fall membership meeting 2017 ballots...fall membership meeting 2017 ballots use links below to...

Fall Membership Meeting 2017 Ballots Use links below to access ballot comments Link in the ballot name will automatically download from NFRC website

Technical Ballot Summaries Fall 2017

Condensation Resistance Subcommittee

Leadership -- Chair: Kevin Vilhauer, Staff: Scott Hanlon

o NFRC 500 Condensation Resistance Ballot F17 Comments

o NFRC 501 Condensation Resistance Ballot F17 Comments

U-factor Subcommittee

Leadership -- Chair: Anthony Cinnamon, Staff: Scott Hanlon

o NFRC 100 Rounding Ballot F17 Comments

o NFRC 100 Trendline Ballot F17 Comments

Download all NFRC Technical Committee Fall 2017 Ballots in one zip file

https://nfrccommunity.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/F17_Ballots/Technical_Committee_Ballots_.zip

https://nfrccommunity.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/F17_Ballots/NFRC_500_CR_Ballot_F17.docx


https://nfrccommunity.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/F17_Ballots/NFRC_100_Rounding_Ballot_F1.docx

https://nfrccommunity.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/F17_Ballots/NFRC_100_Trendline_Ballot_F.docx

NFRC 500 Condensation Resistance Ballot NFRC Ballot Comments/Motion Form – Fall 2017 Technical Committee, U-factor Subcommittee, RCBC TG

Page 1 of 15

NFRC Member Vote TallyAP 22

ABS 12 NEG 10 total 43

Legend: NEG: Negative with Comments W-PM: Withdrawn Prior to Meeting W: Withdrawn at Meeting

S: Substantive E: Editorial NGR: Non-Germane

Committee: Technical Committee

Subcommittee: Condensation Resistance Subcommittee

Scope of ballot:

This is a ballot to completely revise NFRC 500 to replace Condensation Rating (CR) with a coldest point temperature methodology that is proposed to be called Condensation Index.

The proposed methodology has been presented at a few past NFRC Condensation Resistance Subcommittee meetings and are available for review on the NFRC website under the Condensation Resistance Task Group. This proposal has used the formula approach for the coldest temperature based on CSA A440's Temperature Index (TI).

It is intended that this methodology is to only be implemented once the Residential Component Based Calculation (RCBC) approach has been approved and published within ANSI/NFRC 100.

Associated Program Administrative Topics

There are no associated program concerns since this ballot is not expected to pass.



Page 2 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Associated Labs, B.S. 001 NEG Editorial Section and/ or Page # 6.2 Comment/Alternate Language

For consistency with other NFRC documents, please add the year of latest publication to Section 6.2: C1199-14 C1363-11 E1423-14 I approve of the document once these editorial changes have been made.

Motion 1st Motion 2nd Result Vote Motion Language………….



Page 3 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Keystone Certification, Inc., T.R. 002 NEG Editorial Section and/ or Page # Definitions Comment/Alternate Language

The center-of-glazing and edge-of-glazing CI's should be defined the same as in NFRC 100 (outside/inside 63.5 mm glazing perimeter, respectively) to avoid interpretation of "...where [1-D/2-D] heat transfer effects dominate...". Different simulators may interpret 'dominant effects' differently resulting in potentially differing results for the same product configuration.




Page 4 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number AAMA, J.S. 003 NEG Substantive Section and/ or Page # 4.3.1 Comment/Alternate Language

The proposed NFRC 500 states, “…do not use the temperature at the interior sightline [for minimum frame temperature]…” but does not seem to offer an alternate to use, e.g. 1/32” from the sightline? 1/8” away? 1” away? Need to clarify.




Page 5 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number AAMA, J.S. 004 NEG Substantive Section and/ or Page # Comment/Alternate Language

2. The ballot says that “This proposal has used the formula approach for the coldest temperature based on CSA A440's Temperature Index (TI). CSA TI uses edge-of-glass temperatures 2” from the sightline, which is significantly different than that at ½” from the sightline as cited in the proposed revisions to NFRC 500 and 501. 3. If coldest edge-of-glass is indeed going to be taken at ½” from the sightline, it is vital to define the glass bite and IGU spacer sightline used for modeling. Nominal? Minimum? Maximum?




