed on the linkage.

Either of these methods would probably add considerable cost to your door/opener. So you approach the safety problem a different way. Keep the existing opener/door design, and add the photo eyes down by the floor which reverses the door before it could travel low enough to crush or suffocate somebody. Now, any object down by the floor will cause the door to reverse without even needing to touch it.

In one of my past lives, before becoming a home inspector, I designed machines that moved large, heavy objects up, down, sideways and round & round as well as the safety features that accompanied them. If someone hired me to design a safer garage door, the first thing I'd do would be to install a spring-loaded leading edge sensor with several inches of travel. It could be calibrated to respond to ounces of pressure consistantly and would remain consistent regardless of resistance and slop in the rest of the system because it would be entirely independent of the rest of the system. I'll bet that I could design one that you could test with a carton of eggs.

If I decide to make the jump and become a home inspector, I think my procedure would be to first test the reverse with the 2x4 method, and then repeat the test with the hand test (down near the floor, keeping the 2x4 in place to keep fingers from being crushed) in order to feel the pressure. I would report my observations of both tests. I would call the door/opener a defect if it failed the 2x4 test. I would recommend photo eyes as a safety upgrade if they were not present. I might even go so far as to have my client do the hand test and feel the pressure themselves as I explained why having the photo eyes installed would be a good idea.

The only problem with that approach, as many other inspectors have learned, is that the door, motor, or drive system sometimes breaks while you've got your hands under it. Sometimes a door section or a track or motor even falls on your head.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

Hi Jim,

Yep, using pressure measured along the business end of the door for the reverse trigger is probably the best way to do it. But I'll halt this discussion about building a better mousetrap here, so we don't drag this great discussion too far off topic. []

Good point about the door breaking and/or possibly falling. I had that in the back of my mind, which is why I posted that I would do the 2x4 test first. That way I could observe the operation of the door (from a safe distance) through a full cycle without touching it. If it broke while I used an industry standard procedure, and while using normal operator controls, they MIGHT not expect me to pay for fixing it. Having gone through a cycle without mishap on the 2x4 test, I think the odds would be pretty low that it would break doing the hand test. But you raise a good point so I think for safety reasons it would be good practice to always do the hand test while standing on the outside of the door. If the door went through the 2x4 test without mishap but then broke when I did the hand test, I'd probably be offering to pull my check book out, as I'd feel I was responsible for breaking it. [:-ouch]

Brandon

[paul burrell]

I use the kiss method. If my knees buckle when I catch the door with my hands and the door falls off tracks on me I conclude the door is not operating correctly.[:-dunce]

Seriously I have had only one door damaged and that was years ago when I first started inspecting and and did not have enough sense to not hold on to the door long after it would not kick back [:-banghea.

After thousands of inspections later this has not happened again [:-graduat.

I do think it is a good idea to recommend up grading to electronic eyes if they are not present on older homes. But of course the owner will say it was not code when house was built, just like the gas water heater sitting on garage floor was OK way back when.[:-splat].

Just my 2 cents worth,

Paul Burrell

[Jack Ahern]

I was told in a seminar that the 2x4 method is the industry standard(recommended by the manufacturers). Have the RE Agent push the open button-'Kick thru' the electric eye feature of each door. It should reverse-if it does not, get it fixed or replaced.

Test again for the reverse feature with the 2x4.Squish the small part of the 2x4. It should reverse-if it does not, get it fixed or replaced.

If the door sounds like it will self destruct or fall off the building--get it fixed or replaced.

None of this happens if there is a vehicle under the door

This is how we do it in Needham on the Charles and Bridgton,Maine[:-banghea

Jack Ahern Go Pats

[Bradd Judd]

Hausdok,

I nearly got a hard-on reading your article on proper inspection techniques on garage doors. It's so refreshing to hear someone be so discriptive in their technical writing abilities and then back it up with a CFR ....What a bonus!!! Well done sir, and I can't begin to thank you for the manufacturer follow up.

It always hollows me to call a manufacturer(lets say for example this door opener scenario)and hear different parameters set by each, saying "that's what the manufacturer recommends" Well that may be, but I don't have time or the space to run around with the MANUELS for each manufacturer and each model. Your easy to read and understand quick synopsis is appreciated!

Hail the Hausdok, Hail the Hausdok!!!!! Thanks, Brad

[Bob White]

Originally posted by Bradd Judd

Hausdok,

I nearly got a hard ---....

I too love my job, but ----

Bob White

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by Bradd Judd

Hausdok,

I nearly got a hard-on reading your article . . .

Oh great! Now I've got to spend the rest of the day with *that* image in my brain.

Woof.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[Richard Moore]

Here’s a few more direct links to garage door safety information.

http://www.doors.org/AM/Template.cfm?Se ... ENTID=1454

http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/523.html

http://www.dasma.com/safetygdopeners.asp

http://www.dasma.com/safetygdoors.asp

http://www.dasma.com/safetygdguide.asp

http://www.geniecompany.com/GenieCompany.aspx?cid=323

The first is from the International Door Association (IDA) and does advocate a “pressure testâ€

[hausdok]

Thanks to Chad and Monte for reminding me about the balance test.

