|
Draft Flow Charts
Posted: 03 Aug 2005 04:06 PM |
Discussion of suggested revisions to Working Draft I of the NFRC Component Based Non-Residential Fenestration Product Certification Program during the April 26, 2005, Non-Residential Products Task Group (Ratings) meeting in Chicago showed major revisions were needed. In lieu of continued debate over the words of the draft program, the task group agreed to develop a second draft of the program flow chart.
Based on input from task group members, glass manufacturers/fabricators, framing system manufacturers/fabricators, wall system consultants and members of the commercial construction industry, Draft II – 07.21.05 of the NFRC Component-Based Fenestration Product Certification Program Flow Chart was developed with a focus on simplification of the process and helping achieve the NFRC Board of Director’s objective of “providing cost effective value to the non-residential end users.” Draft II of the flow chart was presented to the participants in the July 25, 2005, task group meeting held in conjunction with the NFRC Summer Meeting in Quebec City, Canada. Following constructive discussion, the task group agreed to seek written input on the second draft of the flow chart during a designated review period.
Below you will find links to drafts I and II of the flow charts as well as a document (provided by Margaret Webb with IGMA) that provides a side-by-side comparison of the two drafts. We are asking that written comments be provided to the task group via e-mail to my attention (cgcarney@glasswebsite.com) with a copy to NFRC staff representative, Bipin Shah (bshah@nfrc.org) between now and Friday, September 9, 2005. Comments and discussion may also be posted here on the task group discussion board.
Responses from this comment period will be the primary topic of discussion for the next task group meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 5, 2005 in Atlanta. NFRC staff will provide additional meeting information as soon as it is available.
Regards,
Greg Carney
Task Group Chairman
Technical Director
Glass Association of North America
Phone: 228.896.7643
E-mail: cgcarney@glasswebsite.com
cgcarney@aol.com
Flow Chart Draft I
http://www.nfrc.org/documents/Visio-Flowchartofprocess_rev3-022105.pdf.pdf
Flow Chart Draft II
http://www.nfrc.org/documents/Visio-NFRCNRPTGFlowChartDraftIIa-072105_000.pdf
Flow Chart Draft I and II Comparison
http://www.nfrc.org/documents/Side_by_Side_Comparion_FlowCharts_DraftIandII_Margaret-Webb.pdf
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Re: Draft Flow Charts
Posted: 04 Aug 2005 07:58 AM |
| The non-residential program still needs more fine tuning, but it's definitely better than the initial program. With our business being highly custom, a more streamlined and cost effective approach is direly needed. Eliminating some of the redundant, and time consuming steps is a clear benefit to the manufacturers. As you know, for a project to maintain it's production schedule we must get through the process rather quickly. |
Mike Young
Window Product Design
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Draft Flow Charts
Posted: 22 Aug 2005 08:02 AM |
| MIke Young it would be fruitful to the task group if you can identify the topics which need fine tuning. It will help get the task group thoughts going and address the issues before the October 5 meeting. |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Draft Flow Charts
Posted: 26 Aug 2005 05:40 PM |
| As a manufacturer we would like to see the role of the IA removed, and the standard changed to just a simulation being required from a lab. The primary concern is for an expeditious approach, we need to remove steps for the time element, and to alleviate more costs. |
Mike Young
Window Product Design
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Draft Flow Charts
Posted: 30 Aug 2005 12:05 PM |
I understand the interest in removing unnecessary steps to save time and reduce cost....and I think that it is appropriate to look at all aspects of the certification process.
However, we (NFRC) need to maintain some sort of "third party" review in the certification process in order to be accepted by the code and utility audiences...California has adopted a set of criteria that NFRC must meet in order to be accepted for code compliance in that state.... their criteria might be useful in providing some guidance in this area....
