My big A$$ Machine shop (1/16th)

[marc_reusser]

Hate to be nit picky, but since this is such a large scale, and you are building towards a high level of detail,...I have two technical issues with the door.

Maybe it's just the photo, but the bottom rail seems too small, or the side and top rails are too wide....the relative proportions are not what is generally done on panel doors. Usually the bottom rail is from 8-10" in height, while the stiles, and top rail are around 4-4.5"....5 at the most.

The second thing is the grade transition from the interior to the exterior...maybe this is just because the wall has not been set in place yet, but...again typically there was a difference in slab height from interior to exterior. The interior would at minimum be 1/2" higher than the interior to prevent water from running inside. Judging from the type of door handle, and the lack of a stop/rabbett at the frame jamb and head, this door swings out....so raising the slab under the door/interior slab, would help with the under door clearance for the outward swing as well.

Marc

[finescalerr]

This is a very good nitpick from a very good architect. I think all of us may learn something from it. -- Russ

[shropshire lad]

 So what Marc is saying , is chuck the door away and start again . I'm not , because I'm not that mean . The lack of depth on the bottom rail could be explained away by saying that the door was re-used and had to be cut off to fit , not very likely but not impossible . Can't help you with the side rails . The middle rail could be a bit wider as well . On the plus side , the glazing bars look just right !

  To me , 1/2" difference in internal floor height and external ground level doesn't seem enough , water could still easily get under . In Britain , these days it is required that there is at least 6" between damp proof course level , which is usually the same as floor level ,and external ground level .

  However , this isn't really relevant to you as we are only going to see the inside .

  The door doesn't seem to be sitting squarely in the frame .

  The fact that you don't appear to have any doorstop on the frame , at the moment , would suggest that the door opens towards us i.e. inwards . The opposite to what Marc says . However , there will need to be some evidence of hinges for that to be true . 3 number 4" butt hinges should do the trick . Make sure that the bottom hinge is about 9" from the bottom of the door , the top hinge 6" from the top of the door and the middle hinge in the middle . Then you should be good to go .

Oh , and make sure you paint the door . Lots of different layers , some of which are peeling off .

Other than that , it is coming along nicely !

  Nick

[marc_reusser]

The fact that you don't appear to have any doorstop on the frame , at the moment , would suggest that the door opens towards us i.e. inwards . The opposite to what Marc says

Nick, I agree with you on the stop/swing issue......I just thought that the image of the above was looking at it from the outside....hence the door swinging "out"/towards us the viewer. The "C" pull handle alll makes it seem like it swings towards the viewer.

That wide of a door...and probably 1-3/4" or 2-1/4" thick, I would go with/spec 4 hinges if they are butt-hinges.

...and good catch...missed the center rail width should be about 7" (though here in my office I have a back door, with window above,  from 1926, where its 5")

[lab-dad]

I'm glad I gave you chaps something to do!
I have to laugh though as this is nothing permanent at all.
But I do appreciate all the input.
The door was just to get a relative "size" for proportions from what materials I had on hand.
Yes, the stiles are 6" wide.

This being a very large door; 4' wide and 7'6" tall I was curious about material widths.
So on such a large door do either of you think the stiles would have been wider than the usual 4 3/4 - 5"?

Yes the bottom rail needs to be a full 10-12" not the 8" as built.
And I will be doing the diagonal boards on the bottom panel on the real one.
(Like the ones Paul posted)
I have been thinking about the "layers" of paint but not sure how worn out I want to go.
Yes it does look cool to do wood and paint all worn out by the sun and time but this is meant to be an operational and still in use shop, not an abandoned one. So I have to think more on finishes.

All the points made are valid and will/are being addressed.
Just for arguments sake this was a view from the outside, hence "employees only"
I really wanted to just post something so folks would not assume the project was sitting
on a shelf somewhere abandoned. 

Hopefully some useful pictures soon!
Thanks!
-Marty

[Junior]

What a shop both in craftmanship and size!

Anders

[lab-dad]

Thanks Anders!
Unfortunately I have more machines I want than available space.....as usual.

OK
ATTENTION
I hope Marc & Nick answer my previous question about the door stiles.