When Monte mentioned it in a post above, I'd thought to myself, "Gosh Monte, read a little slower next time - you missed that part," but I'd never gone back to re-read what I'd written. When Chad mentioned it too, I went back to re-read the article and that's when I realized that I'd left that part out. I've edited the original post to correct the omission.

The article is actually a refinement of the one that I'd written years ago on the ASHI forum that Terry McCann mentioned. That article comprised the bulk of my notes and I actually had included mention of the balance test there. So, thanks to my proof readers - you guys - and the miracle of computers it was easy to correct.

Chad, you mentioned the height of the emergency release handle and wondered whether it is included in code anywhere. Well, 16CFR1211.13 mandates that an installation manual state that "if possible" the operator be mounted at least 7ft. above the floor of the garage and that the emergency release handle be adjustable to a height of at least 6ft. 16CFR1211.9 mandates an emergency release device and says that the handle must be adjustable to a height of at least 6ft, when the operator is installed in accordance with the installation instructions set forth in 16CFR1211.13, so, since the manual must include a statement that the handle be adjusted to a height of not less than 6ft, this would fall under the 'installed in accordance with the manufacturer's listing and labeling' concept' and the answer is "yes."

There's another interesting requirement involving the emergency release handle and that's the requirement for the handle to disengage with less than 50lbs of force when the door is obstructed. This is one criteria where I guess we're going to have to place our faith in the engineers that designed these devices, because I can't see any practical way for a home inspector to test this without getting into trouble. To do so, one would need to defeat the reversal feature, trap an object under the door at various heights and then test the force needed to disengage the handle. Uh, uh, not me. I'm not touching any force adjustment screw. The last time I did that was in 1998 and it cost me. The door was set just slightly too light and would reopen itself about 50% of the time. I tweaked it a little and checked it. It worked and everyone was happy. Well, we were all walking back into the house from the garage when we heard a hissing sound, turned around and saw smoke coming from the operator. Wanna guess who paid to have that one repaired?

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Richard Moore]

I've got this strange urge to weld a large boiler! []

[Focal Point]

Ok. I will say this, in school they taught us that the 2-4 is the "proper" way of testing the door however my instructor continued on to tell us "but after buying your 10th or 11th garage door you will decide to use your hands". Proper or improper I see it as more of a sefety concern, last time I checked a wood 2-4 is slightly more rigid than your average 2-4 year old. I see it as a matter of safety rather than principal.

If I cant stop it with my hands it's dangerous.

I have never EVER had a client argue with me on this point. well once... until I told him to lay down under the door, if he lived thru it I guess I'll let it go.

Right or wrong I choose common sense.

[hausdok]

Hi Les,

It's interesting that all of these folks are afraid that the 2 by 4 test will damage the door and won't be as safe as the other tests done by holding the bottom of the door because in nearly 10 years of doing this I have never damaged a door by by doing the 2 by 4 test but have damaged a brand new aluminum door by holding the bottom edge at waist height and exerting what was probably less than 15 pounds of back pressure.

For its last few inches of downward travel the operator is nearly perpendicular to that top panel and is pushing it from just out of plumb to the full-plumb position. However, when the door is halfway up, the operator is pushing parallel to the line of travel of the door on that top track.

Try this unscientific experiment. Release your overhead door with the emergency release handle and place it about an inch and a half above the floor. Then push against that top panel and see how easily it goes to the full upright position and travels that last one inch or so. Now push the door up to waist height where folks usually grab the bottom of the door and leave it there. Climb up on your stepladder and push against the top edge of the door and try to close it using only the amount of force that it took to push that top panel from the slightly out-of-plumb position to the full-plumb position. You'll find that you probably won't be able to move the door without applying a whole lot more force.

I think it takes considerably more force to move that door along it's track when portions of it are parallel to the floor than when the door is nearly closed. Force that can probably be measured in pounds rather than the ounces or grams it takes to push that last panel its last inch or so. I believe that if you set the force adjustment with the door at that height, you are calibrating it to need a whole lot more resistance to force it to auto-reverse. I think that calibrating the door with a 2 by 4 means that it will reverse with less back pressure and thus be safer than standing there holding it or checking it above that height.

Like I said, it's an un-scientific test. I've played with one of those doors over and over again and from what I could tell the door is always more sensitive when set with the 2 by 4 than by adjusting it to kick back when standing there and holding the edge. It doesn't make sense that one would be more liable to damage the door with the 2 by 4 test than with the other test and it doesn't make sense - at least to me - that it means that the door will more dangerous.

I'm not the sharpest tack on the bulletin board and could never profess to be any type of engineer (don't have the math skills) so I have to believe that the engineers who worked for the overhead door companies and collaborated with the CPSC and the UL to come up with this test standard know a helluva lot more about the science of this than I do or it wouldn't have been written into the law.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Garcha]

If a child had their arm trapped under a door that wouldn't reverse after my inspection I would feel like crap. 2x4 for me and it just does happen to be about the size of a childs arm. Paranoid? Maybe. Have I ever tested one that worked right? Once or twice. What do I recommend? Get the electric eye auto-reverse installed if you have children or small pets.

That's the real problem, most of the units that don't have the evil eye, are older than the 2x4 rule, and so in most instances this does not apply to the inspection or help my client.

[old Marine]

Very good article, I have never understood why inspectors keep trying to go around doing the correct way when it is just as easy to do it right the first time.