NFRC's Certification Programs Commercial & Residential ...
Post on 25-Apr-2023
0 Views
Preview:
Transcript
NFRC’s Certification Programsforfor
Commercial & Residential Fenestration Energy‐Related PerformanceEnergy Related Performance
February 22, 2010
P i O iPresentation Overview
NFRC— Introduction and Overview
Ratings and Methodologies for the Future Ratings and Methodologies for the Future
Overview, CMA Program & CMA Software Tool
Program Improvements, CMA vs. Site‐Built
CMA and Code Compliancep
CMA’s Potential Impact on Incentive Programs
4
NFRC I d i & O i
Wh i NFRC?
NFRC—Introduction & Overview
Who is NFRC?ORIGINS:
C t d b i d t i 1989• Created by industry in 1989
• Created to provide standardized methods for rating fenestration energy performance
• Unique, 501 (c)(3) [educational non‐profit public/private organization] representing:
– Industry
– State energy offices
– Design Professionals
– Utilities, Consumer Organizations
6
Utilities, Consumer Organizations
NFRC I d i & O iNFRC—Introduction & OverviewMission:Mission:
NFRC develops and administers comparative p penergy and related rating programs that serve the public and satisfy the needs of its private
sector partners by providing fair accurate andsector partners by providing fair, accurate and credible, user-friendly information on
fenestration product performance.
7
NFRC I d i & O iNFRC—Introduction & Overview
What does NFRC do?
Develops & administers fenestration rating p gprograms
Provides window door and skylight perform‐Provides window, door and skylight performance information
Administers fenestration certification Administers fenestration certification programs
8
NFRC I d i & O iNFRC—Introduction & Overview
What does NFRC not do?
We don’t set building code requirementsg q
We don’t set ENERGY STAR© criteria
We don’t set ARRA criteria (e g “30 30” We don’t set ARRA criteria (e.g. “30 – 30” fenestration requirements for tax credits)
10
NFRC I d i & O iNFRC—Introduction & Overview
What does NFRC not do?
We don’t set building code requirementsg q
We don’t set ENERGY STAR© criteria
We don’t set ARRA criteria (e g “30 30” We don’t set ARRA criteria (e.g. “30 – 30” fenestration requirements for tax credits)
11
NFRC I d i & O iNFRC—Introduction & Overview
What does NFRC not do?
We don’t set building code requirementsg q
We don’t set ENERGY STAR© criteria
We don’t set ARRA criteria (e g “30 30” We don’t set ARRA criteria (e.g. “30 – 30” fenestration requirements for tax credits)
12
NFRC I d i & O iNFRC—Introduction & Overview
…But NFRC is referenced by:
The Model Building Codesg
ENERGY STAR©
ARRA ARRA
LEED
Etc.
13
NFRC RelevanceNFRC Relevance
Just how important are energy-efficient windows, doors and
skylights?skylights?
14
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsNon residential buildings consume ~15 ½ quads of primary energy - 16% of all energy used in U Sprimary energy 16% of all energy used in U.S.
15
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsNon residential buildings consume ~15 ½ quads of primary energy - 16% of all energy used in U Sprimary energy 16% of all energy used in U.S.
16%
16
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsNon residential buildings consume ~15 ½ quads of primary energy - 16% of all energy used in U Sprimary energy 16% of all energy used in U.S.
16% is further broken down:
25%
16% is further broken down:• 25% is consumed by
lighting• 7% is consumed by
17
% yheating and cooling
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsNon residential buildings consume ~15 ½ quads of primary energy - 16% of all energy used in U Sprimary energy 16% of all energy used in U.S.
16% is further broken down:16% is further broken down:• 25% is consumed by
lighting• 7% is consumed by
7%
18
% yheating and cooling
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsHeating and cooling breakdown-- COOLINGCOOLING:
The energy consumed by air conditioning is further broken down:
19
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsHeating and cooling breakdown-- COOLINGCOOLING:
The energy consumed by air conditioning is further broken down:• 42% is used to
offset gains from li h i !lighting!
42%
20
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsHeating and cooling breakdown-- COOLINGCOOLING:
The energy consumed by air conditioning is further broken down:• 42% is used to
offset gains from li h ilighting
• NFRC’s VT rating: higher is better: go for natural light!
42%go for natural light!
