LAP/CAP Workshop Kevin Louder NFRC September 26, 2017

Transcription

1 LAP/CAP Workshop Kevin Louder NFRC September 26, 2017

2 LAP/CAP Agenda LAP Test Laboratory ILC Report Review Brief overview of results and findings LAP Simulation ILC Report Review Brief overview of results and findings CAP NFRC 700 and NFRC 702 updates Discussion Topics and Concerns Additional content as time allows Assignments

3 Interlaboratory Comparison 2015 THERMAL TEST Overall Results ASTM C1363 Findings (2) ASTM C1199 Findings (1) General Findings (1)

4 Overall Results All laboratories had standardized U-factor (U st ) that would validate the simulation of this product; Simulated U-factor = 0.22 Btu/hr-ft 2 - o F. - Four (4) labs matched the simulated value - Two (2) labs were within 0.01 Btu/hr-ft 2 - o F - Four (4) labs were within 0.02 Btu/hr-ft 2 - o F The average U st among the ten laboratories was 0.23 Btu/hr-ft 2 -ºF

5 TLTG ASTM C1363 Findings The ratio of the metering box wall loss-tospecimen heat loss of less than 0.1 (10% difference). Qmb/Qs < 10% There was one instance of non-compliance observed in this ILC. This could affect the overall performance of the specimen but NFRC does not have any published data to support this claim; TLTG to confirm. It is requested that laboratories modify their report templates or datasheets to flag this for compliance; less than 10% requirement.

6 ASTM C1363 Findings The surround panel thickness versus product thickness, Section A There was one instance where the surround panel did not meet the thickness requirements. Labs must verify product thickness to surround panel thickness as this can affect localized heat flow and performance; TLTG

7 ASTM C1199 Findings The metering box relative humidity must be less than 15%; not to exceed the maximum allowable of 25%; apply a minimum of three cold point surface TCs and report temperature and location if the box RH>15%. There were three labs in this ILC where the metering box RH was above 15%. The total product results were all found to be higher than the simulated value. (Tested U = 0.24, 0.24 and 0.23)

8 General Findings The result of this ILC has prompted concerns with determination of: The Specimen Projected Area (As) The Wetted Warm Side and Cold Side Surface Areas (Ah and Ac). There were two labs where the area was out of expected tolerance; maximum of +/- 6mm (0.25 ) in width or length measurement would be expected. The specimen projected area for this ILC was approximately 19 sq. ft. One lab had indicated sq ft. and another at sq. ft. It is recommended these labs review the test methods for proper determination of product area.

9 Interlaboratory Comparison 2015 SIMULATION Overall Results Non-Lab Simulators Findings (5) Lab Simulators Findings (3) General Findings (5)

10 All Simulators Results When the All Certified Simulators data had the outliers removed, the standard deviation was very good. However, the U-factor ranges of simulators was to and that should be tighter. With outliers (5) removed there were 12 simulators outside of the standard deviation causing the large range difference (two at 0.27, three at 0.32, seven at 0.31; remainder between 0.28 & 0.30)

11 Lab Simulators Results For the NFRC certified laboratory simulators with outliers removed, the standard deviation was good and the U-factor range was to which should also be much tighter. With outliers (1) removed there were 3 simulators outside of the standard deviation causing the large range difference (one at 0.27, one at 0.32, one at 0.31; 36 remaining between 0.28 & 0.30)

12 Non-lab Simulators Findings Incorrect Glass Construction; incorrect gap width, low-e on wrong surface, incorrect low-e type used Incorrect Product Size; not NFRC standard per Table 4-3 in ANSI/NFRC 100 Incorrect modeling of the Divider; gas, links and missing Incorrect use of slightly ventilated cavity on interior gaps and negation of sealing for air leakage paths Incorrect materials used for the spacer, gaskets and frame materials

13 Lab Simulators Findings Incorrect Glass Construction; missing gas fill in gap, incorrect gap width, low-e on wrong surfaces Incorrect Product Size; not NFRC standard per Table 4-3 in ANSI/NFRC 100 Incorrect Divider; missing or modeled incorrectly

14 General Findings Building Glass in WINDOW NFRC Product Size Dividers Air Cavities Materials in THERM

15 Building Glass in WINDOW 13% had incorrect construction (7 non-lab simulators, 6 lab simulators) Low-E surface layer - Ensure the low-e is placed on the correct surface; this will alter center of glass results Gas fill - Ensure the gas fill (air, argon, or krypton); an incorrect gas fill will alter the center of glass results Gap width - Ensure the proper gap between glass panes and overall IG is representative. This can affect center of glass and divider results. PAY ATTENTION TO DETAILS

16 NFRC Product Size 35% had this incorrect (31 non-lab simulators, 4 lab simulators) - Use ANSI/NFRC 100 approved sizing per Table 4-3. Do not rely on the default sizing in WINDOW

17 Dividers (Pattern) 12% had an incorrect pattern (8 non-lab simulators, 4 lab simulators) Dividers (Grids) Shall be Assigned "Automatic" for Standard NFRC Patterns (12", or 305mm, on-center or less)

18 Dividers (Sealed IG) 66% modeled incorrectly (42 non-lab simulators, 24 lab simulators) Follow Sections Linking Glazing Cavities and 8.3-Dividers

19 IGU Cavities Dividers (Sealed IG)

20 Dividers (Sealed IG) Creating Divider Gas Fill ISO Cavity Model (NOT NFRC)

21 Air Cavities in THERM Slightly ventilated cavities only apply to exterior cavities. 10% of non-lab simulators used slightly ventilated material for interior cavities.