That doesn't mean we have to have an "IA"...just that we need to have a system that includes an independent third party review of the rating assigned to a product. |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Draft Flow Charts
Posted: 01 Sep 2005 02:53 PM |
Unitl we get more details drafted its hard to decide what oversight (third party- could be anyone, sim lab, NFRC staff or IA) is needed. If its a whole building does someone need to make sure every opening is accounted for, that the glass is right, that the sizes and quantities are right. If it's one product line who verifies that the right components were used in the calc. Will 5 inch and 7inch deep frames have the same ratings? Will 3" and 4 " high plates have the same rating? How much of mullions, astragals etc have to be accounted for? Depending on how everything is grouped, to what extent the details have to be accounted for its difficult to say how much "work" has to be done to verify that the ratings on the label certificate represent the actual project.
|
|
|
|
|
 Trident
|
 |
| Joined: 28 Feb 2005 |
| Total Posts: 1 |
| |
|
Re: Draft Flow Charts
Posted: 06 Sep 2005 11:35 AM |
Commercial non-residential product does not afford the industry the lag time from order entry to delivery and installation as does the residential portion of the industry. The non-res business does not have standardization in dimension configurations of typical windows as the residential aspect does, thus making it difficult, at best to meet deadlines for product to be supplied to a commercial jobsite in a timely manner. If a commerical fenestration product (in question) is to simulated and or IA inspected prior to or at release of a purchase order most if not all non-residential fenestration products will required extented leadtime. The concept of a NFRC approved product is to supply a product to the market that is to sustain and perform as designated via the NFRC label. A NFRC lable must be generated in a timely manner, should be easily accessible and at minimual cost in certification to obtain the NFRC label.
The Commercial/non-residential business can have multiple fenestration suppliers to any given jobsite but each jobsite has one responsible design professional/firm. The design professional is the person responsible to design an energy effeciently performing project, code compliant project, and is also equally responsible to ensure that the building performs as designed. When or if this is not accomplished there are ramifications. Using this as todays system that seems to comply to the market demands and meets code compliance, should the design professional be the responsible party to purchase NFRC registration and certification for the entire project? |
|
|
|
|
cmonroe
|
|
| Joined: 23 Aug 2005 |
| Total Posts: 2 |
| |
|
Atlanta meeting notes
Posted: 28 Nov 2005 11:26 AM |
We would like to respectfully disagree with the notes that were distributed from the Non residential task meeting held in Atlanta in October 2005. While we have had much debate internally on the need of disagreeing with these notes, the reason we must do so is that the record is crucial in any program building experience, and in this case, the record does not accurately portray what happened in the meeting.
Cliff Monroe was asked to keep notes for the meeting along with someone from NFRC staff. His notes are at the bottom of this because they too should be entered into history as what happened during that meeting.
Because we do not want to spend valuable time rehashing everything that we disagree with, we feel that the notes from Cliff will serve as evidence for that. However we do want to express our dismay over the reinvention of history in the notes as it pertains to the “Responsible Party” issue. Never during the meeting was the term, “Specifying Authority” mentioned or discussed. Obviously after the meeting that terminology was created, however to enter it into the notes like it happened during the meeting is a dis-service to the board and membership of the NFRC. We have no problems with trying to find different grounds on a very important issue, however meeting notes should stick exclusively to what happened in the meeting. If that term was discussed then somehow Cliff, 2 trade magazines and Potomac Communications (in their press release) all missed it.
Because of issues like the above, we suggest that to avoid future miscommunication that all meetings either be tape recorded or video taped for posterity and accuracy sake. The efforts that the NFRC and its board and membership are trying to undertake to serve the public are very important, thus every effort should be taken to ensure that its history is portrayed correctly and as it happens.
Meeting Notes October 5, 2005
Introductions of attendance
Mike Mantege
Unfinished Business: Task group doing a good job. The group needs to finalization and a ballet to sub-committee for the membership to address in negative and positive comment,
then onto the board for review.
Scope read aloud by Greg Carney: Adding the “cost effective” wording be read into the scope.
Mike Springer: Why cost effective since cost vary.
Gary Curtis: NFRC has no office way to determine cost effectiveness, need cost efficient evaluations
Tracy Richards: Value includes cost a matrix to determine cost effective,
Draft II: Flow chart discussion; for review and comment period, give time for those who participated to give us feedback, also from the discussion board on-line.
Charlie:
Keep simplicity to the process, preserve integrity. Review of his comments.
