This invention relates to overhead doors, and more particularly, to impact resistant window assemblies installed in the overhead doors.
Garage or overhead doors typically include a number of hingedly connected panels that are moved from a vertical position to a horizontal overhead position over tracks. Window assemblies are typically positioned on the uppermost panels. They are designed to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the door while permitting daylight to pass through the door.
Because such doors present such a large surface area, usually to cover the single biggest opening on the house or building, the survival of such a door in a hurricane or storm is very important to the survival of the house. Experience has shown in older houses that when garage doors fail in hurricane winds a lot of additional damage follows. Older garage doors and new ones that are not properly constructed are highly susceptible to wind damage, including buckling, twisting off the tracks, total collapse, and failure due to impact from windborne debris. Commonly, garage door windows may be the portion of the door that is most susceptible to wind or storm damage.
When evaluating a door relative to such issues, there are two primary considerations. One is to be sure the door is rated for the correct wind pressure for the design wind speed of the area in which it is located. The other is to select a door that is also debris rated.
Efforts have been made for some years to improve the structural strength of elements of buildings, including the overhead garage doors, particularly in coastal areas and most particularly in the state of Florida after unexpectedly heavy damage was caused by recent hurricanes. Standards were developed for determining the merits of structures for withstanding damage in storms characterized by high winds, such as hurricanes and tornadoes. In such storms, strong winds entrain debris that may strike structures such as overhead garage doors and windows with considerable force.
An impact from fast moving debris can cause a structure such as a window or door to fail. Failure of a window or door potentially weakens the structure as a whole, and at least increases the likelihood of further damage by permitting wind, rain and possibly additional debris to enter the building. Conventional window glass is readily frangible (i.e., not tempered or laminated safety glass). Thus breaking the glass may leave an unobstructed opening.
The Florida Building Code (FBC-2010) requires houses in Miami-Dade or Broward Counties to be pressure and debris impact rated. Other areas of that state that are part of the windborne debris region defined in the Florida Building Code mandate that the garage door has to be pressure rated and the windows on the garage door have to be pressure and debris impact rated.
The specific standards applicable in South Florida and other jurisdictions are different in different counties, but typically divide a building into zones of different elevation. At low elevation up to 10 m of building elevation, relatively large wind-borne debris might be expected, such as trashcans, lawn furniture, tree limbs, fencing and building elements.
An exemplary standard for the “large missile zone,” or low elevation zone, is found in the Florida Building Code TAS 201-94 Impact Test Procedures (2010) as well as Department of Energy (DOE) Standard 1020. This standard requires a door or window to survive test firing of a framing stud or a 2×4 lumber missile endwise at the test specimen, at a missile speed of 15 m/s (50 ft/sec or 35 mph). The criterion for a successful test under the FBC is that the test specimen rejects such a missile without any penetration. After the large missile impact tests, which may fracture the glass as discussed above, the test specimens are subjected to an extended series of many positive and negative wind pressure cycles. Similarly, ASTM Standard Specification E1996-12a and ANSI/DASMA 115 set forth a large missile level D in Table 2 of a 2×4 lumber at 50 feet/second. This is believed to have 350 ft-lb of energy for such an impact.
Door and window structures that can routinely survive such tests are available. Some are characterized by a transparent or translucent pane that is inherently strong enough to survive an impact and is mounted rigidly in a door, wall or other structurally sound panel via a rigid mounting structure that likewise can survive the impact. Other windows are laminates of materials and may have layers of glass and flexible plastic, metal or fibrous mesh reinforcement, etc.
The door light, glazing or window pane may be made very durable in and of itself, and/or the pane can be mounted in a manner intended to absorb impact stress. Even assuming the breakage of a frangible glass portion of the door light or window, the envelope that is defined by the window can be designed to remain intact. However, many such impact restraint overhead doors and associated windows are costly, unsightly, aesthetically unpleasing and difficult to install and/or assemble.
What is needed is an impact-resistant window structure for an overhead door, including the ability to survive impact, but also including unit cost, replacement cost, ease of installation, and attractiveness. The mounting for the window should provide a rigidly durable structural engagement for panes of glass or other glazing materials in the overhead door and also the resilient yet durable impact absorbing and resisting capabilities required by applicable building codes.
These and other objectives of this invention have been attained by various embodiments according to this invention. In one embodiment, the invention is a combination of first and second overhead door panels each adapted to be used in first and second overhead doors, respectively, and each being capable of selective movement between a generally horizontal open position and a generally vertical closed position covering first and second openings. A number of the first overhead door panels are serially connected together for pivotal movement relative to each other along a first track assembly mounted proximate the first opening. Likewise, a number of the second overhead door panels are serially connected together for pivotal movement relative to each other along a second track assembly mounted proximate the second opening.
Each of the first and second panels includes a window, but the first and second panels are of different thicknesses according to embodiments of this invention. For example, the first panel may be a fully insulated sandwich door panel construction with a layer of insulation positioned between front and back skins of the panel and the second panel may be a pan door construction with only a front skin.
The invention in various embodiments includes a pair of window frame sub-assemblies each substantially interchangeable with one another. Each window frame sub-assembly may include a front frame to be installed in either the first or second panel window opening. Glazing elements are mounted within each of the front frames and one or more fasteners secure the glazing element to the front frame. In various embodiments, the window frame sub-assemblies advantageously satisfy the Florida Building Code debris impact criteria.
