• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

10" Flush Door Bottom

nitramnaed

nitramnaed

Sawhorse
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
182
Location
L'Etolle du Nord
Hello,
I am working on a 62 unit apartment building in Iowa. The GC has come back to me claiming that his door supplier says that the apartment unit paneled main doors don't need to have the 10" smooth surface at the bottom panel as all the other paneled doors in the apartment don't have that either. We have accessibility units that do have the 10" panel. Is he correct?
Of course he claims to have done dozens of projects without the 10", which is probably true.
Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks, Jeff
 
man knows not of what he speaks. The push side of all entry doors must have 10" kicks. Those and any others required for access.
 
I concur with ADAguy. Go to ANSI A117 Chapter 10 for Accessible, Type A and Type B Dwelling Units. In the door section it sends you to Section 404 for ALL entry doors, Section 404.2.9 (2009 ANSI) requires the 10" "kick".
 
Yes, our type "A" units do meet the requirements for entry doors. My question is about the other units that do not have the accessible features. I can't find anything in the code that either requires or exempts these units.
 
nitramnaed said:
Yes, our type "A" units do meet the requirements for entry doors. My question is about the other units that do not have the accessible features. I can't find anything in the code that either requires or exempts these units.
Click to expand...
Per khsmith55's response, see Section 1004.5.1 in ANSI A117.1. This is the section for primary entrance doors to Type B units. It requires compliance with Section 404, which, in turn, requires the 10-inch smooth surface at the bottom in Section 404.2.9.
 
RLGA said:
Per khsmith55's response, see Section 1004.5.1 in ANSI A117.1. This is the section for primary entrance doors to Type B units. It requires compliance with Section 404, which, in turn, requires the 10-inch smooth surface at the bottom in Section 404.2.9.
Click to expand...
Hi Ron,
I guess my main question is if it is required on the standard apartment units that are not Type "A" or "B"?

Thanks, Jeff
 
Correct. I'm not the housing guy in our office so I got confused over the "A" and "B" classifications. The contractor has the owners ear on this and I need to have the ability to point out were the code actually requires this on all entry doors. "We've never done this before" attitude from the contractor is getting everyone uptight.

Thanks for your help.
 
nitramnaed said:
"We've never done this before" attitude from the contractor is getting everyone uptight.

Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...
I have been an inspector long enough to legitimately state that I've heard that a thousand times. The uptight person is always the contractor. When I heard it yesterday it was screamed at his phone. Along with that was, "Have you ever inspected solar before?" To which I replied, "Nope, this is the first one."

The guy went off the rails with the first correction so I emailed the other thirteen. I do like virtual inspections.

Years ago there was a contractor that kept repeating, " No inspector has ever written that correction before." The problem was a water recirculating pump that was a part of a solar water heater. The pump was installed outdoors with a sheet metal cover like we see over water heaters. It stated on the pump label that it was for indoor use only.

After hearing for the tenth time that no inspector has challenged this: I said, "You can keep complimenting me but the correction will not go away." Some days later I heard from the top person in my department. He said that the tin cover renders the pump indoors. He also said that I get plenty of compliments from contractors. That was not a compliment.
 
Last edited:
I am an architect with a new client that has done lots of design-build multifamily before me. I regularly get emails saying "we've never had to do X on our other apartments before". I diplomatically preface my replies with, "Well, it's possible I am wrong; and it's also possible that you've been doing it wrong. Let's look at the code together to resolve this, and if you find it says something different than what you've been used to doing, you are free to ask your other architects from previous projects if they had obtained alternate means of complying with code, or if they know something I don't."
 
Yikes said:
I diplomatically preface my replies with, "Well, it's possible I am wrong; and it's also possible that you've been doing it wrong. Let's look at the code together
Click to expand...
Diplomacy has a place....last place. I start arguments and let someone else carry them through. Even a hint that I could be wrong sets them on a fruitless journey. That’s not to say that I’m never wrong but the usual violation that they want to argue about is a slam dunk. My reply is more like “go pound sand.” That’s not the wording but it is the gist.

When I suspect that I might not be right I research the issue. I have brought that to this forum. Sometimes I ask a question and with some I just post a picture to see what shakes out. As soon as I know that I am wrong I tell them. I do that even when I am sure that the correction has already been dealt with.

I week into my career I wrote a correction for an emergency drain pan under a coil in an attic. The contractor was not there. The coil had two condensate drains and I had never seen more than one. So curious about that, I asked another inspector and found out that a secondary drain negates the need for the emergency pan.

It was about six hours after I wrote the correction when I called the contractor. I told him that I was wrong. He said that he knew that and he had already installed the smitty pan. I asked him why he didn’t straighten me out. He said that he didn’t want to take a chance of pissing me off.

It is worth stating that there is almost always a smitty pan.
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
Diplomacy has a place....last place. I start arguments and let someone else carry them through. Even a hint that I could be wrong sets them on a fruitless journey. That’s not to say that I’m never wrong but the usual violation that they want to argue about is a slam dunk. My reply is more like “go pound sand.” That’s not the wording but it is the gist.