Page 6 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number VELUX AMERICA, LLC, R.L. 005 NEG Neg w/ Comment Section and/ or Page # 2 Comment/Alternate Language

There seems to be only a partial coverage of skylight products, and until the playing field is leveled we do not support the change to Condensation Index.




Page 7 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number AAMA, J.S. 006 NEG Neg w/ comment Section and/ or Page # 2 Comment/Alternate Language

Skylights have not been included in the Canadian method referenced as the model for the NFRC method, therefore it is not clear how skylights would be covered going forward.




Page 8 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number WESTLab, J.B. 007 NEG Neg w/ Comment Section and/ or Page # General Comment/Alternate Language

I agree with the proposed concept but feel there needs to be some specific language included in 500 to link it to the new RCBC calculations. How is a CI value determined for a glass option when there are no Therm models for the option. I would recommend that the task group take one more pass through the document to address RCBC.




Page 9 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number JELD-WEN, S.S. 008 NEG Neg w/ Comments Section and/ or Page # General Comment/Alternate Language

While a change to the "new Condensation Index may be an improvement we do not know what the impact will be on the existing CR ratings. How will this compare to CRF and the Canadian I value. Our goal should be to bring these all together as a meaningful condensation rating that the consumers will easily understand.




Page 10 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Pella Corporation, J.H. 009 NEG Neg w/ comments Section and/ or Page # General Comment/Alternate Language

Pella is intrigued by the concept, but will withhold final approval until a more thorough analysis is conducted to compare the proposed CI to the current CR, as well as CSA’s TI and AAMA’s CRF. A better understanding is needed of how this will impact existing ratings.




Page 11 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Andersen Corporation, M.M. 010 NEG Neg w/ comment Section and/ or Page # General Comment/Alternate Language

While we are intrigued by this new index, caution should be taken before issuing a new certified and labeled rating for condensation. Does a manufacturer get both ratings? Are both labeled? A case study showing the differences between an NFRC CR, NFRC CI and AAMA CRF should be done in more detail and further discussion is needed to determine if an NFRC CI would provide better information to the end consumer vs the existing NFRC CR.




Page 12 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Roetzel & Andress, T.Z. 011 NEG Neg w/ Comment Section and/ or Page # General Comment/Alternate Language

This a massive change which requires significant assessment. No assessment is provided. While a methodology has been presented at past CR Subcommittee meetings, this complete re-write of NFRC 500 was put out for ballot without any notice to Subcommittee members, or any opportunity for CR Subcommittee input or review. The Subcommittee working on this should have been given notice and an opportunity for input and comment before this went out for ballot.




Page 13 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Walsh Building Products, R.S. 012 NEG Neg w/ Comment Section and/ or Page # General Comment/Alternate Language

No answer req's




Page 1 of 12






Subcommittee: Condensation Resistance Subcommittee

Scope of ballot:

This is a ballot to completely revise NFRC 501 to replace Condensation Rating (CR) with a coldest point temperature methodology that is proposed to be called Condensation Index.

NFRC 500 is also being balloted for this new methodology.

It is intended that this methodology is to only be implemented once the Residential Component Based Calculation (RCBC) approach has been approved and published within ANSI/NFRC 100.





Page 2 of 12





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number VELUX AMERICA, LLC, R.L. 001 NEG Neg w/ Comment Section and/ or Page # 2 Comment/Alternate Language

There seems to be only a partial coverage of skylight products, and until the playing field is leveled we do not support the change to Condensation Index.




Page 3 of 12





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number AAMA, J.S. 002 NEG Neg w/ comment Section and/ or Page # 2 Comment/Alternate Language

Skylights have not been included in the Canadian method referenced as the model for the NFRC method, therefore it is not clear how skylights would be covered going forward.




