Door frame questions

[disco_monkey79]

Hello,

Can you good people please help me with some door frame queries...

We want to fit a pair of double doors in the house, where a previous owner had removed them. Upon investigation, it seems that the original hole was for a single door, with sidelights (?) on either side for about 2/3s of the height (so the hole in the wall was double width at the top, but single width at the bottom - I hope that made sense!).

They cut the brickwork back to widen the hole at the bottom, but did it to the width of the plaster, not the bare brick, at the top. Is it OK to fix a frame through the plaster and in to the brick at the top? Or have I got to hire a huge grinder to take another half-inch of brick off, each side?

The second issue is the height of the damp course, in relation to the height of the internal floor (this doorway was external, but is now indoors after an extension). If a 2 inch (or larger) sill were used, it would protrude up quite a way. Would a 1 inch thick piece be satisfactory? I appreciate a bottom cross piece is probably redundant on an internal door way, but I'll have to put something down there, else there'll be a tranch between the two rooms, so it may as well be incorporated in to the design.

Lastly, does anyone have any photos of the M&T joints of a deconstructed frame? I've been reading up, and want to make sure the picture in my head is what it's supposed to resemble in reality...

Many thanks for enduring my ramblings!

p.s. One more question please! How many fixings each side for a double door? And I have been told not to fix through the header in to the lintel - is that correct?

 

[Dibs-h]

brace-ledged-door-or-panelled-door-t36877-75.html

Post 3.

HIH

Dibs

p.s. Obviously yours needn't be as chunky!

 

[disco_monkey79]

p.s. Obviously yours needn't be as chunky!

I wouldn't fancy trying to fit that single-handedly!

Many thanks for the pics! I presume that third pic is of the jamb meeting the header? Would you use the same joint for the bottom, or would that be a "closed" M&T (apologies for not knowing the correct terminology).

And is open type at the top used to allow more movement to get the frame square within the opening?

Thanks again.

 

[Dibs-h]

p.s. Obviously yours needn't be as chunky!

I wouldn't fancy trying to fit that single-handedly!

Many thanks for the pics! I presume that third pic is of the jamb meeting the header? Would you use the same joint for the bottom, or would that be a "closed" M&T (apologies for not knowing the correct terminology).

And is open type at the top used to allow more movement to get the frame square within the opening?

Thanks again.

3rd picture - you had me stumped there for a moment! :lol:

I assume you mean the 2nd one - yes that the jamb meeting the header.

For the threshold - I would go with a stopped (I think that's the term, but closed gets the point across) mortise. No end grain poking out at the bottom. As to why the open type is used at the top - TBH I have absolutely no idea and never asked anyone.

If I had to guess it would be to do with in my opinion that once fitted, the walls\opening sides constrain the frame and therefore a "4 sided" mortise wouldn't add any strength. One would have to reduce the size of the "tenon" so that the sidewall of the mortice is sufficient to actually do something. By reducing the tenon - the total glue surface is actually smaller, than had one gone with an open mortise (as you called it). That's just me theorising - could be complete cobblers tho! :lol:

HIH

Dibs

 

[disco_monkey79]

3rd picture - you had me stumped there for a moment! :lol:

Somebody please shoot me now, there's clearly no hope if I can't even count to three accurately!!

Thanks again!