First and second back frames may be juxtaposed to the first and second back face, respectively of the different overhead door panels, and coupled to one of the window frame sub-assemblies to thereby provide a window in the respective first or second overhead door panels. Advantageous features of this invention include the window frame sub-assemblies being interchangeable in a variety of overhead door panel designs irrespective of the thickness or construction of the door panel being a pan or fully insulated sandwich door construction. The glazing element is held entirely by the front frame without the need for a structural back frame. Impact resistance is provided by the window assembly without a structural back frame thereby reducing cost and simplifying stocking. Moreover, the window frame sub-assemblies provide these and other advantages in a robust and impact resistant design to satisfy local building code requirements for wind, hurricane and storm prone regions.
The above-mentioned and other features and advantages of this invention, and the manner of attaining them, will become more apparent and the invention itself will be better understood by reference to the following description of embodiments of the invention taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein:
Referring to
The adjacent panels 14 are pivotally connected together by a number of hinge assemblies 16. The hinges 16 proximate the lateral side ends of each panel 14 include a roller assembly 18 for coupling the door 10 to a track assembly 20. The track assembly 20 guides the door 10 during movement to and between the open and closed positions. The opening and closing of the door 10 may be assisted by a counterbalance system 22 coupled to the door 10 as is well known in the art. The door construction shown and described herein thus far is exemplary only and a number of variations of such a door are well within the scope of this invention.
Referring particularly to
One of the panels 14a includes window openings extending through the panel 14a. A window or glazing element 34 occupies each window opening to provide aesthetic appeal and to close off the opening 32. Each window glazing element 34 has a front face 34a, a back face 34c and an edge 34b joining the faces 34a, 34c. The glazing element 34 is mounted to the panel 14a by a front frame 36 that abuts the front skin 24 and extends around the perimeter of the associated window opening 32. A corresponding retainer 38a, 38b (
In various embodiments of this invention, the front frame members 36a, 36b, 36c, 36d are assembled into a unitary front frame 36 with one or more corner connectors 50 as shown particularly in
Referring particularly to
A bead of adhesive 74 or the like may be inserted between the front skin 24 and an outwardly projecting lip 76 of the front frame 36 as shown particularly in
One additional advantage of the various embodiments of this invention is that the window frame sub-assembly 66 is sufficiently robust to provide impact resistance and pass the required building code tests for air-borne debris impacts. The window frame sub-assembly 66 meets and exceeds the FBC and other requirements, is aesthetically appealing and minimizes inventory and installation burdens associated with past designs.
From the above disclosure of the general principles of this invention and the preceding detailed description of at least one embodiment, those skilled in the art will readily comprehend the various modifications to which this invention is susceptible. Therefore, I desire to be limited only by the scope of the following claims and equivalents thereof.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2134397 | Clark | Oct 1938 | A |
2242499 | Ainsworth | May 1941 | A |
2575255 | Blodgett | Nov 1951 | A |
2637384 | McCabe | May 1953 | A |
3533190 | Hilfinger et al. | Oct 1970 | A |
3760543 | McAllister | Sep 1973 | A |
3903669 | Pease, Jr. et al. | Sep 1975 | A |
3969857 | Stark | Jul 1976 | A |
4021967 | Mulder et al. | May 1977 | A |
4069641 | DeZutter | Jan 1978 | A |
4241556 | Bursk | Dec 1980 | A |
4246731 | Miro | Jan 1981 | A |
4351137 | Enyart et al. | Sep 1982 | A |
4430836 | McKann | Feb 1984 | A |
4525961 | Hansen | Jul 1985 | A |
4550542 | La See | Nov 1985 | A |
4567931 | Wentzel | Feb 1986 | A |
4612743 | Salzer | Sep 1986 | A |
4787184 | Boidron | Nov 1988 | A |
4914888 | Hanson | Apr 1990 | A |
4920718 | Artwick et al. | May 1990 | A |
4947606 | La See | Aug 1990 | A |
4989381 | De Block et al. | Feb 1991 | A |
4996814 | Guillemet | Mar 1991 | A |
5123211 | Schlicht et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5133168 | Neilly et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5249403 | Neilly et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5323579 | Ruff | Jun 1994 | A |
5339584 | Ohtake et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5547720 | Rittler | Aug 1996 | A |
5560149 | Lafevre | Oct 1996 | A |
5577355 | Leonelli | Nov 1996 | A |
5636484 | DeBlock | Jun 1997 | A |
5644874 | McKann | Jul 1997 | A |
5644881 | Neilly | Jul 1997 | A |
5735089 | Smith et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5749184 | McKann | May 1998 | A |
5765325 | DeBlock | Jun 1998 | A |
5809707 | Bargados et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5894706 | Herbst | Apr 1999 | A |
6131345 | Pelusio | Oct 2000 | A |
6318037 | Hansen | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6321495 | Oami | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6546682 | DeBlock et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6564517 | Hanssen | May 2003 | B1 |
6637164 | Kondo et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6715245 | Lewkowitz | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6837011 | Berger, Jr. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
7954285 | Taylor et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
20030221803 | Forsland | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040016189 | Berger | Jan 2004 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2539363 | Mar 1976 | DE |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140262072 A1 | Sep 2014 | US |