Page 4 of 12





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number WESTLab, J.B. 003 NEG Neg w/ Comment Section and/ or Page # General Comment/Alternate Language

Same concerns about linking CI to RCBC that I raised in the 500 ballot. Recommend that the task group consider any further changes made to 500 and update 501 as needed.




Page 5 of 12





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number JELD-WEN, S.S. 004 NEG Neg w/ Comments Section and/ or Page # General Comment/Alternate Language

While this change may be an improvement, we do not know what the end impact on the current CR ratings will be. I cannot support this ballot without that understanding.




Page 6 of 12





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Pella Corporation, J.H. 005 NEG Neg w/ comments Section and/ or Page # General Comment/Alternate Language

Pella is intrigued by the concept, but will withhold final approval until a more thorough analysis is conducted to compare the proposed CI to the current CR, as well as CSA’s TI and AAMA’s CRF. A better understanding is needed of how this will impact existing ratings.




Page 7 of 12





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Andersen Corporation, M.M. 006 NEG Neg w/ comment Section and/ or Page # General Comment/Alternate Language

Address NFRC 501 upon full completion and ballot responses to NFRC 500.




Page 8 of 12





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Roetzel & Andress, T.Z. 007 NEG Neg w/ Comment Section and/ or Page # General Comment/Alternate Language

This a massive change which requires significant assessment. No assessment is provided. While a methodology has been presented at past CR Subcommittee meetings, this complete re-write of NFRC 500 was sent out for ballot without any notice to CR Subcommittee members, or an opportunity for CR Subcommittee input or review. The Subcommittee working on this should have been given notice and given an opportunity for input and comment before this went out for ballot.




Page 9 of 12






The proposed NFRC 500 states, “…do not use the temperature at the interior sightline [for minimum frame temperature]…” but does not seem to offer an alternate to use, e.g. 1/32” from the sightline? 1/8” away? 1” away? Need to clarify.




Page 10 of 12






2. The ballot says that “This proposal has used the formula approach for the coldest temperature based on CSA A440's Temperature Index (TI). CSA TI uses edge-of-glass temperatures 2” from the sightline, which is significantly different than that at ½” from the sightline as cited in the proposed revisions to NFRC 500 and 501. 3. If coldest edge-of-glass is indeed going to be taken at ½” from the sightline, it is vital to define the glass bite and IGU spacer sightline used for modeling. Nominal? Minimum? Maximum?



NFRC 100 Rounding Ballot NFRC Ballot Comments/Motion Form – Fall 2017 Technical Committee, U-Factor Subcommittee




Subcommittee: U-Factor Subcommittee

This ballot is for the purposes of providing clear and consistent language regarding the conversion, rounding, and number of decimals used for NFRC ratings.

Associated Program Administrative Topics If this ballot passes, fully implementing the changes will affect:

1. Related documents changes 2. Software updates 3. Estimated cost of full implementation 4. Estimated time for full implementation 5. Business Rules 6. Program Processes 7. Pending other Committee/Board approval 8. Other



Page 1 of 8





WESTLab, J.B.

Response Number

001 NEG Section and/ or Page # 5.9.6.1 Comment/Alternate Language

5.9.6.1 needs to address how to handle SI U‐factors. Add the an additional sentence to the end of 5.9.6.1, see last sentence below. 5.9.6.1 Reporting of Ratings All variables used in the formula shall be expressed to at least three significant decimal places. The final IP U‐factor rating shall be rounded to two digits following the decimal point. The final SI U‐factor rating shall be converted from the two decimal IP U‐factor and rounded following the conversion and rounding procedure in NFRC 700 Section 6.5.I.iii.




Page 2 of 8





Pella Windows and Doors, J.H.

Response Number

002 NEG Section and/ or Page # 4.6.4, 5.9.6.1 Comment/Alternate Language

See attached comments




Page 3 of 8





Andersen Corporation, M.M.