Now on to the windows;
Dave @ vectorcut has cut some windows for me.
First one (on the left) has .045" mullions (3/4" in scale)
Second one (right) has .080" mullions (1 1/4" in scale)
Windows are 3" by 6" or (4' by 8' in scale)





Here they are with some rough brick scraps for size comparison.


Which looks better? I thought the .045 were too skinny but now feel the .080" are too wide.
In my correspondence with Nick ha said they "were about 1" wide".
I think the thinner looks better.
suggestions comments appreciated.
-marty

[Chuck Doan]

I made my muntins .06 wide (1") and the divider strip about 3/8 wide (not seen if these are inside-looking-out windows only . Maybe .06 will be a compromise that will look right.

[finescalerr]

I prefer thinner. -- Russ

[marc_reusser]

For residential and light industrial I generaly tend to encounter 3/4" muntins on old steel windows, in some cases where the windows are really large (4x8 is not that large)they may have welded on "T" sections or "tube", on the interior, for reinforcing (this is often done on either side of doors in such windows, where they want to carry the "light look" of the 3/4 through, as it not only stiffens the assembly, but allows for mor surface to mount/weld the hinge butts) . I have on occasion seen 1" on residential, but it typically looks a bit off/chunky.

For heavier industry, I have run across 3/4" muntins and 1" as well (have not yet run across 1-1/4")....here I think the choice of muntin size depends on cost, size, location, application, type of window, etc. I have also run across tilt windows, or windows like those that have been discussed here with openable sections, where the muntins are 3/4" throughout, but the perimiter steel (what on wood would be stiles and rails), are heavier....1" to 1-1/4"  (hope I am making sense).


Marc

[lab-dad]

Yes Marc perfect sense.
I am having Dave cut some @ .060" and then decide.

Now, what about the door question?
Mj

[marc_reusser]

Marty,

I wasn't aware of the door size, until you posted, so...4' x 7'-6

That is a tough call, in Residential I have seen this go both ways, typically when the doors became this wide, they also became thicker (on residential, going from your typical 1-3/4 to a thicker 2-1/8 or 2-1/2....Lived in a house that was from 1919, an the door was 4x8, and 3-1/4" thick, solid Mahogony. The stiles and top rail on that were probably around 5.5-6.5", and the bottom rail I am sure was 12"....never measured it (I did almost get my fingers stuck in it a few times)...just from memory.)

......anyhow, I started out wanting to say that as the door got wider (taller only, not as big of an issue as fast) if the rails and stiles would tend to get wider....and if they did not, they would at least get thicker, or inmy last rambling example both. This was because as the door gets wider you typically need the extra wood at the stiles and reals for bettery joinery and structural stability to prevent warping and deformation (rectangle becoming a paralellogram).

......however, on larger doors in industrial buildings this was sometimes mitigated...often later after time had started taking its toll, by the attachment of steel "L" at the corners, on the face of the door.

I do think you have a good bit of leeway with your stile and rail approach, and I cant give you a definitive, because there really isn't one....and even if I wer bold enough to try, I am sure you, or I, or someone else will pull an example off the web contradicting it.  

This is one of those things, where I am sure there would be an example for whatever you do....like Chuck's initial funky eaves .....but I think that we as people in general, andespecially those of us involved in construction and old structures, are used to seeing certain things in a basic format/proportion...and though there are deviations in real life, it is not always best to go with the deviation, as it likely looks "off" in real life, and so will likely do so in the model as well. You would be best served by staying within the same proportions of the more common dimensions; that doesnt mean you can't size the stiles up to 5 or 6 or even 7.5, all it means is that you should then size the bottom and intermediate rails up proportionately. Also a good rule of thumb, which I know you know, is to always take into account what the typical milled lumber sizes were.  This is typical for shop built and lower cost manufactured products. You may find something a bit narrower than a common size, because it had to be planed or had a detail routed out of it...but again, just rule of thumb.

Since you will be doing diagonal strips at the panel, its not a big deal, otherwise, one other thing I might look at on this door is dividing that bottom panel into two...either vertically or horizontally, with an intermediate stile or rail, ....not only for structural reasons,..... but I don't see where, during this time period, a place like this would have had/used a piece of plywood for this, or wasted a 3' wide, clear grain board....or perfectly glued up and planed, 3-4 smaller boards to create that panel.

....sorry to ramble...and now getting off my soap box.

