A friend of mine who works for a large not for profit builder called in a favor and asked me to come over and give his crew of volunteers a door hanging workshop. Originally the doors were going to be hung by the G.C., but there was a change of plan. The problem is this;
The G.C. made the openings exactly to fit. So for a 30″ door, he left a rough opening of 31 5/8″. The trimmers are wood 2×3’s and the kings are metal. The G.C. was going to attach the doors directly to the trimmers, no shims. The framers did a good job of making sure the trimmers are plumb. My concern is that I was taught to always shim, even if the trimmers are plumb to account for swelling, warping and expansion. It’s winter, so I’m assuming that the wood is pretty dry right now, I’m thinking that there will be sticking as soon as summer hits. The G.C. obviously doesn’t want to shift them, and is arguing that even with shims, you’re going to get swelling, so what’s the difference? The client doesn’t want to go with a smaller door, so that option is out. Does the steel framing eliminate the need for shims, even though the trimmers are wood? Am I just being anal and stuck in the past, thinking that something should be done a certain way just because that’s what I’m sued to, or do you have to include shims? Thoughts?
Thanks in advance,
Brian
Replies
Get the GC to put his "analysis" in writing, with a promise to repair any doors which stick as a result iof his installatiion technique.
Funny how "this will be fine" wither's away when folks are asked to put it in writing....
Do ther door's have manufacturer's instructions which include/require shimming? If yes, then under most (all?) codes, shims are required.
I really think shimming is only to make up for framing and manufacturing tolerances. If the door is a perfect fit into the framing and you don't have to shim, what's the problem? The problem comes in when the hole is tight and you have to hammer it in. binding the jamb.
The idea of mitigating swelling doesn't make any sense to me since once you shim it up, any swelling would still be getting transferred to the door frame.
I think the manufacturer's instruction is based on the idea that the framing will be bigger than the finished door. It usually says "shim as necessary" anyway.
shimming doors
Like rjw said, get if writing.
You can't make a rough opening so perfect as to not need some tweeking with some type of shimming. That is why they call it a rough opening.
I would want no part of installing the doors under thoes conditions. Iv'e never seen or heard a door/window manufacture or a professional installer recommend such a thing. And you had better have some space above the head jamb. Any settling or shrinkage that accurrs will cause the door to bind.
I'm pretty sure I remember a Larry Haun article in FHB 5 or 6 years ago about how he framed rough openings so that the doors could be nailed directly to the studs with no shims. Seems like he was even teaching union apprentices the same technique.
shimming doors
I don't know exactly what your situation is but since the king studs are metal, I am assuming that the walls/partitions are metal studs and the jamb studs are wood so you have something to nail jambs too.
If this is the case, you might consider replacing the 2x3's with, say 5/4x3 or 1x3's on one or both sides. If these walls/partitions are load bearing, you may need to verify that the bearing capacity of the smaller jamb studs is adquate.
As an after thought, if the 2x3 jamb studs are set inside the metal king studs the above might not be a solution. I can't imagine why one would do this as then you have a problem installing the door casing.
With what we don't know, one could go on for ever trying to cover all of the possibilities.
If the opening is really plumb I see no problem with skipping the shimming. I don't see how shims could "account for swelling, warping and expansion". And I don't see how you could get enough swelling in just a single trimmer in metal framing to cause a problem, even if shimming did some good.
shimming doors
Dan, with all due respect and in all seriousness, how many doors have you installed?
The opening would have to be perfect. The jamb studs perfectly plumb. The size would have to be a perfect snug/tight fit. It could not even be 1/16" larger or smaller than the the door unit. The jamb studs would have to be perfectly straight with no twists or bows.
Having said this, I have never in 40 years in the business seen a perfect opening like this much less a whole house full of em. I wouldn't be suprised if the door units themselves varied as much as +/- 1/16". Close only counts when your are pitching horseshoes or washers.
In my experience, I have never seen a framing crew even attempt to frame such an rough opening. The time it world take would not be cost effective. Also, I doubt that they would want to take the responsibiliy for guaranteeing such an openeng.
Which brings us back to my original statement.
"I really think shimming is only to make up for framing and manufacturing tolerances."
I have done 2 doors in masonry walls that went in squeaky tight and required no shimming but I made a form exactly the size of the door frame, plus about 1/16-1/8" using a plywood template for the door and poured the jamb to it. When I shot in the TapCons it was solid.
I agree your avreage framer will not take the time to do this or be able to count on having straight lumber.
With all due respect, Dan ... you obviously don't know much about hanging a door. Neither do I and I know you don't know based on your statements. While your hing side theory sounds fine, you don't always have the option of just shimming the latch side since the hinge side has as much of a chance of being plumb as the other side ... which really isn't that good. It's easy to have rough framing out of plumb 1/16" and that is way off for a door jamb.
Certainly I agree that, absent other factors, the hinge jamb should be shimmed plumb. But I see no point in using shims just to use them -- shim if need be, otherwise don't. The door will be more secure the fewer shims used.
I tend to agree with some of the other posts. Your GC doesn't have a clue (on the other hand, I don't have a clew). As another poster said ... a rough opening is just that ... rough. Not intended to be precisely plumb. Theoretically, the GC is good to go ... but as we all know theory and reality are two different things. IF they ALL happen to be perfectly plumb for some odd reason, then, yes you would be very lucky. If not perfectly plumb, then an option is to remove the 2x and either plane them to accomodate the out of plumb or replace w/ thinner stock. If close, you could plane them in place ... I've done that in a pinch. recess all fasteners deep enough to allow planing w/ a power hand plane. In your case, you may have screws from the metal stud side, so you may be good to go. Plane only enough to get the clearance to plumb your jambs.
"if" they are real close???
If they are real close I would have a power plane (if there were no fasteners to hit, doubt it) or a belt sander with 20 grit in it.
A small belt sander with 20 grit it in it might be the tool to take back some bumps in the trimmers.
You still might have to play around with the corners though where the belt sander won't reach. Sharp chisel?
The GC is full of himself. Almost always, the best policy is to do standard trade pactices. That way the people following you aren't scratching their heads trying to figure out what you did. It costs time and money for no benefit eccept to feed one guys ego.
You gotta wonder who taught him that his way is better than a whole standard trade practice. I've worked for guys like that and they are full of themselves. You can't teach them anything.
Building a house is a team effort.
standard r.o.
is two inches over the nominal for a wooden interior door..
so first question is ......." where did the gc come uo with his standard ?
there may be some things we are all assuming that are not the case
are they wood doors and jambs ?
has the rock been hung ?
i'd change the jacks to 5/4 on any tight openings....
if the hinge jamb side is perfectly straight and plumb, then i'd screw the jamb direct to the jack, only shimming to correct my margin... shim the lock side,
you only shim to correct for plumb and margin
No idea where he got it
When I said," I've worked for guys like that and they are full of themselves. You can't teach them anything."
I was thinking of a GC that lived and worked in KS in the middle of nowhere. He was completely self taught.
So if it worked for him it was good. The problem was working with him. Everything was his way and it was like on your first day because everything was new.
The only reason he pulled it off was because he was a madman at work. Nobody liked working with him.
You can make sh*t fly if you throw it enough times.
To All:
I don't think that there's any disagreement that normally a rough opening should be made wide enough to allow a little shimming, and to allow for the possibility that the door jambs are a hair wider than normal, etc. But this is a given situation, the rough openings are there, the doors are there, they apparently fit OK and will go in plumb.
There's no sene tearing out what works and is perfectly good just because that's not the way you normally do it.
If there's a RO that needs shimming and the space isn't there then by all means replace the trimmer with thinner stock (or whatever works), but its senseless to do that everywhere.
Dan, You hit the nail on
Dan,
I think you hit the nail on the head.
My only concern was if anyone out there knew of a concrete reason why it wasn't okay to let the GC proceed. It's certainly not the way I'm used to doing it, but........
It's also going to be hard for me to make an arguement for him to correct the situation with only the explanation "That's not the way I do it". So taking many posters advice, I'm going to recomend that my friend have him sign off specifically on the doors and cross his fingers and hope for the best.
I still don't like it though.
Thanks for all the thoughful answers.
Brian
Dan did ... IF the framing IN THIS SITUATION is PERFECT, you're good to go. Many comments were directed at the GCs philosophy. Many of us remain somewhat skeptical that indeed 'rough framing' will in fact be perfect enough to hang a door w/out shims.
And given your 'classroom atmosphere', as the other poster pointed out ... that is a terrible example to use to teach them how to hang a door ... because you are teaching them the exception to the norm.
I agree
This a given situation so git 'er done. I'd still poke the GC for being stuborn about it.
He needs to become more of a team player.
I read that putting jambs against damp framing can cup them. These days most framing is pretty dry though.
I think that since they are 2X3s it will help a bit.
Where is the casing going to be nailed? To the 2x3 ? that sits back from the face of the face of the wall 1/2"? The steel framing?
Everybody is going to have to change what they normally do because of this guy.
And since the OP is supposed to be teaching the volenteers how it typically done he has a wrong example in front ot them.
So do you teach to the wrong method or confuse them by saying how it is supposed to be every other sentence.
The Op could take the high road and teach about how building a house is a team effort and everyone should try to think of others that follow your work.
Or how it sometimes isn't the way we want it so you have to work around mistakes others have made. So look at it as an opportunity to get it done and work well with others despite their shortcomings.
Speaking as a DIYer and volunteer, I've NEVER been confronted with a "classic" framed door opening -- there's always been an issue of one sort or another. (The "perfect" openings I referred to earlier were ones where someone else hung the doors, because I was busy with windows and other stuff.) Probably better to teach THAT to the volunteers.
My "favorite" is the situation where an exterior door opening isn't flat, and the floor/sill is cockeyed to boot. Knowing the "right" way to hang a door will do you zero good in this situation.
As the OP, I punted and just told my friend A) read this thread and B) he's better off having the GC hang the doors as he (the GC) is insisting that it won't be a problem. I don't want to create a situation where the first humid week, every door in the place sticks and then the finger pointing starts as to who is at fault, this way everything comes back to one source. I'm also trying to a be a little reasonable about the whole thing, and as I said before just because I've always done something a certain way doesn't mean that it's the only way, or even the best way. Given the lack of a concrete reason why, it seems unreasonable on my part to insist that the GC widen the openings. I freely admit it bothers me and some part of me was really hoping that someone could come up with a really good reason that made sense so I could go and say "see, I told you so" but if that reason is out there, it's eluded me.
Thanks again,
Brian
Sounds good ... if he is so sure it 'isn't a problem' dump it in his lap and let him lie in his own bed. Other option is to check each one for perfectly plumb/sized and do the ones that are and leave the ones that aren't.
No concrete reason for him to alter them ... unless they aren't perfect ... which has been the point of the skeptical crowd ... why would any framer in their right mind go through the trouble to get absolutely perfect rough framing? Time and place for any and every thing, yes; is this the time? ... signed ... still a bit skeptical.
Knowing the "right" way to hang a door will do you zero good in this situation.
Dan, I've got to question what you meant with the above. Knowing the "right" way to hang a door and being presented with all that's bogus with the location-I think you'd have a heck of a lot better chance with success knowing and having learned the "right" way.
But then again, experience may have blinded my view on this.
I agree
Knowing what the standard is gives you a benchmark from which you can measure.
You don't just throw the baby out with the bath water.
There is a reason for the standard. And it is reason that dictates it. Not some arbituary guy in a vaccume.
It gives you a base from which to work.
Knowing the standard is one thing. But know why the standard is the way it is, gives you insight into the whole procces.
I was on, I think, my third door, following manufacturer's instructions as to installation, step by step, when I realized "Sith! This isn't working any better than the last two times." Since then I've thrown the instructions away.
The manufacturer's instructions assume two things that, in my experience, are a rarely true in old houses (unless you're dealing with all new framing):
The floor is level (especially an issue with entry doors), and
The opening is flat (we won't even talk about having the wall not leaning one direction or the other).
If the floor isn't level, and you attempt to install an exterior door plumb and square, you can easily be left with a gap under the threshold you can throw a cat through. And if the wall isn't flat you'd better spend some time deciding how badly the door frame can be warped and still allow the door to close tightly. (Answer: Not much.)
Dan
You're not suggesting you place and fasten the door according to an out of whack opening are you?
The new door should be set level and plumb (with a small tolerance for an adjustible thresh and sloppy ass 'd fit in frame).
You fill in under the threshold and deal with untrue wall surfaces. You should almost never just "nail" in a prehung so it's right with the wall or floor. Though I can certainly say that it's done all the time.
You're not suggesting you place and fasten the door according to an out of whack opening are you?
Yep, that's what I'm suggesting. Certainly you try to "nudge" it in the direction of plumb, but that only goes so far. You've got an opening where one corner leans out 3/4" and the other corner leans in 1/4". Floor is 3/8" from level. You set the door in the opening, lean it this way and that, and look for the best compromise. You have to consider finishes on both sides, weight of the door, physical abilities of the occupants, etc.
Isn't that what Dan is saying? The given situation is the wrong conditions to assume you will be handed to hang a door ... therefore the learning exercise is a bit moot. The only thing the class will learn is to expect the framer to be dead perfect ... which is the point we've all been discussing ... rough framing isn't intended to be perfect. It's enough to get the wall plumb. Having a perfect 'rough opening' is by far the exception to the norm and you will not learn 'the right way' hanging a door in that situation. Maybe I missed your point somehow ... easy to do in this mode of com.
I don't know, that's why I asked.
The whole thing is a learning experience. A person with no experience might just take the door, stuff it in an opening and nail it off. One that read the directions or thought they knew what to do might stuff it in, jack it around a bit with shims and a 2' level then wonder why you have to lift to latch. Or be overwhelmed by how to trim it out (that question comes up regularly).
Someone that's hung doors for a while just might check the conditions in advance and plan the attack for the quickest/bestest install with the minimal amount of work.
Now, let's talk bogus prehanging. Ever had that absolutely perfect opening and a door unit that defied logic in workmanship?