Response Number


Rounding for SI should also be addressed and included.




Page 4 of 8





AAMA, J.S.

Response Number


SI unit rounding is handled in NFRC 700. However, many manufactuers do not use NFRC 700 since they do not certify products. Also, NFRC 700 is not referenced in the building code. NFRC 100 is, so the rounding rules for SI units should be in NFRC 100




Page 5 of 8





Simonton Windows, a Ply Gem Company, T.S.

Response Number


SI unit rounding is handled in NFRC 700 and is not mentioned in the building codes NFRC 100 is.




Page 7 of 8



[No Changes in Sections 4.1 through 4.6.3] 4.6.4 Reporting of Ratings The full floating point accuracy of any software shall be used for all calculations. For both

SI and IP units, the final U-factor shall be rounded to two digits following the decimal point (X.XX) after truncating the full precision result to six decimal places.

[No Changes through the remaining parts of Section 4]

Section 5

[No Changes 5.1 through 5.9.6]

5.9.6.1 Reporting of Ratings

All variables used in the formula shall be expressed to at least three significant decimal places. For both SI and IP units, the final U-factor rating shall be rounded to two digits following the decimal point (X.XX).

[No Changes through the remaining parts of Section 5]


NFRC 100 Trendline Ballot NFRC Ballot Comments/Motion Form – Fall 2017 Technical Committee, U-factor Subcommittee, RCBC TG

Page 1 of 15






Subcommittee: U-factor Subcommittee

Scope of ballot:

The ballot is presenting language based on a previous ballot and task group research. There are some details that remain under investigation such as implementation, software adjustments, training, etc., which will be developed and presented to membership before the trendline methodology is implemented.

NFRC 100 modifications:

Any information regarding references to research or task group discussion is located on the RCBC webpage. A PowerPoint file and notes from the May 2017 task group meeting will provide rationale for the balloted language:

Grids: Previously, the task group was recommending to use an add-on rating; however, research indicated attempting to provide an add-on rating was too complicated to simplify a range of a u-factor add-on. Grids will be considered a characteristic for developing a trendline and will use a separate trendline. The PowerPoint presentation demonstrates the research and complicity of attempting to provide an add-on value.

Using a 3pt. trendline: Based on ballot responses, the task group is recommending using a 3pt. trendline instead of a 2 pt. trendline as previously balloted. New language is included in cases where there is less than 3 points to generate a trendline. More information is available in the PowerPoint presentation.

Curtain Wall & similar product types: many ballot responses indicated that curtain wall type and similar product types should utilize the RCBC methodology. The scope of the RCBC task group is for product types that are generally considered residential, such as a fixed or vertical sliding product and at this time will not consider the curtain wall and other product types as part of the ballot. There is discussion to include the curtain wall product types; however, to include in the ballot is premature.

Simulation Manual: The simulation manual will contain modeling rules to utilize the RCBC methodology. At the time of this ballot the language and sections within the Simulation Manual are not developed. Any reference to a simulation manual section is listed as #-###. Any reference to the Simulation Manual will be updated upon approval by TIPC.

Adding product options to an establish trendline: The previous ballot included a process to include new options within an established trendline. The task group reviewed the language and ballot responses and concluded that new options added to a product line shall utilize a separate trendline.



Page 2 of 15





Door products covered: Product lines that are comprised of only the following door product types: a fully glazed stile and rail hinged doors, lift and slide, and folding doors are within the RCBC scope. All other hinged doors are out of RCBC scope and use either the traditional or SDR methodologies.

