• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Continous insulation at door jambs

E

Enginerd

Bronze Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
47
Location
Reading, PA
Does anyone see a problem with these door jam details? The energy plan reviewer is stating that we are not providing 'continuous insulation' for our mass wall. The wall construction is structural CMU, rigid insulation, and non-structural split-face CMU veneer.The unofficial interpretation from ICC is that this is an OK detail of construction. As there is no definition of "continuous insulation" in the IECC - we feel that this is acceptable.If this isn't OK, does anyone have suggestions to correct it. Maybe we could fix the one with the HMF jamb for the man door; but the detail for the OHD would have exposed insulation if we cannot wrap the veneer.

View attachment 1423

View attachment 1423

/monthly_2010_10/jambs.jpg.dbf0568de66b0f750c532804679d2618.jpg
 
Ask nicely, "If the insulation is to be continuous to meet code requirements where do we put the required doors?" :D :confused: :D :confused:

I would accept the details as shown. Fenestration's are holes in the insulated envelope. It has to happen. You just do the best you can to minimize the excess size of the hole.
 
I don't think it's the openings...it's the fact that the insulation does not extend to the opening...that would be my guess without seeing the whole wall section.
 
What if you turned the corner with the insulation, so that you have jamb->split-face cmu->insulation->butt end of structural cmu

There's no thermal break, so you have 4" of concrete conducting between the outside and inside.
 
TimNY: But now the insulation would be exposed on the interior, wouldn't it?

TJacobs: You are correct, that is the reviewers complaint. Have you seen a detail that works for this? If we ran the insulation straight out to the jamb, we wouldn't have anything to anchor our jamb too. And, in the case of the OHD, the insulation would be exposed.
 
Perhaps use a different jamb so that you can run the insulation all the way out. As you know, they will make them any width you want. Are these outswing doors?
 
pyrguy said:
Ask nicely, "If the insulation is to be continuous to meet code requirements where do we put the required doors?" :D :confused: :D :confused: I would accept the details as shown. Fenestration's are holes in the insulated envelope. It has to happen. You just do the best you can to minimize the excess size of the hole.
Click to expand...
I think that this is the right way to approach the problem. Point out that by necessity there has to be openings in the continuous insulation and that your design meets the intent.
 
Enginerd - Who is giving you the hassle, a third party reviewer or the municipality? You could take the time to enter this in COMCheck, using the CMU, insulation, Veneer as one area, then enter the CMU/veneer as a separate area. As long as COMCheck passes it, you should be good to go.
 
I think the insulation issues are the worst when there is irregular shapes of the doors and windows.But a perfect design can solve these insulation issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top