Hello everyone,
We are building a house, and the floor plan includes only floor-to-ceiling windows, basically just patio doors. This applies to all rooms, both on the ground floor, the upper floor, and also in the living room.
They are made of uPVC, triple-glazed, and specified in the structural drawings with dimensions of 112.5 cm width by 252 cm height (44.3 inches by 99.2 inches). When you account for the floor build-up, the doors are still 112.5 cm by 251 cm (44.3 inches by 98.8 inches).
So these are really large doors that will be used constantly. Standing open for long periods, left in a tilted position, and so on...
Here are our concerns:
Such large doors must be quite heavy. Will they withstand continuous, heavy use over several decades? Or would it be better to go back to 100 cm width (39.4 inches)?
Has anyone here had experience with this type of door and long-term usage?
Manufacturers even offer widths up to 120 cm (47.2 inches), but their quality claims are often too optimistic, aren’t they?
We would really appreciate your help and experiences.
Thank you,
Christian
We are building a house, and the floor plan includes only floor-to-ceiling windows, basically just patio doors. This applies to all rooms, both on the ground floor, the upper floor, and also in the living room.
They are made of uPVC, triple-glazed, and specified in the structural drawings with dimensions of 112.5 cm width by 252 cm height (44.3 inches by 99.2 inches). When you account for the floor build-up, the doors are still 112.5 cm by 251 cm (44.3 inches by 98.8 inches).
So these are really large doors that will be used constantly. Standing open for long periods, left in a tilted position, and so on...
Here are our concerns:
Such large doors must be quite heavy. Will they withstand continuous, heavy use over several decades? Or would it be better to go back to 100 cm width (39.4 inches)?
Has anyone here had experience with this type of door and long-term usage?
Manufacturers even offer widths up to 120 cm (47.2 inches), but their quality claims are often too optimistic, aren’t they?
We would really appreciate your help and experiences.
Thank you,
Christian
C
Christian NW1 Nov 2017 14:38C
Christian NW1 Nov 2017 14:41The living room faces east-southeast and is not visible from outside.
I hope this helps you assist me better...
I hope this helps you assist me better...
Well, I’d say the overall look is consistent. I still think the widths are fine as they are. However, the patio door on the seating area side could also be made as a fixed element. An alternative layout would be to place the sliding door—then with a different sliding direction and changed to 323 cm (128 inches) wide—on the dining area side, and have the two narrower elements follow on the seating area side (also with one fixed).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
We have a wall opening of approximately 2.50 m (8 feet 2 inches) in width.
We now have a fixed section and a door.
We told the window manufacturer to make the door as wide as structurally possible due to the triple glazing.
The door, including the frame, ended up being just under 1.2 m (3 feet 11 inches) wide.
The fixed section also has a profile frame so that it visually matches the door.
We now have a fixed section and a door.
We told the window manufacturer to make the door as wide as structurally possible due to the triple glazing.
The door, including the frame, ended up being just under 1.2 m (3 feet 11 inches) wide.
The fixed section also has a profile frame so that it visually matches the door.
Kaspatoo schrieb:
We have a wall opening of about 2.50 m (8 ft 2 in) wide. [...] The door with the frame ended up just under 1.2 m (3 ft 11 in). Am I understanding correctly that the door ended up just under a 50/50 width split? Doesn’t that look a bit strange?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics