Wood door core performance

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Bruce Maine (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 08:16 pm:    I have a contractor insisting that stave core wood doors (for a LEED FSC credit), have problems with veneer adhesion. He wants to substitute an agrifiber core. I've spec'd stave core on numerous occassions (both LEED and non-LEED), with no issues. Any one else had problems? William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 771 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 09:43 pm:    totally bogus. Originally the stave and lumber core was the premium core and recommended for use in the highest quality of transparent finished flush wood doors. Then because they were more expensive, they started pushing harder for the fully glued (to the edging) particle core (as opposed to the slip in unglued core). I used to talk to the door manufacturers and reps and be told I was doing it 100% correct that way. Then I started getting stung by the same top line wood door manufacturers' bidding to contractors that there was less chance of telegraphing of the core on a particle core door. I took some people to task about that leaving me asking for something based on their advice and then being undercut by them in what they told the contractors. Actually, there was no difference in the telegraphing from the major door manufacturers, and even the minor ones - they all had the exact same warranty for the same duration, no telegraphing. Whatever. I feel that here you are beginning to get something similar. They can get the agrifiber core at something less than the stave core you spec. Anyone having veneer adhesion problems with stave or particle core where an agrifiber core is supposedly better is likely having an internal issue in that they don't make the traditional door and just want to 'get in the door' so to speak. William John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 993 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 - 08:48 am:    I would use structural composite lumber core rather than stave core if I needed that level of durability. I almost always specify PC, though. I have seen telegraphing of individual staves through the veneer, though I don't know who manufactured it. I can't see what stave would have over SCL. Maybe your contractor would provide SCL. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 14 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 - 09:40 am:    I have not heard that about veneer adhesion either. I think you're getting good advice from both William and John. I would be concerned that some agrifiber cores are low-density and not suitable for the rigors of a commercial door application. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 772 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 - 10:18 am:    John, Yes, I have specified only particle core since the sometime around 1985 or so for all flush transparent finished veneer doors. Before that, it was either stave or lumber core. It was sometime in the early 80s when the wood door industry really perfected the particle core door. Before then, you got possibility of telegraphing of the horizontal and vertical edges and any of the blocking that has to go into particle core for hardware anchorages/reinforcing. At that time, the warranties for all 3 types, lumber, stave and particle cores, read that for the life of the warranty (lifetime being an option on all 3) that there would be no telegraphing. That was from the Eggers, Algoma and a few other major manufacturers. At that point, I asked those 2, so why should I ever spec a stave or lumber core? Answers were and still are somewhat muddy. Durability, life of the product, heavier duty in favor of lumber and stave core over particle. But I respond, the warranty is identical for all 3 core types so, why not buy the less expensive? To which the reply was always, 'yes, well, there is that' as the answer. In the early 90s I served on the board of AWI and I got the opportunity to have this discussion with numerous high end woodworkers as well as the door manufacturer members. It was always the same. Based on their own preferences they would recommend a lumber or stave core for the best durability, and still state that a particle core could be used with no problem. It sure would be interesting to get the internal point of view of the history of this from the wood door industry. I have no qualms with any of it, its just that it makes no sense when I follow a recommendation for lumber or stave and then get my knuckles rapped by contractors referencing the same people who said go with that telling the contractors its just an additional expense. William J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 302 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 - 12:15 pm:    I have seen lumber stave core doors with telegraphing problems on older projects (the one I am thinking of is at least 30 years old). The problem was always made worse by the semi-gloss or gloss paint on the door. I have never seen this problem on newer installations and could not imagine having it on plam faced doors. I have had discussions over the years with a number of manufacturers about various "premium" vs. "standard" products. It is always interesting that they will back up standard products with the same warranty as the premium product. Where there is no difference in appearance, why go to the premium product? In this case, there can be a difference. Particle board cores simply will not have the same screw-holding capability over the long haul as wood stave or structural wood composite. This should not be a problem for doors with relatively "normal" wear and tear, and the doors are supposed to have blocking where hardware fasteners will be attached; however, I would be concerned for doors in high traffic areas. I would also like for the door to stand up to the future addition of some piece of hardware that the door was not designed for.