21
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsHeating and cooling breakdown-- COOLINGCOOLING:
The energy consumed by air conditioning is 32%further broken down:• 32% is used to
offset solar heat i f
32%
gain from fenestration
22
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsHeating and cooling breakdown-- COOLINGCOOLING:
The energy consumed by air conditioning is 32%further broken down:• 32% is used to
offset solar heat i f
32%
gain from fenestration
• NFRC’s SHGC rating: in coolingrating: in cooling dominated climates, go for lower SHGC!
23
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsHeating and cooling breakdown-- HEATINGHEATING:
The energy consumed by heating is further 32%broken down: 32%
24
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsHeating and cooling breakdown-- HEATINGHEATING:
The energy consumed by heating is further 32%broken down:• 22% is used to
offset heat loss thru f i
32%
22%fenestration
25
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsHeating and cooling breakdown-- HEATINGHEATING:
The energy consumed by heating is further 32%broken down:• 22% is used to
offset heat loss thru f i
32%
22%fenestration
• NFRC’s U-factor rating (heat loss): in all climates go forall climates, go for lower U-factor!
26
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsHeating and cooling breakdown-- HEATINGHEATING:
The energy consumed by heating is further 32%broken down:• 18% is used to offset
heat loss due to all f i
32%
sources of air infiltration, including fenestration
18%18%
27
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsHeating and cooling breakdown-- HEATINGHEATING:
The energy consumed by heating is further 32%broken down:• 18% is used to offset
heat loss due to all f i
32%
sources of air infiltration, including fenestration
• NFRC’s Air Leakage 18%• NFRC’s Air Leakage rating: strive for lower air infiltration rates!
18%
28
rates!
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsHeating and cooling breakdown-- HEATINGHEATING:
Do not ignore the “free energy” (solar gain) that offsets heating:
29
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsHeating and cooling breakdown-- HEATINGHEATING:
Do not ignore the “free energy” (solar gain) that offsets heating:• Solar gain contributes
14% of the heating i !
14%requirements!
30
Aggregate Building LoadsAggregate Building LoadsHeating and cooling breakdown-- HEATINGHEATING:
Do not ignore the “free energy” (solar gain) that offsets heating:• Solar gain contributes
14% of the heating i !
14%requirements!
• NFRC’s SHGC rating: in heating dominated climate zones striveclimate zones, strive for intelligent use of SHGC! (lower is not always better)
31
always better)
NFRC Introduction & Overview
Facts:
NFRC—Introduction & Overview
Facts:
On average, Only ~30%of all nonresidential buildings (somewhat higher % in residential)higher % in residential)use high performance windows;windows;
32
NFRC Introduction & Overview
Facts:
NFRC—Introduction & Overview
Facts:
Single glazed units and … … Clear Glass (non low‐e) IG still being installed!
33
F R i & M h d l iFuture Ratings & Methodologies
A. Angular Dependencies: Moving away from solar/optical ratings at “normal incidence”solar/optical ratings at normal incidence
B. Developing ratings for attachment products
C I ti ti ill i ti tiC. Investigating illumination rating
37
F R i & M h d l iFuture Ratings & Methodologies
A. Moving away from ‘normal incidence’– Upcoming versions of WINDOW and THERM (LBNL) are
bl l l l i l i f l i dable to calculate solar optical properties for any latitude and time of day (a much more meaningful value as compared to ‘normal incidence’)
38See endnote for reference
F R i & M h d l iFuture Ratings & MethodologiesGoniophotometerGoniophotometer
39Courtesy of M. Rubin, LBNL
F R i & M h d l iFuture Ratings & MethodologiesGoniophotometerGoniophotometer
collector
target
light source
40Courtesy of M. Rubin, LBNL
F R i & M h d l iFuture Ratings & MethodologiesGoniophotometer output; generating the BDSFGoniophotometer output; generating the BDSF
41Courtesy of M. Rubin, LBNL
F R i & M h d l iFuture Ratings & Methodologies
A. Moving away from ‘normal incidence’– In reality, solar heat gain and
visible transmittance are complex functionsp
– We understand the ‘science;’ developing corresponding
i d l b l ill bCourtesy of LBNL
ratings and labels will be challenging
42
F R i & M h d l iFuture Ratings & Methodologies
B. Developing ratings for ‘attachment’ products– Currently underway to
develop U‐factor and SHGC ratings for attachment gproducts such as venetian blinds, cellular blinds, roller shades awnings screens etc
Courtesy of Hunter Douglas
shades, awnings, screens, etc.