22 SimTG Air Cavities in THERM There is still a concern that simulators (mainly those that are not from an accredited simulation laboratory) do not understand that any interior gap that has potential for air leakage must be sealed/"taped" off to simulate how a test laboratory will seal the product for validation. This applied to 5% of simulators. (4 nonlab simulators, 1 lab simulator)

23 Materials in THERM Use only approved materials from NFRC 101 Pay close attention to the bill of materials and assign to your models If a material from the NFRC 101 is not in your current library in THERM, you can add the material. Please name and assign the correct conductivity and emissivity when performing this addition. Go to material library and click New Specify name, click OK Select Solid material type Input your conductivity and emissivity (make sure of your units, recommend using SI for this task) Select Color tab and change to a unique color

24 Materials in THERM

25 Updates (expected rollout date Jan. 2018) NFRC 700 AND NFRC 702

26 NFRC 700 Updates Updates for Applied Film and Attachment Licensees Definitions Addition of Section 3.9, 3.10 & License agreements and schedules for applied film manufacturers, suppliers and brander Section 6.3 & Applied Film products shall have temporary labels applied at the point of manufacture or designated Licensed Brander location Section addition of applied film for label certificate Section add language for NFRC temporary label on box/packaging for applied film products during in-plant inspection Label certificate for Attachment modified to Applied Film

27 NFRC 700 (continued) Updates for all licensees quality control system Section 8.2 B - In plant quality control systems requirement defined for audit of incoming material and in process materials Section Annual audit required of licensee s quality management system defined Implementation of documented quality control systems January 1, 2018 Review Bulletin: PCP_Bulletin_

28 NFRC 702 Implementation of Plant Audit Requirements January 1, 2018 (Published NFRC 702: NFRC ) Section h: Product Line Inspections Updated language for the targeted number of certified products for inspection. IAs will need to create and maintain a log for all products and inspection schedule. Note: This table replaces the previous modification requiring 20% of product lines at a facility to be inspected.

29 Service Obligations NFRC 702 Re-inspection of facilities in response to non-compliance Verification of IG certification with an NFRC IG Certification Program Inspection and identification of all grid systems as listed in the NFRC Simulation Report Inspection of all components used in the complete assembly Finished assembly cross-sectional views to the NFRC Simulation report s drawing packet, and groupings Measure profiles using measurements equivalent to the NFRC procedure Verify components match what is present in the NFRC Simulation Report Presence of both the temporary and permanent NFRC labels and the accuracy with all labeling requirements

30 Upcoming Updates NFRC 702 CPC has reviewed and approved a modification to the 702 that allows an IA to split a facility s annual audit into 2 visits to allow additional time for product line review. Assists with number of product line reviews, and noncompliance re-inspection needs, however quality audit will only be required in one visit. Implementation will be requested for January 1, 2018

31 General DISCUSSION TOPICS AND CONCERNS

32 Staff / APC Maintaining Certification We have an ever increasing amount of certified simulators, non-lab and lab simulators. To be in compliance with the NFRC certification program, each simulator needs to perform at an expected level to maintain certification. Participate in the annual ILC Obtain and produce results within an acceptable standard deviation If you do not meet these criteria your certification could be suspended and additional training is required. Thoughts?

33 SimTG / IA Frame Code Assignment Tagging the frame in THERM is defined in the simulation manual by surface area.

34 SimTG / IA Frame Code Assignment (cont.) What frame code is assigned when you have thermal and non-thermal cross-sections in the product. Example: Curtainwall with all members thermally broken except the head and sill are thermally improved (debridge does not meet thermally broken criteria). Thermal breaks are urethane at head and sill and polyamide at vertical members. Frame Code:?? Aluminum w/ thermal breaks partial (AP) Aluminum w/ thermal breaks all members (AT) Other (OT) Does Majority Rule?

35 SimTG / IA Frame Code Assignment (cont.) Thermal break code:?? Polyamide (P) Urethane (U) Other (O) Does Majority Rule?

36 SimTG/IA Reinforcement Positioning Does this get modeled per the manufacturer drawing or per actual positioning (lock rail screw, floating, gravity)?

37 SimTG/Lab Breaking Air Cavities in THERM Air cavity breaks per 5mm rule Determine throat and break begin horizontal, then vertical, Nu<1.2 No!

38 SimTG/Lab Breaking Air Cavities in THERM

39 SimTG/Lab Breaking Air Cavities in THERM Nu<1.2

40 Lab/IA Certification Submittals Drawing packages have missing parts, are outdated or just missing in general Details are being overlooked emissivity, boundary conditions, uploads (test option, CPD number, 6 decimal precision on U-factor, SHGC and VT) Resolve reports that require re-work with urgency, delays cause NFRC participants potential for non-compliance.

41 Lab Certification Submittals (cont.) Identification of models by lab naming can be problematic Uploading reports to CPD at time of submittal to IA Understand and use the Revision and Addendum report types to replace information, or add to a grouped option in a published product line Review NFRC support pages for known issues CPD: CPD Info or support@nfrc.org CMAST: CMAST Support and Information or cmasupport@nfrc.org

42 Assignments Test Lab TG ASTM C1363 Qmb/Qs<10%; Does this affect results? Research required? Simulators TG Sealing leakage paths per physical test simulation manual language required? Section 6.3.7?? Air Cavity breaking language (lab simulators group, SimTG, TIPC) Simulators TG and IAs Frame and sash code and thermal break code? Reinforcement positioning? NFRC Staff and APC Maintaining certification; rules for simulators