Relax what was proposed in the PCP to an approved calculation entity. The purchasers of this calculation would be required to submit to training to use the calculation entity.
Response to chart questions:
Peer review serves the role of the IA
Does spacer include info on sealants; needs to be spelled out.
CPD needs to be spelled out and the calculation agent does a good job.
What is 303- an anticipated NFRC document to be labeled for spacers.
Margaret Web:
Brought to IGMA group and committees are from the IGMA technical committee.
Simulation of the three components: IGMA against this since glass is and has been available for years.
Spacer regarding conductivity, grouping does not work with simulation.
Framing: Them already does the calculation.
The first page of bucket libraries would not like simulation because it drives the cost up.
Certified CBA units to not support the implied failure rate.
Orlando meeting questions the unit system entity; these units are already certified to verify what the unit composition (four major components) is.
IA to generate labels not the glazer and framer, do to application.
Design professional responsibility narrowed do to what does this mean.
Define the role of the calculation agent.
Response:
Mike Brown US Aluminum:
Simplify process of i.e. u-factor, if a tool is on-line or is available for bidding purposes.
Mike Young:
Simulation from a lab and cost is utmost important
Gary Curtis:
Independent third party-need to maintain the independent 3rd party review to be creditable.
Marcia Falke:
Simulate a product it pretty easy, but if the framing is complex and multiple parts. Have not done the technical grouping are they cross referenced.
A whole project with fifty different components that will check these.
Cliff Monroe:
Reinforced comments.
Issues as presented by Greg Carney:
1. Certified simulator removal.
Still need simulation of the frame to get into the bucket. Framing aspect of the three buckets. Accredited lab or non-lab simulator.
The difference between an accredited lab and non-lab it will need to be required to send it to an accredited simulation lab to verify.
A simulated can be on sight and do the simulation but an accredited lab as licensed lab by NFRC must verify. A non-certified simulator if competent does not need to be NFRC certified if the lab accepts the data.
No IA requirement under the current flow chart layout.
Proposal by Joel Smith: to create a work group to determine the framing bucket.
There currently is a framing work group, to be discussed later.
Establish the criteria of how the information goes into the framing bucket.
How offend is workshop? Once a year at a cost of last workshop $1,750.00.
What percent pass, 50%, many do the training but do not take the exam.
Simulation of Components subject to APC
Listed glass spacer frame- there is none for glass.
Peer review glass that is different from spacer and frame. A lab would go through education and testing.
Margaret indicated that the glass library is not broke.
Jeff indicated that it works except for laminated glass of which he is on a committee through NFRC to review and establish.
Mike the glass library is not broke. But laminated is lacking data and it is due to the mfg not supplying the needed data to the IGDB.
Metal may be more difficult in a peer review than is glass.
Glass: Use the existing glass bucket system use without going through a review process. Laminated to go through the optical properties to develop and sent to the glass bucket. Jeff Baker will make this happen.
Spacer: Jeff Baker falls into three groupings; Margaret does not feel all spacer are to be simulated for each type. Jeff indicated that all 400 spacer types (AllMetal type) could fall in one grouping. Every type of spacer may not wish to be grouped it could be out of the group as independent.
Grouping could be done by a peer review process or a simulated lab. This has not been determined as of yet.
There is plenty of opportunity for grouping.
After break:
Approved calculation entity who they are and how do they exist
Calculation agency is used if certification is required.
Calculation entity can be a non certification agency and can be done by an example.
Greg indicates that these two calculation terms need to be identified and documented.
Discussion on lead-time is very different from store front to multi-story projects.
Concern that the actual product at job site is not the same as specified on a print. A print is not always the final documentation of what is on the product.
Mike Brown agrees to have the manufacturer of product be able to perform the calculation/simulation in the name of time allotted to supply material.
Charlie indicated no certification agency needed. If APC is correctly followed.
NFRC needs some one to be held responsible to insure they did their specified job.
Ten profiles in one grouping and then goes into the bucket.
Margaret: look at page two; accredited calculation agency and calculation for specification and design. AC is not subject to the APC.
Calculation must be approved by the NFRC and if one goes through the training agency and follows all NFRC criteria then it is supported per Mike M.
Everything below the buckets does not need to be done by the simulator.
Concern that the performance numbers are available on-line for commerce, but when it comes to NFRC labeling it needs to be third party certified.
Right side of the chart: under this draft the Calculation agency would verify but will not qualify as a third party certification system.
Revise Draft II to include the ACE
Support for calculation (ACE) agency after the buckets
Standard store front to curtain wall application are different systems.
To perform buy today’s simulation and IA’s it may take up to weeks or months, need to simplify.
Time lag issue: Mike feels the time lag could be overcome after the buckets which could be quick. Levels of confidence from a certified product is greater.
Register design professional is responsible to get the certification or simulation started or calculation entity be it the glass or framing manufacturer.
What is the time lag currently with residential?
One calculation set for bidding and one set for NFRC labeling.
If certification is required than an approved calculation agency is needed.
If design bidding you do not need calculation agency.
Calculation agency is the IA replacing the simulator.
Larry:
Compared from one year ago we are back to square one.
Anyone who goes through the training should be able to use the tool.
Certification is a different issue and needs to be resolved.
The level of difficulty in a commercial system can be extremely difficult compared to a residential system.
Modeling the best & worst and the similar is doing each and ever component in to the simulator, it is important to bring accurate data.
Reinstate insulating glass certification requirement, support seems to be there for certification.
Reinstall in the flow chart the certification of insulating glass units, was inadvertently removed.
Label certificate-Work to be done
After Lunch:
Role and ID of calculation agency needs further definition-is this party replacing the IA from residential process?
Who pays for label?
Splitting the responsibility of certification, how.
Registered design professionals are not here today and may not like.
Glazing contractor should be responsible to insure that he received the same materials as used to develop these rating.
On site contractor indicates he received what was specified.
Glazing contractor should be responsible for insuring he has supplied the materials.
When they have to sign for responsible for the entire system it will not go.
Multiple firms to be responsible fro each component system.
Framing is frame period. Contractor responsible for indicating he got what he ordered.
Responsibility to each party involved such a framing, glass, and spacer.
Each firm has it’s responsibility for it’s components to the project.
The glazing contractor would be responsible to contact a simulator to perform calculations and to supply the NFRC.
Who is the person to go to the calculation agency to get it done. It has been the glazing contractor.
The glazing contractor should pay for the calculation.
The calculation is specified by the Architect the provider of the materials will pick up the cost.
Glazer responsibility to
License agreements amount multiple parties of responsibility.
Nobody wants responsibility for the NFRC labeling but someone needs to be responsible the codes dictate that the Registered Design Professional is responsible.
Cost Effective is not a word that some do not want to hear. But we need to keep this in mind.
Who would contract the NFRC to obtain the label”
Straw vote:
Register Design Professional responsible (AIA) -14.
Opposed to the above -5
California leaves the responsible party open-specifier
The specifier indicates who supplies the NFRC label
ICCC code does not include register design professional
Specifier is an open term that can encompass whom they fell is responsible to supply the NFRC label.
Calculates agent is the inspection agency. Per the flow chart outline.
Certification program requires an inspection program to verify the calculations.
Leaning to a calculation agent and a some form of inspection or third party oversight.
Peer review group wants to make sure the Therm model is accurate.
IG glass spacer including the information about sealants: There may be a value to a common system (store front) in place may be easier to build up a system.
Opposition is great against the primary and secondary seal is simulated in the process of the insulating glass unit.
Glass has a library; spacer by itself will not give you the correct performance data.
Residential side: components or assemblies; twenty entries with 850 glazing options, 20 data entries end up being 800 entries.
Committee holds on spacer and sealant. In general the spacer and sealant will not be as a component.
How does a hard copy get into the Certified Product Directory?
Group feels this would be something good for the manufacture, but some feel this is not good for the industry.
Not necessary if going with the bucket approach. Who pays for this.
Not projects but product is proposed not projects in the CPD.
Architects could look for similar or typical projects his doing.
Certifying a product individually would be good in the CPD but not on the current road.
How are CA error monitored and checked?
