| Author |
Message |
Russ Hinkle, AIA, CDT, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: rhinkle
Post Number: 98
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 - 09:19 am: |    |
We are getting a lot of requests to not grout HM frames. Frankly, I don't think I have ever gotten a full answer on why we do it. So far, the answers have been "tradition" (love the honesty) and to deaden sound. Not sure if that is the sound when the door closes or transmition through.
The alternate proposed is to but in insulation. My immedidate thought was acoustical batts, but the example detail I was given had rigid insulation. That seems strange in rated doors? Does this void the rating? I can also see the rigid just stuck in there with lots of gaps and holes - not really doing anything. Seems like a spray foam would make more sense?
Russ Hinkle |
J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 - 09:53 am: | |
I have always assumed that doors installed in masonry openings, especially those "built into" the opening, would be grouted. There is also a procedure for grouting frames installed after the wall is built. I don't think I have ever seen a requirements for grouting frames in drywall openings. You can look at details from the HMMA and SDI.
I believe this is partly a security issues; it would be much more difficult to get through the opening by compromising a grouted frame. I have wondered in the last few years, however, whether grouting a HM frame provided a lower "effective R-value" for an exterior opening.
I have seen HM frames with thermal breaks for use on exterior openings, and I like the idea of using spray foam for exterior doors with these types of frames to improve thermal performance.'
I do believe that security should be a consideration on whether or not the frame should be grouted. |
Bruce Maine
Intermediate Member
Username: btmaine
Post Number: 4
Registered: 03-2011
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 - 10:10 am: | |
We have a specifier note that reads: "Grouting frames in gypsum wallboard partitions is controversial subject. If cost becomes a factor, grout only double egress frames and 4 FT door frames and frames set in masonry. It's primary function is to increase mass and stability of frame, especially if door is heavy or has high frequency use. It is not required for fire rating.
Grouting of frame survey, June 1995.
Steelcraft Manufacturing: No advantage.
Ceco.: Don't recommend grout. See less than 5%.
Curries.: Sound deadening, still see on 50% of jobs, over done, proper anchorage and silencers on stops help, hard to do with side-light, makes relocation difficult, don't even need in masonry walls.
Pioneer Industries.: See on 50% of jobs, be careful of pressure used in grouting - can blow apart frame, width not an issue, jambs most important.
American Steel Products.: Sound deaden.
Republic Builders Products, Desco.: Relocation a problem.
USG catalog: Can spot at anchors but not required. In the past, for restraint, USG required spot grouting for solid core doors or doors greater than 32 IN.
SDI: At masonry walls.
Summary: Sources above have mixed views…you decide what is right for your project"
If you do grout, use portland cement instead of gypsum as corrison is a problem.
The survey is from long ago but probably relevant today. |
David E Lorenzini
Senior Member
Username: deloren
Post Number: 127
Registered: 04-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 - 10:41 am: | |
For what it's worth, HMMA has a TechNote on Grouting Hollow Metal Frames, related to HMMA 820 at: http://www.doorcomponents.com/pdf/HMMA_TechDoc/HMMA820_TN01_03.pdf.
David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS
Architectural Resources Co. |
Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 414
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 - 11:29 am: | |
Dave, that is a helpful link, thank you!
The Steel Door Institute has this to say (under SDI 127I-04):
-----------------------------------
"Some Architectural Specifications require frames in stud and drywall partitions to be filled with grout for sound deadening or to enhance structural integrity.
The STEEL DOOR INSTITUTE is opposed to this practice for the following reasons:
• ANSI A250.8-2003 (also 1998) paragraph 4.2.2 and ANSI A250.11-2001 paragraph 2.2 both address the question of grouting frames. The paragraph cited in ANSI A250.8 gives a bit more information on the problems related to moisture in grout.
• In drywall construction, this moisture has two places to go. It can soak into the drywall, potentially destroying its cohesive integrity and thus the ability to retain anchors or frame integrity, or it can leach downward where it will cause premature rusting of anchors, screws, stud connections, bottom of frames, etc.