Implementation:

The implementation of this methodology has many topics to consider. This ballot does not contain any recommendations for implementation. The intent is to keep the current simulation methodology in effect until such time the traditional methodology is no longer in use. The task group is recommending that the trendline approach will be added to chapter five which is “Variations from the General Requirements”. Developing language in this chapter allows the main requirements within the NFRC 100, product line details, etc. to continue without edits. Chapter five provides the alternative and specific requirements for using the trendline approach. The proposed new Section 5.11 is all new language, and therefore is not shown in underline / strikeout format. As previously indicated, the simulation manual will work in conjunction with in the NFRC 100 providing processes and simulation details to perform the trendline calculations. The simulation manual will be developed and worked on by staff and simulators and ultimately approved by TIPC.





Page 3 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Milgard Manufacturing, K.V. 001 NEG Substantive Section and/ or Page # 5.11.2 Comment/Alternate Language

In section 5.11.2 one of the exclusions (H) is Door Transom. I am unclear as to why a transom would be excluded. My company's transoms use the patio door frame and are either direct glazed or sash glazed. They are essentially a fixed window using a door frame.




Page 4 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number WESTLab, J.B. 002 NEG Editorial Section and/ or Page # 5.11.2 Comment/Alternate Language 5.11.2 Products and Systems Covered

Product lines that are comprised of only the following product types: a fully glazed stile and rail hinged doors, lift and slide doors, folding doors, and products listed in Table 4-3 except for the following:




Page 5 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Keystone Certifications, Inc., T. R. 003 NEG Editorial Section and/ or Page # 5.11.2 Comment/Alternate Language

5.11.2: "... fully glazed stile and rail hinged doors..." are, by definition a "Side-Hinged Exterior Door". How can they be both included and excluded from this procedure?




Page 6 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Birch Point Consulting, T.C. 004 NEG NG or Substantive Section and/ or Page # 5.11.2.E Comment/Alternate Language

Remove “E. Curtain Wall / Window Wall / Storefront / Sloped Glazing;" from the list of items excluded under 5.11.2. There is good progress being made on the trendline method, but no compelling reason has been provided why curtain wall, window wall, storefront, and sloped glazing should not be included. It seems the technical procedures would apply equally to this type of product. What is good for the goose is good for the gander ...




Page 7 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Keystone Certifications, Inc., T. R. 005 NEG Editorial Section and/ or Page # 5.11.4.1.1 Comment/Alternate Language

5.11.4.1.1: Are glazing gas infills intentionally excluded from the IGU characteristics? These do have somewhat of an impact on COG U-factor.




Page 8 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number WESTLab, J.B. 006 NEG Editorial Section and/ or Page # 5.11.4.1.2 Comment/Alternate Language 5.11.4.1.2 Establishing Trendline Endpoints

The categorization of a trendline per section 5.11.4.1.1 will set the glazing options. The following explains the process to set the three points used for a trendline. A category with less than three glazing options shall not be permitted to use the trendline methodology. A. Each trendline shall be established with a minimum of three (3)

points: the two endpoints and one midpoint. B. Glazing (i.e., center-of-glass) options for the endpoints shall be the

best and worst performing (Uc-min and Uc-max, respectively) configurations options in the available category options.

C. Glazing selection for each trendline COG midpoint (Uc-mid) shall be the closest COG of the average of the Uc-min and Uc-max. For trendlines where there are only three glazing options, use the three options will be the Uc-min, Uc-mid, and Uc-maxfor section 5.11.4.1.3.

D. The determined Uc-min, Uc-mid, and Uc-max shall be used to develop trendlines per Section 5.11.4.1.3.




Page 9 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number WESTLab, J.B. 007 NEG Substantive Section and/ or Page # 5.11.4.1.3 Comment/Alternate Language 5.11.4.1.3 Development of a Trendline

For each category established in 5.11.4.1.1, a trendline shall be created from the three points point options selected in 5.11.4.1.2. A. Each of the point glazing configurations shall be simulated with the category

frame and spacer options, per Section #.### of the NFRC Simulation Manual. B. The resulting whole product (Utot) and COG (Uc) values U-factors of each

trendline point shall be plotted as a line graph, as specified below, using NFRC’s Trendline Excel file. i. The values of Uc are plotted against the horizontal (X) axis. ii. The values of Utot are plotted against the vertical (Y) axis.

