Transcript Why Steel - Megamet Industries

Why Steel?
Performance Study of Hollow Metal, Aluminum, Wood,
and Fiberglass Doors and Frames
Prepared by Key Marketing Group
October 2012
This report was sponsored by the following steel door and frame manufacturing
associations: Steel Door Institute (SDI), Hollow Metal Manufacturers
Association (HMMA) and Canadian Steel Door Manufacturing Association
(CSDMA).
A Division of
What is Why Steel?
Why Steel? is the first performance study ever to compare
hollow metal, wood, aluminum, and fiberglass doors and
frames based on test data and expert insight.
The results are presented in “Performance Tables” that
allow you—an architect, specifier, facility owner or
manager, or other industry professional—to easily
compare the performance of the materials in various
categories.
After reviewing this presentation, we encourage you to
ask yourself, “Why steel?” We think you’ll like the answer.
You are welcome to download and share the complete Why Steel? report,
located at the SDI, HMMA, and CSDMA websites.
2
Performance Tables
Objective
• To accurately illustrate the different performance
characteristics of various door materials, utilizing
standards and tests where possible.
Methodology
• The first six tables are quantitative, with measurable
performance characteristics such as a sound
transmission coefficient (STC) and fire rating. These
results are provided by independent testing
organizations, such as Intertek or UL.
3
Performance Tables
Methodology
• The remaining five tables lack a definable metric,
such as vandal resistance. These factors are still
very important in material selection. The content of
these tables was obtained from manufacturer and
association websites.
• In all cases, the performance tables were reviewed
with industry professionals. More than 20 individuals
from 15 manufacturers or trade associations were
interviewed and/or reviewed the performance
tables prior to publication.
4
Swing Test (Cycle Test)
Material
Relevant
Standards
Standard
Metrics
Hollow
Metal
ANSI
250.4
Wood
ANSI
250.4
o
Aluminum
ANSI
250.4
ANSI
250.4
Ө
Fiberglass
2- 4 million
cycles is
common
Performance
Best ●
Medium Ө
Worst o
25,000 –
500,000
●
Ө
Comments
Standard maximum requirement is 1 million
cycles; hinges replaced multiple times during
test. Hollow metal doors have been
successfully tested to 10M cycles.
Wood failed the one million cycle test
performed by Intertek on 2/27/2012.
Aluminum failed the one million cycle test
performed by Intertek on 2/27/2012.
Fiberglass failed the one million cycle test
performed by Intertek on 2/27/2012.
Wood, aluminum and fiberglass each failed the one
million cycle test performed by Intertek.
5
Fire Rating
Material
Maximum
(Best Case)
Metrics
Performance
Best ●
Medium Ө
Worst o
Comparative
Cost
($, $$, or $$$)
Comments
Only door material that offers a three hour
fire rating. Twenty minute hollow metal
doors generally perform to a three hour
standard.
Wood must use an intumescent seal, which
expands when hot. Wood doors are not
approved for all hardware, therefore there
are fewer options.
Hollow metal
3 hours
●
$
Wood
90 minutes
Ө
$$
Aluminum
60 minutes
o
$$
Fiberglass
90 minutes
Ө
$$$
Fiberglass requires an intumescent seal.
Hollow metal is the only material that offers a
three hour fire rating.
6
Acoustical Performance
Material
Relevant
Standards
Typical Range
Performance
Best ●
Medium Ө
Worst o
Comparative
Cost
($, $$, or $$$)
Comments
STC 32 – STC 55
●
$
STC 32 – STC 51
Ө
$$
Aluminum
No data
o
N/A
Fiberglass
STC 29 – STC 36
o
$$$
Tested as complete operable
assembly. Steel products for pairs
normally range from STC 40 – STC
53. Hollow metal sound doors can
achieve a three hour fire rating.
Vision lites are available.
Wood doors are tested as components
only. Highest fire rating of a wood
acoustic door is typically only 20
minutes. STC paired doors are not
available. Vision lites are not
available.
Aluminum doors are not suitable for
sound reduction.
Rarely used for STC doors.
Hollow
Metal
Wood
ASTM E90
ASTM E413
ASTM E336
Hollow metal has the highest STC rating at the lowest cost.
7
Thermal Performance
Thermal Performance
Material (core)
Relevant
Standards
Typical UFactor Range
Typical Measured
Overall R-Value
Performance
Best ●
Medium Ө
Worst o
Comments
Hollow metal doors with a polyurethane
core transmit little heat compared to
other materials. It’s U-Factor is just
above fiberglass.
Hollow Metal
(Polyurethane)
0.38
2.65
Ө
Hollow Metal
(Polystyrene)
Hollow Metal
(Honeycomb)
Hollow Metal (Steel
Stiffened)
0.41
2.41
Ө
0.56
1.80
Ө
0.61
1.63
o
0.40
2.48
Ө
Aluminum
0.83
1.20
o
Fiberglass
0.35
2.85
●
Wood
ASTM
C1199-09
ASTM
C1363-05
ASTM
E1423-06
Hollow metal doors with a steel
stiffened core transfer the most heat out
of the hollow metal core materials.
Wood doors transfer more heat than
fiberglass and hollow metal doors with a
polyurethane core, however their
thermal transmittance is relatively low.