43
F R i & M h d l iFuture Ratings & Methodologies
B. Developing ratings for ‘attachment’ products– Initial work is with co‐planar
products; complex geometries will followg
Courtesy of Dr. R. McCluney
44
F R i & M h d l iFuture Ratings & Methodologies
B. Developing ratings for ‘attachment’ products– Initial work is with co‐planar
products; complex geometries will followg
Courtesy of Dr. R. McCluney
45
F R i & M h d l iFuture Ratings & Methodologies
C. Considering ‘illumination rating’– Such a rating is years in the future
46
image at: lifestyle.yahoo.ca/home-garden/photos/archive6
O i CMA P CMASTOverview, CMA Program, CMAST
A. Basics of NFRC Ratings
B Overview of the Component ModelingB. Overview of the Component Modeling Approach (‘CMA’) Program
C O i f th CMA S ft T l (‘CMAST’)C. Overview of the CMA Software Tool (‘CMAST’)
48
O i CMA P CMASTOverview, CMA Program, CMAST
A. Basics of NFRC Ratings– Heat loss rating (U‐factor)Heat loss rating (U factor)
– Solar Heat Gain rating (SHGC)
Visible Transmittance rating (VT)– Visible Transmittance rating (VT)
– Air Leakage rating
Condensation Resistance rating (CR)– Condensation Resistance rating (CR)
49
O i CMA P CMASTOverview, CMA Program, CMAST
A. Basics of NFRC Ratings– Heat loss rating (U‐factor)Heat loss rating (U‐factor)
– Solar Heat Gain rating (SHGC)
Visible Transmittance rating (VT)– Visible Transmittance rating (VT)
– Air Leakage rating
Condensation Resistance rating (CR)– Condensation Resistance rating (CR)
50
O i CMA P CMASTOverview, CMA Program, CMAST
A. Basics of NFRC Ratings; in southern areas,– Heat loss rating (U‐factor) lower always betterlower always betterHeat loss rating (U‐factor) lower always betterlower always better
– Solar Heat Gain rating (SHGC) lower always betterlower always better
Visible Transmittance rating (VT) higher generallyhigher generally– Visible Transmittance rating (VT) higher generallyhigher generally
betterbetter
51
O i CMA P CMASTOverview, CMA Program, CMAST
A. Basics of NFRC Ratings; in northern areas,– Heat loss rating (U‐factor) lower always betterlower always betterHeat loss rating (U‐factor) lower always betterlower always better
– Solar Heat Gain rating (SHGC) don’t assume lowerdon’t assume lower
isis alwaysalways betterbetteris is always always betterbetter
– Visible Transmittance rating (VT) higher generallyhigher generally
betterbetterbetterbetter
52
O i CMA P CMASTOverview, CMA Program, CMAST
U-factor (thermal transmission)
VT (Visible Transmittance)transmission)
NFRC 100
Transmittance)
NFRC 200
SHGC (Solar Heat Gain)
53
SHGC (Solar Heat Gain) NFRC 200
O i CMA P CMASTOverview, CMA Program, CMAST
Air Leakage (Air CR (Condensation Air Leakage (Air infiltration, no
exfiltration)
CR (Condensation Resistance)
NFRC 500NFRC 400
NFRC 500
54
O i CMA P CMASTOverview, CMA Program, CMAST
Air Leakage (Air CR (Condensation Air Leakage (Air infiltration, no
exfiltration)
CR (Condensation Resistance)
NFRC 500NFRC 400
NFRC 500
Not included in CMA Program at this time
55
Not included in CMA Program at this time
O i CMA P CMASTOverview, CMA Program, CMAST
A. Basics of NFRC Ratings– Generally computer simulation is the basis of allGenerally, computer simulation is the basis of all
ratings (not for air infiltration)
– Simulation performed at standardized sizes &Simulation performed at standardized sizes & environmental conditions
– Simulation generates a whole‐unit ratingg g
– Simulation validated by physical testing
56
O i CMA P CMASTCAD Meshed
Overview, CMA Program, CMAST
profileMeshed profile
Heat flux
TempTemp‐eraturegradient
57
O i CMA P CMASTOverview, CMA Program, CMAST
B. Overview of the Component Modeling Approach (‘CMA’) ProgramApproach ( CMA ) Program
58
O i CMA P CMASTOverview, CMA Program, CMAST
The CMA process: A New Approach ~
New concept: “build” virtual products & j t i d fi d d tifi dprojects using predefined and certified
components from online CMA database to issue project‐specific label certificates
59
O i CMA P CMASTOverview, CMA Program, CMAST
Glazing component Spacer componentFrame component
Glazing infill / Center f Gl i bl
Frame system / F bl
Spacer system / spacer blof Glazing assembly Frame assembly assembly
PRODUCT CONFIGURATION
Overall product rating calculation
60
calculation
Spacer
Spacer Therm Model
p
Best IGU / Worst Spacer
Worst IGU / Worst Spacer
Worst IGU / Best Spacer
Best IGU / Best Spacer
Glass
ID 2009ID 2152
61
O i CMA P CMAST The CMA process ~ Required Parties:
Overview, CMA Program, CMASTThe CMA process Required Parties: The manufacturers of frames, spacers, glass
The specifying authority (SA) The specifying authority (SA)
The accredited simulation laboratory (ASL)
Th dit d t ti l b t (ATL) The accredited testing laboratory (ATL)
The ‘Approved Calculation Entity’ (ACE)
Th 3rd lid (‘IA’) The 3rd party validator (‘IA’)
NFRC
62
O i CMA P CMAST The CMA process ~ Stakeholders:
Overview, CMA Program, CMASTThe CMA process Stakeholders:But the CMA rating and certification program is
worthless unless other stakeholders are alsoworthless unless other stakeholders are also integrated into the process at critical decision points!
Key stakeholders include:
– Code dep’ts (plan review; inspection & enforcement)
– Specifiers (architects, engineers, consultants)
– Owners/developers; ‘consumers’
E i id
63
– Energy service providers
O i CMA P CMAST The CMA process ~ Stakeholders:
Overview, CMA Program, CMASTThe CMA process Stakeholders:But the CMA rating and certification program is
worthless unless other stakeholders are alsoworthless unless other stakeholders are also integrated into the process at critical decision points!
Key stakeholders include:
– Code dep’ts (plan review; inspection & enforcement)
– Specifiers (architects, engineers, consultants)
– Owners/developers; ‘consumers’
E i id
64
– Energy service providers
O i CMA P CMAST The CMA process ~ Required Parties:
Overview, CMA Program, CMASTThe CMA process Required Parties:But the CMA rating and certification program is
worthless unless other stakeholders are alsoTRAINING!worthless unless other stakeholders are also integrated into the process at critical decision points!
Key stakeholders include:
– Code dep’ts (plan review; inspection & enforcement)
– Specifiers (architects, engineers, consultants)
– Owners/developers; ‘consumers’
E i id
65
– Energy service providers
O i CMA P CMAST The CMA process: The SA
Overview, CMA Program, CMASTThe CMA process: The SA The role of SA (Specifying Authority) can be taken on
by various stakeholders including (but not limited to):
– The architect
– The GC (general contractor)
– The glazing subcontractor
– The manufacturer of the fenestration system
Th SA t j t ifi li t The SA executes a project‐specific license agreement with NFRC, and pays for the label certificate based on fenestration square footage (see fee schedule, on website)
66
The SA ‘owns’ the CMA Label Certificate
O i CMA P CMAST The CMA process: The ACE
Overview, CMA Program, CMASTThe CMA process: The ACE The ACE (Approved Calculation Entity) is a new
“entity” within NFRC
The ACE is trained by NFRC to ensure quality
The ACE must be employed by an ‘ACE Organization’; i h M f ACE O I d d ACE Oeither Manufacturer ACE Org. or Independent ACE Org.
The ACE is the ‘assembler’ of CMA—approved components within CMASTcomponents within CMAST
ACE Organizations are the only party who can generate a label certificate for a project
67
O i CMA P CMAST The CMA process: The IA
Overview, CMA Program, CMASTThe CMA process: The IA The IA (Independent Certification and Inspection
Agency) is an existing entity within the NFRC structure
Trained by NFRC on testing procedures of components
Reviews simulation lab and test lab reports
Reviews calculation reports prepared by ACE
Conducts random ‘paper trail’ audits of CMA Label CertificatesCertificates
68
O i CMA P CMAST The CMA process: The 3 ‘Buckets’ are filled
Overview, CMA Program, CMASTThe CMA process: The 3 Buckets are filled by the manufacturers & suppliers: Frame manufacturers contracts with ASL to Frame manufacturers contracts with ASL to
simulate frame components
IGU spacer suppliers can contract with ASL toIGU spacer suppliers can contract with ASL to simulate IG spacer components
Glass suppliers use Center‐of‐GlassGlass suppliers use Center of Glass components from existing IGDB
69
O i CMA P CMAST How CMA fits within NFRC structure
Overview, CMA Program, CMASTHow CMA fits within NFRC structure Similar in that CMA relies on thermal
simulations performed by ASLs usingWindowsimulations performed by ASLs using Windowand Therm per NFRC 100 and NFRC 200
Validation testing required as with Site‐Built Validation testing required as with Site Built Program
Label Certificate similar to Site‐Built Programg
The U‐factor and SHGC values are virtually the same
70
CMA PCMA Process CMAST DEVELOPMENT CMAST DEVELOPMENT
– Manufacturers have components (glazings frames(glazings, frames, spacers) simulated, and submits to the IA
71
CMA PCMA Process CMAST DEVELOPMENT CMAST DEVELOPMENT
– The IA reviews and approves all components beforecomponents before they are available for use in CMA
– Once uploaded into– Once uploaded into the online CMAST database, components arecomponents are available to all users
72
CMA PCMA Process DESIGN PHASE DESIGN PHASE
– An Architect, energy consultant or a window contractor uses CMAST to create a virtualCMAST to create a virtual model of the proposed fenestration products
– A pre‐bid certificate can be– A pre‐bid certificate can be generated at this time for use in soliciting bids and for energy calculations by the energycalculations by the energy consultant
73
CMA PCMA Process DESIGN PHASE DESIGN PHASE
– “Or Approved Equivalent”….At plan submittalAt plan submittal phase, opportunity to verify glazing complies with codecomplies with code requirements! (too late after products are installed!)
74
CMA PCMA Process LABEL CERTIFICATE LABEL CERTIFICATE
DEVELOPMENT– During this phase, the
Specifying Authority contactsSpecifying Authority contacts an NFRC ACE Mfr. or Ind. Organization to generate CMA Label CertificateCMA Label Certificate.
– The IA performs audits and spot reviews of CMA Label Certificates generated byCertificates generated by ACE Organizations
75
CMA PCMA Process FIELD INSPECTION FIELD INSPECTION
PHASE– Finally, the CMA
Label Certificate isLabel Certificate is posted on‐site for field inspection
76
O i CMA P CMASTOverview, CMA Program, CMAST
C. Overview of the CMA Software Tool(‘CMAST’)
77
NFRC CMA Software Tool ~ CMAST
O i CMA P CMAST
CMA software tool (“CMAST”) can:
Overview, CMA Program, CMAST
CMA software tool (“CMAST”) can: –Maintain libraries of component dataD fi j t– Define projects
– Assemble components, andC l l t h l d t ti– Calculate whole product ratings
78
Unit U‐factor & SHGCUnit U‐factor & SHGC dramatically improve!
U‐factor:fold = 0.60new = 0.41
SHGC:old = 0.64new = 0.41
81
NFRC CMANFRC CMA Label CertificateCertificate (optionalpage 4):page 4):
(project‐specificspecific sizes)
86
O i CMA P CMAST
F i M f d
Overview, CMA Program, CMAST
Fenestration Manufacturer to‐date:• Arcadia, Inc.• Benson Industries, LLC• EFCO, A Pella Company (also 1st Mfr ACE Org.!)• Kawneer Company Inc.• TRACO
d ll• Wausau Window & Wall Systems• And others are beginning the process
87
I CMA Si B ilImprovements, CMA vs. Site‐Built
Non‐Residential/Site‐Built Certification Program developed in 1999.– Addressed field‐glazed or assembled products.
– Built upon existing software and programs
– Established standardized rating size/configuration used for curtain wall and storefront systems
– Introduced the “Label Certificate”Introduced the Label Certificate
– Introduced the “Responsible Party”
89
I CMA Si B ilImprovements, CMA vs. Site‐Built
Site‐Built successfully met the need of code officials
Site‐Built referenced in codes, including California , gTitle 24 ‐ 2001 and 2005
Challenges of the Site‐Built program:g p g– Required testing a specimen before obtaining ratings
– The size and configuration limited scope
– Did not provide real‐time access to information
90
I CMA Si B ilNFRC Site Built
Improvements, CMA vs. Site‐BuiltNFRC Site‐BuiltLabel CertificateCertificate
91
I CMA Si B ilImprovements, CMA vs. Site‐Built
To address limitations ofSite‐Built program, the p g ,
Component Modeling Approach (CMA) ProgramProgram
was initiated in 2002.
92
I CMA Si B il CMA improvements over ‘Site‐Built’:
Improvements, CMA vs. Site‐BuiltCMA improvements over Site Built : The simulation work is done ‘in advance’…
Once fully deployed can result in faster turn Once fully deployed, can result in faster turn‐around of label certificate
The CMAST program allows bidding quoting The CMAST program allows bidding, quoting and research by larger user group
Approved components do not require re‐ Approved components do not require recertification
93
I CMA Si B il CMA improvements over ‘Site‐Built’ system
Improvements, CMA vs. Site‐BuiltCMA improvements over Site Built system (continued): A single label certificate for a project A single label certificate for a project
The label certificate can include, as an option, project‐specific actual sizesproject specific, actual sizes
The label certificate is easier to use by the Code officialsCode officials
94
I CMA Si B il CMA improvements over ‘Site‐Built’ system
Improvements, CMA vs. Site‐BuiltCMA improvements over Site Built system (continued): CMAST program can output EnergyPlus® file CMAST program can output EnergyPlus file
CMAST is being upgraded to output DoE2 file
Reduced costs Reduced costs
Web‐based
Sl t d f dditi l f ti lit Slated for additional functionality
95
CMA d C d C liCMA and Code Compliance
For commercial fenestration, NFRC offers both the Site‐Built Program and CMA Program
Site‐Built is slated to be withdrawn; CMA is the preferred method going forwardp g g
Therefore, for model national and state codes that reference NFRC U‐factor SHGC and VTthat reference NFRC U factor, SHGC and VT ratings for commercial fenestration, the CMA Program is also referenced!
97
Program is also referenced!
CMA d C d C liCMA and Code ComplianceOn May 28, 2009, Gov. Jim Gibbons signed into law legislation (SB 73) th t i th f d ti th t t ' b ildi d bthat revises the process of updating the state's building energy codes by establishing the standards adopted by the Nevada State Office of Energy as the minimum standards for building energy efficiency and conservation.
The law requires local governments to adopt the codes set by the Office of Energy and to enforce them (they are also allowed to adopt more stringent standards provided they give notice to the Office of Energy)standards provided they give notice to the Office of Energy).
The law mandates the adoption of the most recent version of the IECC and requires the adoption of the most recent updated version of the IECC q p pevery three years. The Office of Energy must still hold public hearings in three different locations in the state after giving 30 days' notice of such hearings before adopting any new standards.
99
CMA d C d C liCMA and Code Compliance
IECC Climate Zone 5, and IECC Climate Zone 3 for southern Nevada (Las
105
o sout e e ada ( asVegas & Clark County)
CMA d C d C liCMA and Code ComplianceIECC-09 requirements forIECC 09 requirements for fenestration (IECC 09 references ASHRAE 90.1-07,
t l f id ti l)metal frame, non residential):
Climate Zone 5U-factor < 0.45SHGC < 0.40
Climate Zone 3U-factor < 0.60SHGC < 0 25
106
SHGC < 0.25
CMA d C d C liCMA and Code ComplianceIECC-09 requirements forIECC 09 requirements for fenestration (IECC 09 references ASHRAE 90.1-07,
t l f id ti l)metal frame, non residential):
Climate Zone 5U-factor < 0.45SHGC < 0.40
from Z3 to Z5: lower U-
Climate Zone 3U-factor < 0.60SHGC < 0 25
lower U-factors required
107
SHGC < 0.25
CMA d C d C liCMA and Code ComplianceIECC-09 requirements forIECC 09 requirements for fenestration (IECC 09 references ASHRAE 90.1-07,
t l f id ti l)metal frame, non residential):
Climate Zone 5U-factor < 0.45SHGC < 0.40
from Z3 to Z5: higher
Climate Zone 3U-factor < 0.60SHGC < 0 25
higherSHGC allowed
108
SHGC < 0.25
CMA d C d C liCMA and Code Compliance
Example of the California State Energy Code (Title 24)…
Title 24 is more stringent than the IECC;Title 4 is more stringent than the I CC;