More details on oversight: NFRC to show compliance of the entire building 100% or some percentage of windows. Skylights, door, etc.
When NFRC started this commercial project eight years ago they identified 45 product lines on the project. Some guidelines for some of the items not all. Project certification should be designed.
Future Action Plans
Write the PCP text for part of this.
Could start with the buckets on page #1 and begin on page #2.
Add the IG certification back to the program
Small group of five or six to write some of it to determine holes.
This will still be a draft document, begin defining the language as it appears.
Targeted date to complete this: 2007 was the response, finalize to the board of directors by 2007.
Format this to the modifications of the PCP.
This was done once before as a draft, Task group did lees than we do today and that’s how the flow chart developed.
What are the site build changes-take the original site build program needs to be thrown out and start with this new chart and PCP.
One all inclusive program may be difficult for all system i.e. custom curtain wall system.
Volunteers to develop or turning the draft into text via working group. Joel Smith, Tony Kamber, Greg Carney, Mike M., Gary, Charlie, Margaret.
Develop PCP language in parallel of the three groups to define the task to become more clear.
Who would chair the group: Jeff Baker
Group to look at a draft III and any work that has developed and present in Texas.
Group to discuss how to proceed next week to determine process.
One hour in Texas to present where the group is at.
Two meetings for the task group in 2006
After Break:
Technical Meeting begins.
Charlie presents several type of configurations:
Double sash single glazing, Slope glazing the system works. Glass conductivity has not been checked yet.
#10 Structural glazing works
Frame grouping rules: One pager developed, can use existing frame rules until new rules have been developed, submitted to the Research Sub-committee.
Spacer Grouping: Jeff the Chair to speak to the subject; no progress as of yet. Establish a date prior to the Santa Fe meeting. November 04, 1:pm eastern time.
Programming Issues:
Debating project size but from whom? Labeling certificate needs to be resolved than project size.
Question: Link Whole building certificates verses project size.
Safety checks using the NFRC tool what kind of checks to insure good input. Many a more stringent check for coating in or out unless a user wants to do so.
Therm software: needs to be a separate windows format, variations in absorbing or reflecting.
Is there a simplistic way to determine Best & Worst glazing via the spacer K-effect.
We are defining Best and Worst by thickness of gap space and frame construction based on the manufacturer.
Worst is double clear 6mm glass by 1” overall and best is coated with 6mm glass and 1” overall.
We based FRFEN vs. Local installation: need to further develop documentation for NRFEN.
Need volunteers to develop a flow chart for the spec document. Jason, Christen, & Jeff.
Labeling:
Discussing label presentation form Quebec City.
Jeff feels confident that the center of glass and framing values are easy to obtain and does not understand why we need to take such a long time to have simulators tells us the same information.
When glass is ordered why can’t the glass manufacture supply a document that gives the center of glass value, then the label will be adjusted to the product performance.
This could be processed from a website or Faux from NFRC.
The label could be used as a temporary label.
One certificate per job not per window.
Concern for confusion of labels on incorrect components.
Who is the label for: code official-they want a big number in a box.
In California NFRC Certified product can take 3-6 months or a default label in it’s place.
Software is considered acceptable and eliminate clerical.
Glazing contractor is the one to go on-line and generate the label?
The fabricator gets the information form the source supplied by the manufacture.
Give the label some thought and if possible come up with a label of your desire.
The end
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Atlanta meeting notes
Posted: 16 Dec 2005 11:03 AM |
| Just to clarify, the Atlanta meeting notes posted to the NFRC website were not notes taken by NFRC staff. They were notes approved by the Chair of the task group and submitted to staff for posting to the web. |
|
|
|
|
cmonroe
|
|
| Joined: 23 Aug 2005 |
| Total Posts: 2 |
| |
|
Re: Atlanta meeting notes
Posted: 19 Dec 2005 08:43 PM |
Clarification accepted, though we must note that the press release from Potomac Communications told a much different story than the notes listed above or the notes approved by the chair. Or in fact the stories written in two magazines. Amazing huh?
Bottom line is these meeting must be recorded audio and/or visually to guarantee accuracy. |
|
|
|
|