When I suspect that I might not be right I research the issue. I have brought that to this forum. Sometimes I ask a question and with some I just post a picture to see what shakes out. As soon as I know that I am wrong I tell them. I do that even when I am sure that the correction has already been dealt with.
Click to expand...
ICE, as a building official, I can understand why you would not want to preface any statement with "I might be wrong".
But as an architect, when the contractor has already told the owner "the architect has gold-plated the project with something that isn't required by code", and I know I'm right, I can still afford to be more humble, to make it easier for the contractor to eat crow later and keep things collegial.

FYI, when the contractor and I know that the building inspector is wrong, 80% of the time the inspector has just made a verbal comment, without a code reference. I tell the contractor not to challenge the inspector directly, but to blame me instead, like this:
"The architect has to justify the change order to the owner in order to pay for the fix, so he's asking you to provide a formal correction notice with a code citation". the problem usually disappears after that. If the inspector does provide a correction with code citation, and (for example) he's not aware that we've utilized a prescriptive exception, I can diplomatically email and tell him how we currently comply with code.

I never tell anybody to pound sand (unless the code issue is compaction, LOL), and I never just "go political" with a city manager or councilperson. If I can't defend my design via code, it's a failure on my part.

Lastly, I once had a project where it worked the other way: the contractor told the structural engineer that he might have undersized the window headers on a project in Lake Tahoe. The structural engineer arrogantly told him to "pound sand, you're just a framer, what do you know?".
The contractor reached out to me on the side. I have a built-in respect for people who work in the field and have an intuitive "spidey sense" about materials. reviewed the plans, found the engineer had only checked the headers for bending moment, not shear, in an area with massive snow loads. I called the engineer's boss, and the engineer was fired that week.
 
We have here a failure to convey to the owner/builder that "both" code and FHA/HUD apply to multifamily, not all are in alignment. Show him a few DOJ cases against developers and maybe then they will get the message.
 
You must be one of the good ones Yikes....I have had designers (one case in particular) where they charged an extra to the owner for fully insulating the floor instead of installing concealed space sprinklers to the tune of $300,000 because it was missed on design...
 
Yikes said:
ICE, as a building official, I can understand why you would not want to preface any statement with "I might be wrong".
But as an architect, when the contractor has already told the owner "the architect has gold-plated the project with something that isn't required by code", and I know I'm right, I can still afford to be more humble, to make it easier for the contractor to eat crow later and keep things collegial.

FYI, when the contractor and I know that the building inspector is wrong, 80% of the time the inspector has just made a verbal comment, without a code reference. I tell the contractor not to challenge the inspector directly, but to blame me instead, like this:
"The architect has to justify the change order to the owner in order to pay for the fix, so he's asking you to provide a formal correction notice with a code citation". the problem usually disappears after that. If the inspector does provide a correction with code citation, and (for example) he's not aware that we've utilized a prescriptive exception, I can diplomatically email and tell him how we currently comply with code.

I never tell anybody to pound sand (unless the code issue is compaction, LOL), and I never just "go political" with a city manager or councilperson. If I can't defend my design via code, it's a failure on my part.

Lastly, I once had a project where it worked the other way: the contractor told the structural engineer that he might have undersized the window headers on a project in Lake Tahoe. The structural engineer arrogantly told him to "pound sand, you're just a framer, what do you know?".
The contractor reached out to me on the side. I have a built-in respect for people who work in the field and have an intuitive "spidey sense" about materials. reviewed the plans, found the engineer had only checked the headers for bending moment, not shear, in an area with massive snow loads. I called the engineer's boss, and the engineer was fired that week.
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary, as a building official I preface statements with "I might be wrong" all the time. I tell the contractor that I am not certain, but what I think they need to do, but I have to go back to the office and double check. Most of the time, they volunteer to do it anyway because it sounds like a good idea to do. Either way I still double check at the office. On the occasion that I am wrong and the contractor went ahead and did it anyway, it was their choice to proceed, so there is no issue with me making them do something, and I've even had some continue doing it above code because they like the end result better.
 
At the other end of the spectrum: I have a friend who was hired years ago as a building inspector. He was previously a licensed contractor, but frankly was not yet up-to-speed on all aspects of the building code. He was, however, a great judge of human nature and the mentality of other contractors.
So for his first few weeks on inspections, if he wasn't sure about a particular issue - - for example, a beam-to-column connection - - he would just stare at the connection long enough until the contractor blurted out a self-confession as to what was wrong with it.
 
Yikes said:
At the other end of the spectrum: I have a friend who was hired years ago as a building inspector. He was previously a licensed contractor, but frankly was not yet up-to-speed on all aspects of the building code. He was, however, a great judge of human nature and the mentality of other contractors.
So for his first few weeks on inspections, if he wasn't sure about a particular issue - - for example, a beam-to-column connection - - he would just stare at the connection long enough until the contractor blurted out a self-confession as to what was wrong with it.
Click to expand...
Only problem with that is most of the time the contractor doesn't know either or isn't present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top