C. The linear equation coefficients, “m” and “b”, for this category, as well as the R2 value, shall be computed from the modeling results. i. The m and b coefficients define the trendline, and are used to calculate

Utot from Uc. ii. The R2 coefficient of determination is a measure of the linearity of the

trendline points. Its value shall be greater than 0.990. D. If either the trendline visual confirmation or the R2 evaluation does not meet

linearity standards, the results shall require the re-simulation of the existing points or the re-categorization of the trendline per 5.11.4.1.1.

WESTLab comment: The visual confirmation process will need to be defined clearly.




Page 10 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Vitro Architectural Glass, M.B. 008 NEG Editorial Section and/ or Page # 5.11.6 Comment/Alternate Language Section 5.11.6 Validation states: "The baseline product option selected per Section 4.2.6 criteria shall be modeled and shall be an endpoint of a trendline." This wording makes the intent of this section unclear. This could be interpreted as a definition of an endpoint, which might be in conflict with the endpoint selection per section 5.11.4.1.2. Or this could be interpreted as how the baseline product is selected (use one of the previously determined endpoints), but the reference to section 4.2.6 suggests that all of the U-factors are already determined. Since 4.2.6 requires that the baseline product be near the lower end of U-factor values, a suggested rewording of 5.11.6 might be something like: "The baseline product option shall be the endpoint of the trendline with the lower U-factor." However this might cause problems if the product represented by the lower endpoint isn't actually produced. Perhaps the intent of section 5.11.6 is to have the baseline product option selected per Section 4.2.6 criteria to be modeled by the conventional way and not the trendline method?




Page 11 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number Keystone Certifications, Inc., T. R. 009 NEG Substantive Section and/ or Page # 5.11.7.B Comment/Alternate Language 5.11.7 - B: The requirement that the addition of product options resulting in endpoints outside of the original trendline need to have a new trendline created infers that endpoint choice may/will result in differing trendline slopes. if this is the case then, for a given IGU characteristic set, there may be multiple trendlines depending on choice of endpoints. If a fabricator uses a given trendline for a period of time (resulting in a respective set of certified and labeled U-factors) and then adds new endpoints that results in a different slope, which U-factors for all the existing products are correct; the original or the new? How does a fabricator address differences in U-factors between 'before' and 'after' for the same product configuration? An alternative is to prescriptively define absolute "best' and 'worst' case endpoints for each product categorization. These don't even need be based on existing technology but could be a multiple (better or worse) of what currently exists in the market for components and materials. This would guarantee that any product configuration for a given characteristic set would fall on the one and only respective trendline.




Page 12 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number UL, LLC, D.A. 010 NEG Substantive Section and/ or Page # Grids Comment/Alternate Language

I cannot support this ballot to require between-the-glass grids (GBG) to model/simulate their own trendlines. The RCBC approach was to simplify the number of models and calculations and including GBG's does not do this. The power point referenced on the ballot title page indicates that an add-on approach is doable and can be maximized at 0.03 Btu/hr/ft2/F. Of the 1000's of simulations I have conducted, reviewed, audited over the past 20 years, I have not seen GBG's that have been closer than 1.2mm. Based on that 1.2mm distance in the power point presentation, the maximum add-0n would be 0.03 Btu/hr/ft2/F for Dual-Glazed Systems and 0.01 Btu/hr/ft2/F for Triple-Glazed Systems. Developing three add-on ranges of 0.01, 0.02, and 0.03 is strongly recommended to simplify the number of simulations and trendlines produced.




Page 13 of 15





Company Name, Rep Initials Response Number VELUX AMERICA, LLC, R.L. 011 NEG Substantive Section and/ or Page # General Comment/Alternate Language

To date, I do not think enough has been done to verify that the methodology works as accurately for sloped products.as it seems to for vertical ones.



fall membership meeting 2017 ballots...fall membership meeting 2017 ballots use links below to...

Documents