Aluminum doors allow the most heat
flow of all the materials.
Fiberglass doors have the best thermal
performance of the materials.
8
Hurricane Resistance
Material
Relevant
Standards
Hollow
Metal
Wood
Aluminum
Miami Dade
County
Florida
Building Code
Fiberglass
Hollow Metal - NOA 10.0209.07
Aluminum – NOA 11-0228.04
Fiberglass – FL 7026
Size
Maximum Comparative
Tested
Cost
PSF
($, $$, or $$$)
4’0” x 8’0”
8’0” x 8’0”
100 PSF
90 PSF
4’0” x 8’0”
8’0” x 8’0”
80 PSF
Not
available
70 PSF
$$$
N/A
80 PSF
$$$
4’0” x 8’0”
8’0” x 8’0”
4’0” x 8’0”
$$
Comments
Highest PSF resistance.
Most vendor choices (i.e.
size).
Typically residential.
$$$
Hollow metal provides the highest hurricane resistance.
9
Tornado Resistance
Material
Relevant
Standards
Maximum Performance
(Best
Best ●
Case)
Medium Ө
Metrics
Worst o
Steel
FEMA 361
Pass
●
Wood
International
Code Council
500
Fail
o
Aluminum
Fail
Fiberglass
Fail
o
o
Comments
Steel passes the FEMA 361 and ICC 500
tornado test (250 mph wind speeds).
No wood door, with or without metal
sheathing, has successfully passed FEMA
361.
Not listed for tornado resistance.
Not listed for tornado resistance.
Wood, aluminum and fiberglass have not passed
tornado resistance tests.
10
Abuse
Material
Hollow Metal
Relevant
Standards
HMMA
805-10
Performance
Best ●
Medium Ө
Worst o
Comments
●
Hollow metal is the most vandal resistant
material. It is a sturdy material; ideal for high
usage or high abuse situations.
Material is soft; easily penetrated. Less
options and flexibility than steel.
Material can be bent.
Wood
o
Aluminum
Ө
Ө
Fiberglass
Material can be cracked.
Hollow metal is sturdy, which is ideal for high abuse
locations.
11
Sanitation
Relative Performance - Sanitation (Anti-microbial Properties)
Material
Performance
Best ●
Medium Ө
Worst o
Stainless Steel
●
Hollow Metal
Ө
Wood
Aluminum
o
o
Fiberglass
o
Comments
Custom stainless steel has excellent anti-microbial properties
with a custom seamless edge. Washes easily and sanitizes.
Great use for hollow metal. Washes easily with appropriate
finish and a custom seamless edge. Antimicrobial resin is
available for additional protection.
Porous material. Antimicrobial resin is available.
Very porous; hard to sanitize. Very few aluminum doors have
anti-microbial protection.
More porous than metal; not common in medical or food
handling.
Stainless steel doors have superior anti-microbial
properties to other door materials.
12
Corrosion / Water Resistance
Material
Performance
Best ●
Medium Ө
Worst o
Comments
Stainless Steel
●
Hollow Metal
Ө
Wood
Aluminum
o
o
Custom stainless steel has excellent anti-microbial properties
with a custom seamless edge. Washes easily and sanitizes.
Great use for hollow metal. Washes easily with appropriate
finish and a custom seamless edge. Antimicrobial resin is
available for additional protection.
Porous material. Antimicrobial resin is available.
Fiberglass
o
Very porous; hard to sanitize. Very few aluminum doors have
anti-microbial protection.
More porous than metal; not common in medical or food
handling.
Stainless steel doors are commonly specified for
corrosive environments.
13
Maintenance and Repair
Material
Performance
Best ●
Medium Ө
Worst o
Comments
Hollow
Metal
Wood
●
Aluminum
Ө
●
Repaired with body filler. Does not crack and does not dent easily.
Often repaired in field for low cost, including re-welding.
Gouges easily. Expensive to repair, but may be repaired in some
circumstances.
Dents. Must be replaced when dented as it cannot be reannodized.
Fiberglass
o
Will crack before it dents. Unable to cost effectively repair cracks.
Hollow metal doors do not crack or dent easily.
14
Longevity
Material
Performance
Best ●
Medium Ө
Worst o
Comments
30-40 years
●
o
Aluminum
Up to 15 years; much lower
in high abuse environments
About 15 – 20 years
Ө
Fiberglass
About 20 years
Ө
Hollow metal is sturdy, and field repair
is possible and relatively inexpensive.
Worst. Wood is soft and dents and
gouges easily.
It is a hard material but longevity is
problematic as it cannot be repaired.
Hardier than wood; can’t repair if
cracked. Fiberglass is a newer material
so historical data doesn’t exist.
Hollow
Metal
Wood
Common Lifecycle
(If installed and maintained
properly, excluding
hardware)
Hollow metal has the longest life of any of the
materials studied and can last 30-40 years.
15
Conclusions
• Steel has many performance advantages over
wood, aluminum and fiberglass.
• Steel doors and frames provide the best strength,
repair and maintenance, and longevity of any
standard product.
• These advantages translate into lower lifetime cost
of ownership for steel doors and frames.
16
Thank you
Judy Key Johnson
Scott Johnson
Key Marketing Group
[email protected]
(o) 949-218-0710
(m) 949-422-8210
17