Did our brickie do it wrong?

[wakey77]

if it is being used as a disabled access and there is going to be a ramp in place you,d need a double damp too.

 

[fishcake]

I was taught that if a building has a solid floor, then the dpc should be level with this and the dpm brought up and tucked under the dpc.

The recent part M introduction has muddied the waters somewhat, but that can be catered for by fitting low thresholds, so why bother dropping the door a course?

Timber floors have a different arrangement.

 

[fishcake]

Looks like we posted at the same time and are broadly in agreement.

 

[wakey77]

Looks like we posted at the same time and are broadly in agreement.

Common sense provails.

 

[noseall]

Looks like we posted at the same time and are broadly in agreement.

Looks like we posted at the same time and are broadly in agreement.

Common sense provails.

So, tweedle dee and tweedle dum give absolutely no reason why a frame can not be lowered below dpc.

Zero.

Nada.

Zilch.

As long as the door can clear the floor and floor finishes there is no reason why a door frame can not be lower than the dpc. Try harder boys.

 

[fishcake]

Looks like we posted at the same time and are broadly in agreement.

Looks like we posted at the same time and are broadly in agreement.

Common sense provails.

So, tweedle dee and tweedle dum give absolutely no reason why a frame can not be lowered below dpc.

Zero.

Nada.

Zilch.

As long as the door can clear the floor and floor finishes there is no reason why a door frame can not be lower than the dpc. Try harder boys.

Try harder why?

You can fit doorframes as you see fit. I never said you couldn't, just that i can't see the point, especially if the ground clearance is only 150mm to start with as most buildings are.

The original post asked if their bricky had made a mistake and i think not. You may think differently and that is your prerogative, but you haven't given the original poster the benefit of your vast knowledge, which is the point of the forum isn't it?

I suspect that's not as much "fun" though.

 

[limerockconstruction]

The purpose of the 150 splash barrier is to stop the masonry above the DPC getting saturated. If you lower the door by a course (or thereabouts) you are not infringing on the splash barrier, therefore its not a bad idea. If the moisture splashes on to the door at greater heights than the cill it will not penetrate the door so not an issue with damp course.

In answer to the question has the bricky done it wrong, it depends on the drawings and what he was asked to do. I've seen it done all ways. Some times to match in with existing etc.

I'm with noseall, i'd lower it and reduce the size of threshold to hike over!

 

[wakey77]

it's a totally pointless exercise to drop the door below dpc when there are much better ways of creating a level access.
unless of coarse you boys are using miss measures or have cocked up on your Iintel height.
either way what your suggesting is idiotic.
try doing it the proper way next time you'll find it much easier.

 

[noseall]

it's a totally pointless exercise to drop the door below dpc when there are much better ways of creating a level access.
unless of coarse you boys are using miss measures or have cocked up on your Iintel height.
either way what your suggesting is idiotic.
try doing it the proper way next time you'll find it much easier.

So, you provide no reasons whatsoever.

it's a totally pointless exercise to drop the door below dpc when there are much better ways of creating a level access.

Who said it was anything to do with access? What "better" ways are these then and how are they better?

unless of coarse you boys are using miss measures or have cocked up on your Iintel height.

Lintel height (2.1m) can stay exactly the same.

try doing it the proper way next time you'll find it much easier.

Much easier than what exactly? Easier than not laying four or five bricks and fitting a deeper frame?

 

[limerockconstruction]

it's a totally pointless exercise to drop the door below dpc when there are much better ways of creating a level access.
unless of coarse you boys are using miss measures or have cocked up on your Iintel height.
either way what your suggesting is idiotic.
try doing it the proper way next time you'll find it much easier.

Mate, your missing the point, and in the first instance there's no need to call people idiotic for having a difference of opinion to you.

The chap didn't say he wanted a level access, just that he didn't want a massive threshold.

If you've been around the building game long enough you'll already know that there are many ways of doing many things. This is one of them. And what Noseall suggests and I and many others concur with is totally acceptable.