The GB dataset doors are constructed funny.
They are based on the width between the jambs. What is more customary and useful is to use the structural opening (S.O.) as a parametric input. When we schedule the doors, we would include the structural opening dimensions as the primary defintion of the size of the door. Each manufacturer will have a different dimension for the jamb/frame and the door leaf size would be a derived dimension.
I note that there now a lot of datasets. Does anyone know if any of the other datasets has the door paz set up like this? I would like to avoid having to use PCS to re-do the door objects.
Unknown said:The single and double flush door in the GB Dataset are a total joke, changing a dimension value screws up the door big time, single doors all of a sudden loose their metadata, just to name a couple.
Marc
Marc, The leaf size does not coordinate with the Part M width these days, as the regs requires that the ironmongery etc be excluded from the effective width. It is no longer a reliable indication of the effective width for either Part M or B. Using the door leaf to set out the doors is old skool based on the old timber door BS. Part M and other requirements killed the old standard sizes long ago. It is more common these days to define an S.O. and a minimum effective width and leave the sizing of the leaf and frames to the supplier. The contractor will also insist on the S.O. so that he can confirm this to the adjoining trades. This needs to be scheduled reliably. We currently have to back calculate this which is bad enough. But the openings in the wall are also missing the 5-8mm gap that you need to fit the door. This means that anyone who is dimensioning the door/opening pretty much gets it wrong ALL the time. Really needs an update... Regards Dominic