energy-efficient exterior doors 2024: entry, garage, storage
buildzilla
| Posted in General Questions on
what is current thinking for cost-effective energy efficient doors in these three categories:
(should be at least r-6 if possible)
(1) entry door: here looks r important, so ok to cost a bit more, medium traffic
(2) garage door: here 20 minute fire rating is important, looks less important, high traffic
(3) unconditioned space (like access to storage over garage from second floor): looks less important, low traffic
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Search and download construction details
Replies
I'm sure others will disagree but I don't think entry door R-Value matters at all. The best you're going to find is R6-7 and its going to cost you a small fortune ($5000+ on the low end). If you're doing wood and/or a a lot of glass in your door, your going to be stuck at R2-4 anyway. Personally I don't think spending ten grand is worth one or two r value personally. If you are concerned with entry door at all I would say think of u-value which relates to air sealing. The door I just bought is $5000 but it is a 3/0 | 8/0 custom wood door and what I was more concerned about is air sealing; it has a really good seal, multipoint lock, etc.
As far as garage I think the money is much more worth, and they aren't even that expensive. The doors I just got for my build are 10x10, looks modern and sleek, are R18, and only $3000 for purchase and install. Two doors that size is 200sqft which is quite a lot if it is paperthin, might as well only have three walls on the garage.
I'm always surprised at the R numbers that garage doors claim. What material can give you R-18 in about an inch of thickness?
I do think the better garage doors are, well...better, but I don't think they're giving the R value that they claim. Attention to the air seal on the install will make a big difference here too.
You're right, Andy. Garage door R Values are completely bogus. They are not tested or regulated and they claim in excess of R10/inch which is not possible with conventional insulation materials, let alone a segmented steel door assembly full of thermal bridges. It's laughable.
More important than the R value of a garage door is the lack of airtightness if not specifically detailed. You can see daylight around the perimeter of most doors if you stand in the garage during the day with the lights off.
I think the OP was talking about the required fire rated man door that separates the garage from the living space.
I do not believe any overhead garage door R value claims without a third-party lab report and to the best of my knowledge none have been tested.
When you do spec the fire door pay the extra money for the ball bearing hinges on this heavy door.
Walta
....When you do spec the fire door pay the extra money for the ball bearing hinges on this heavy door.....
Walta, have this changed? The rating for garage doors back in the day had more to do with the frame as a decent steel door has enough fire rating. I have not personally seen ball bearing hinges on a residential garage entry door.
ProVia does make R-10 doors in 2.5" thickness. It's called Embarq fiberglass line. The catch is that it is no-lite. Once you add partial lite it drops like a rock to R-6/7.
Matthew, I want to be certain I understand what you are saying.
Is there an overhead garage door with an R10 NFRC label attached?
Will you please post a link?
The garage door manufactures have historically made seemingly ridiculous R value claims but would never submit a door to any independent lab for the NFRC test.
Walta
Walta,
They are entry doors. https://www.provia.com/doors/fiberglass-doors/
Yes sorry I was referring to entry doors only. The OP asked for both entry and garage doors.
thanks for the info matt, walta was right that i was originally asking about the door from the garage into the living space (which has some required fire rating by code), but the side-bar on actual garage door is interesting as well. i didn't realize that r-value claims on those aren't verified.
any idea how much the r-10 embarq's cost these days?
European. I just bought two garage man doors, 3.5’ x 8’, full lite, R6 overall R value, aluminum frames with two seals. $2843 each plus shipping.
My entry door is the same size but mulled to sidelights for a 9’ overall width. $5780 plus shipping.
These are aluprof MB79 SI which is a 2.75” thick design. 3D adjustable hinges, multi point locks, etc.
Please use the official NFRC website and find Aluprof. I think you will see they are not tested to NFRC standards. The R-Value you quote is in terms of ISO-10077-2. NFRC uses ISO-15099. The NFRC standard is stricter and results in a lower R-value. Your door is probably more like R-5 or lower, but to be fair that is still not bad.