The next 14 slides deal with details of this code and show as an example various ways toand show as an example various ways to
comply with an energy code…
110
CMA i Ti l 24 2008CMA in Title‐24 2008
Title‐24 2008 approved the use of CMA for– Nonresidential projects
• inc. high‐rise residential
– Site‐built fenestration • is fenestration designed to be field‐glazed or field assembled using specific factory cut or otherwise factory formed framing and glazing unitsfactory formed framing and glazing units
– Any size total fenestration area• irrespective of whether total fenestration area is
111
• irrespective of whether total fenestration area is < or > than 10,000sf
Commercial Site‐BuiltCommercial Site Built Fenestration Three Ways to Comply with Title‐24 2008:
1. CEC Default Values (Tables 116‐A & B)– Tables 116 A & B: Worst Approach (least energy credit)
2 CEC Default Values (from Appendix: NA6)2. CEC Default Values (from Appendix: NA6)– Calculated Thermal Performance ‐ NA6:Barely Acceptable Approach (some energy credit)Only for <10 000sf vertical glazing areaOnly for <10,000sf vertical glazing area
3. NFRC Values (Site‐Built or CMA)– Best Approach (most energy credit)
New to Title-24 2008
112
Nonresidential Compliance Manual Section 3.2
E lExample A building is using a Viracon Solarscreen Low‐E g gInsulating Glass (VE 4‐2M) with metal frame for a curtain wall. Calculate window performance pvalues:
• U‐factor
• SHGC
• VT
Using• CEC Default Tables (116‐A, 116‐B)
113
• Calculated Thermal Performance (NA6)
• CMA
Center of glass
valuesvalues
Note: these values cannot be used for
114
cannot be used for Title‐24 compliance purposes
1. Using CEC Default1. Using CEC Default Tables
A double pane, metal frame, site‐built curtainsite built curtain wall will get a U‐factor of 0.71from the default table
115
1. Using CEC Default1. Using CEC Default Tables
A double pane, metal frame, site‐built curtainsite built curtain wall will get a SHGC of 0.60from the default table
116
C i R lComparing ResultsViracon Solarscreen Low‐E Insulating Glass (VE 4‐2M)
CEC Default T bl 1
Calculated Th l
Percent diff
CMA Percent diff
Viracon Solarscreen Low E Insulating Glass (VE 4 2M) with metal frame
Tables1 Thermal Performance2
difference (from CEC Default Tables)
difference (from CEC Default Tables)) )
U‐Factor 0.71
SHGC 0.60
VT 0 72VT 0.721 CEC Default value for VT is calculated separately using a formula in NA5 Envelope Tradeoff Procedure ; VT = SHGC x 1.22 Calculated Thermal Performance can only be used for projects with <10 000 sf
117
2 Calculated Thermal Performance can only be used for projects with <10,000 sf vertical glazing
2. Using Calculated2. Using Calculated Thermal Performance (NA6)
UT = C1 + (C2 x UC)
U = 0 311 + (0 872 x 0 29)UT = 0.311 + (0.872 x 0.29)
UT = 0.56
SHGCT = 0.08 + (0.86 x SHGCC)T C
SHGCT = 0.08 + (0.86 x 0.26)
SHGC = 0 30
120
SHGCT = 0.30
C i R lComparing ResultsViracon Solarscreen Low‐E Insulating Glass (VE 4‐2M)
CEC Default T bl 1
Calculated Th l
Percent diff
CMA Percent diff
Viracon Solarscreen Low E Insulating Glass (VE 4 2M) with metal frame
Tables1 Thermal Performance2
difference (from CEC DefaultTables)
difference (from CEC DefaultTables)) )
U‐Factor 0.71 0.56 ‐21%
SHGC 0.60 0.30 ‐50%
VT 0 72 0 36 50%VT 0.72 0.36 ‐50%
1 CEC Default value for VT is calculated separately using a formula in NA5 Envelope Tradeoff Procedure ; VT = SHGC x 1.22 Calculated Thermal Performance can only be used for projects with <10 000 sf
121
2 Calculated Thermal Performance can only be used for projects with <10,000 sf vertical glazing
C i R lComparing ResultsViracon Solarscreen Low‐E Insulating Glass (VE 4‐2M)
CEC Default T bl 1
Calculated Th l
Percent diff
CMA Percent diff
Viracon Solarscreen Low E Insulating Glass (VE 4 2M) with metal frame
Tables1 Thermal Performance2
difference (from CEC DefaultTables)
difference (from CEC DefaultTables)) )
U‐Factor 0.71 0.56 ‐21% 0.38 ‐46%
SHGC 0.60 0.30 ‐50% 0.22 ‐63%