• Grouting does not appreciably afford any additional structural rigidity to the frame. As an example, slipon drywall frames have passed fire and hose stream tests, cycle tests, and in some cases impact tests without being grouted.
• If the intention is for sound deadening, SDI 128-97 (Section 3) should be consulted. In addition, the same insulation as used between wall studs (generally lightly packed fiberglass) will serve as a sound deadener without the potential for damage to the frame or wallboard.
It is therefore the opinion of the STEEL DOOR INSTITUTE that grouting should never be specified for drywall construction."
-----------------------------------
I think this discussion should also persue the practice of back-coating the frames. That one has always been in our spec, but has been very difficult to get contractors to actually do. Most of the younger architectural staff are at a loss as to explain or justify it's usefullness, and are more likely to waive it off as yet another antiquated practice.
Bruce, I'd love to see what your obviously well annotated specs say on the matter.
SDI says this (SDI 127J-04):
-----------------------------------
"Some Architectural Specifications require steel frames to be back-coated with a “bituminous” coating for corrosion protection or sound control. Bituminous is an archaic term for a coating or emulsion containing fibrous or
non-fibrous asphalt. Other than for a few selective uses unrelated to steel frames, it is not readily available. A more modern replacement for this material is automotive undercoating.
It is the recommendation of the STEEL DOOR INSTITUTE that this coating SHALL NOT be applied at the factory or any location other than the jobsite. The coating never fully dries; leaving a dark residue that can be transferred to the frame during transportation, storage, or handling prior to final installation.
ANSI A250.8-2003 (also 1998) limits factory applied coatings to either factory prime finish (2.1.3) or factory-applied finish paint (2.1.4).
For corrosion protection, ANSI A250.11-2001 paragraph 2.2 clearly states that “the contractor responsible for installation”
applies corrosion resistant coatings only where specified for anti-freezing agents in plaster or mortar.
For sound control purposes, it is less damaging to the frame finish and more expedient for “the contractor responsible for installation” to extend the insulation material used in the adjoining wall into the frame. This creates an
unbroken barrier to the passage of sound."
----------------------------------- |
David E Lorenzini
Senior Member
Username: deloren
Post Number: 128
Registered: 04-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 - 12:00 pm: | |
Here is a product we use to fill tight multiple stud spaces adjacent to the HM frames:
Manufacturer:
BioBased Insulation LLC, Rogers, AR (800)803-5189, www.biobased.net.
Product:
1. BioBased 501w Insulation two-part, open cell, spray-applied, polyurethane foam having a nominal density of 0.5 pcf.
a. Comply with ICC ESR-1383.
b. Surface Burning Characteristics: In accordance with ASTM E 84:
1) Flame Spread: Less than or equal to 25.
2) Smoke Developed: Less than or equal to 450.
Installation:
Spray-Applied Foam Insulation: Apply spray-on insulation by certified applicators with pneumatic spray equipment, filling voids, cracks, and holes.
1. Fill spaces between multiple studs inaccessible to batt insulation.
2. Use in locations concealed by gypsum board only. Do not use in exposed locations.
We have not had any feedback on its use, however.
David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS
Architectural Resources Co. |
Bruce Maine
Advanced Member
Username: btmaine
Post Number: 5
Registered: 03-2011
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 - 12:06 pm: | |
Thanks for the info, Nathan.
Currently we ask for a Field applied bituminous coating to backs of frames that are filled with grout.
Likewise, if this were considered a site applied rust preventative coating, SCAQMD 1113 would set the limit at 100g/L. I'd better the asphalt emulsions are significantly higher......
Bruce Maine CDT LEED AP |
Kent Usher (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 - 02:30 pm: | |
Foam plastic insulation must comply with the thermal barrier requirements of IBC 2603.5.2 (depending on the edition). |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 986
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2012 - 06:12 pm: | |
Doors are an exception. When not required as a fire-rated door, foam plastic may be used as a core when the facing has a thick of 0.032" for aluminum or 0.016" for steel.
Although door frames are not addressed by the exception, I haven't had any problem with having the frames filled with foam plastic as long as they, too, are covered by metal of equal or greater thickness.
Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
|
4specs.com Home Page