NFRC Registry:
https://search.nfrc.org/search/cpd/cpd_search_default_ByMfr.aspx?SearchOption=M
Related:
https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/question/european-windows-and-nfrc
https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/presumptive-european-superiority-syndrome
Aluprof isn't in there, and even if it was I doubt it would have my exact product since they offer hundreds of variations. Regardless, my front door actually has a u value of 0.15, and theres roughly a 10% difference between NFRC and European standard, according to Guardian Glass where you can analyze the IGU makeup on both standards. So my front door is a true R6 on an NFRC scale. The single doors are not as good, they are actually R4.7 on NFRC scale.
The dialog on this website against european fenestration is annoying if Im being honest. "European Superiority Syndrome".... Please find me a North American designed and manufactured door that is even remotely close to performance, aesthetics, and cost.
My order had 28 units, and $14,100 in total shipping. So my doors were really about $3350 for garage doors, and $6280 for the entry door.
The IGU rating is different from the installed window rating, because IGU ratings do not account for the frame material. I don't think there is a blanket shift you can apply to get from one standard to the other for the whole window, since the weakest performing piece (the frame) will go from bad to worse (i.e. probably more than 10% loss even though the IGU is only a 10% loss). Here is a good RDH article on the differences between methods:
https://www.rdh.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CCBST-2014-Energy-Performance-Windows-American-Euro-Standards.pdf
Long story short, among the largest differences is the outdoor temperature during testing. NFRC uses -18 degC while ISO-10077-2 uses 0 degC. There are also different coefficients, different ways of accounting for gas-filled gaps, etc.
I find it much clearer to look up an example window from both sources. Here is an Innotech example:
European ISO-10077-2: Uw = 0.59 W/(m2K) = R-9.62
https://database.passivehouse.com/en/components/details/window/innotech-windows-doors-inc-defender-88ph-xi-1702fx02?
American ISO-15099: Uw = 0.12 Btu/h-ft2-F = R-8.64
https://search.nfrc.org/search/cpd/cpd_search_detail.aspx?cpdnum=INN-M-31
In this case at these R-values the difference is close to 10%, but if the average R-value is lower, how do you know the difference wouldn't be more or less than 10%? Intus and Alpen windows also are usually double-listed if you want to look at any of them for comparison.
I'm well aware that IGU rating are not the same, I was simply using an example of a multichambered assembly (IGU) to compare US vs EU U factors. Guardian Glass calculator shows ~10% difference. By your research, looks like that rule of thumb was pretty darn accurate!
Regardless, we are squibbling over a 0.01 or 0.02 difference in U value. The fact remains, there are no competitors in the US fenestration market that can match the thermal resistance, air tightness, aesthetics, and price. I have spent the last 24+ months researching and quoting every manufacturer out there.
To the original poster, if you want an R6+ door that is airtight and nice to look at, in my opinion, the only competition from 100% designed and manufactured in North America are the following companies:
Cascadia is the closest in all aspects, however they don't offer a lift & slide yet, but they are expected to next year. Their price for my package was basically the same, as was the thermal performance and their profiles use multiple seals. This would be my number one choice for a door. They advertise an R7.7 for premium triple glazed glass. They did not itemize my quote but the total price was the same so I assume the doors were right in there around $3400 each.
Fenstur. Roughly 55% more expensive, they use IGU's from China, and their warranty is not acceptable, which is zero warranty on oversized units.
Loewen. Roughly 170% more expensive. Excellent windows and doors, lift slide doors, etc. But the price difference was obviously a non starter.
North American made with EU technology and/or profiles, there are a bunch. Most of them are PVC frames of one variety or another - Alpen, Innotech, etc. Advantage Architectural Woodwork in Kansas makes an excellent aluminum clad wood window using Smartwin profiles, EU glass and hardware. They price is pretty competitive as well, less than Fenstur and WAY less than Loewen. Kolbe is making windows out of Reynaers extrusions, but their pricing is laughable. 240% more expensive for a worse performing profile (reynaers slimline 38) as compared to buying Aluprof MB 79 SI manufactured in Europe.