VT 0 72 0 36 50% 0 33 54%VT 0.72 0.36 ‐50% 0.33 ‐54%
1 CEC Default value for VT is calculated separately using a formula in NA5 Envelope Tradeoff Procedure ; VT = SHGC x 1.22 Calculated Thermal Performance can only be used for projects with <10 000 sf
124
2 Calculated Thermal Performance can only be used for projects with <10,000 sf vertical glazing
HMG Si l i S dHMG Simulation Study
A more comprehensive analysis to determine the benefit of CMA for– Energy code compliance (performance approach)
– HVAC sizing
– Green Building Programs such as LEED
Looking at multiple bldg types, sq. footage g p g yp , q garea, glazing types, all CA climate zones– 256 runs56 runs
126
HMG Si l i S dHMG Simulation Study Average bldg sq footage for 2 categories and 4 Average bldg sq. footage for 2 categories, and 4 bldg types
SF of vertical fenestration >> Less than 10,000 sf More than 10,000
Office O1 (Bldg SF ~ 24,000sf)
O2 (Bldg SF ~ 204,000sf)( g , ) ( g , )
School S1 (Bldg SF ~ 24,000sf)
S2 (Bldg SF ~ 70,000sf)
Retail R1 (Bldg SF ~ 37 000sf)
R2 (Bldg SF ~ 200 000sf)(Bldg SF ~ 37,000sf) (Bldg SF ~ 200,000sf)
Miscel* M1 (Bldg SF ~ 20,000sf)
M2 (Bldg SF ~ 150,000sf)
* Libraries, C ti t
127
Convention centers, Labs, Govt. bldgs
CMA Potential Impact onCMA Potential Impact on Utility ‘above code’ Incentive Programs
Increased Reliability of Savings:– With CMA, compliance simulation energy savingsWith CMA, compliance simulation energy savings are closer to reality • Compared to default tables
• Compared to (incorrectly) using center of glass values
– Programs energy savings more likely to be a closer match to evaluation results
128
T i i O i iTraining Opportunities
Component Modeling Approach– Past webinars are available
– Upcoming ACE training sessions
Codes & Standards– Building Department training (on fenestration and verifying CMA)
129
S & C l iSummary & Conclusions
NFRC’s Residential Fenestration Rating & Certification Program is:– Well established, and in use for many years
– Easy to understand
– A great tool for proving code compliance; the temporary label makes for easy verification
– Required for ENERGY STAR rating of products– Required for ENERGY STAR rating of products
131
S & C l iSummary & Conclusions
NFRC’s Component Modeling Approach (CMA) Program is:– Lowest‐cost option to prove code compliance
– Web‐based for easy access
– Faster turn‐around versus site‐built program
– Bidding tool that can be used by broad community
C d li ti f j t d t d d i– Can deliver ratings for project and standard sizes
– Can output electronic EnergyPlus® and DoE2 files
– Slated for additional functionality
132
Slated for additional functionality
Addi i l RAdditional Resources NFRC Webpage: www.nfrc.orgNFRC Webpage: www.nfrc.org CMA Webpage: http://nfrc.org/sb_aboutprogram.aspx Labs and Agencies: http://nfrc.org/labsagencies.aspx NFRC Staff:NFRC Staff:
Jen Padgett CMA Technical CoordinatorRay McGowan Sr. Research and Technology ManagerJohn Lewis Director, New Business Programs, g
CMAST Support – http://support.nfrc.org
cmast_support@designbuildersoftware.com, (866) 411‐6845
CEC Staff– Nelson Peña: Energy Commission CMA Lead, NPena@Energy.State.CA.us
CEC Energy Hotline (800) 772‐3300
133
E dEndnotes
Bi-directional transmission propertiesof Venetian blinds: experimental assessment compared
to ray-tracing calculationsM. Andersen a,*, M. Rubin b, R. Powles b, J.-L. Scartezzini a
a Solar Energy and Building Physics Laboratory (LESO-PB), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL),
Building LE 1015 Lausanne SwitzerlandBuilding LE, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerlandb Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), University of California, 1Cyclotron Road,
MS 2-300, Berkeley, CA 94720-8134, USAReceived 22 July 2003; received in revised from 2 June 2004; accepted 4 June 2004y ; ; p
Available online 29 July 2004Communicated by: Associate Editor Volker Wittwe
136
top related