[lab-dad]

Hopefully this looks better.
I like it. Looks like the one Paul posted (which was what I was always planning to do)
and I really like the diagonal bottom panels



After being "called to task" I figured i better make a proper door instead of my tester.
I still need to work out the door glazing as my lazer dude is hard at work on my windows.
So the temporary one will have to do for now.
I went ahead with 6" stiles.
Top rail is 6", middle is 8" and bottom is a full 12" in case I need to plane a little for a good fit.
Ultimately the door will be 2 7/8" (scale) thick when complete.

Still not what should be done at the top, I have seen dozens of different examples on the web.
Comments on the door lintel / header welcome. Pictures really appreciated!

I went ahead and built the jams & sill.
Here I am planning the rabbit into the sill.
Note the rabbits for the sides into the sill, I should do the top too.



Now in case anyone was wondering about the floor height issue I will explain my construction process;
The plywood sub wall is sitting in a 3/8" groove.
This allows the wall to be free standing while I am building & thinking.
Once I attach the bricks to the plywood I can then remove the outside edge of the lip.
This gives me 6 (scale) inches above the "ground"
Then after i plank the floor i will gain another two inches.
Hopefully this is enough to keep the water out when it rains inside my house.
I will do the same things to the end walls.....eventually.......

Thanks for checking in!
-Marty

[marc_reusser]

Nice work in the door. Now it looks like a real door.

Also nice work on the rabbeted jamb. ...I know you are probably getting tired of hearing from me, but two things on the jambs and sill. I have to my recollection not seen jambs that come flush with the face of the exterior brick wall face. Generally they are back about 3" (or more depending on OA wall thickness) The jambs if thick timber/lumber then are either partially rabbeted int the brick, or surface mounted and bolt anchored (bolt holes hiddden and plugged in Jamb face)......or if thinner 1x or 1.5x material is used, there is often a nailer stud/post slightly rabbeted into the brick, or again surface bolted, onto which the jamb is then nailed. These gaps and assembly are then covered by some flat trim or slightly shaped trim (generally referred to as "brick moulding").  

....and I have not seen many rabbeted sills.

Overall your Jamb and sill appear too deep. Sills and Jambs are generally around 5.5" to 8" or so in overall depth, the problem with deep sills is that they do get a lot of wear, and become an "un-natural" distance to step across (as is most human nature). Lastly...sills tend to be thicker than jambs...for obvious reasons, and the tend to be sloped at about 5-degrees. On older homes/structures, the whole sill was typically sloped.  This allowed for use of thicker/same thickness lumber across their breadth, whereas today they use shitty thin wood with a slope cut into it)...lastlly most sills had/have "sill horns" , and project past the face of the jamb and anytrim/brick-mold by 1"-1.5".

Guess I found my soap box again........

[shropshire lad]

Marc ,

  You should read through what you are posting because some of your typos make it difficult to work out what you are saying .

Marty ,

   Is this the final position of the door in relation to the frame ? Is it going to open inwards or out ? If it opens in then the door should be on the inner side of the frame so that the hinges can work properly .

   As Marc says the frame is too wide . If I were to make in 1:1 scale I would make the frame about 4"x3" and the cill about 21/2" deep . I would also have the frame nearer the outside face of the wall . Maybe 2" back from the face . This will mean that the door won't be able to open more than 90 degrees , but as it is so wide that should not be an issue .

  Normally the cill would over hang the brickwork by 1" -1 1/2" with a drip underneath so that any rain water that hits it doesn't track back under the cill . Some times the cills are made of brick , possibly stone or wood . If I can find a picture or diagram I'll post it . However , this shouldn't be relevant to you as we are only seeing the inside of your building .

  I wouldn't have it opening outwards .

If the frame is made of softwood it is usual to make the sill out of hardwood . For obvious reasons .

The frame as you have it now is not really a frame but more like a " door lining" where the woodwork is the same width as the wall itself . This is usually done on internal walls where both sides are plastered . Usually flush with the lining ,and the resulting joint covered over with some sort of moulding , usually an architrave . So this will not suit your wall as it will be PAINTED brickwork !

I have already suggested how you can do the lintel above without resorting to a brick arch . Your call really .

  Phew , you would think that there could be so much discussion about a door and its frame .


Nick