NFRC's Certification Programs Commercial & Residential ...

NFRC’s Certification Programsforfor

Commercial & Residential Fenestration Energy‐Related PerformanceEnergy Related Performance

February 22, 2010

Presented in conjunction with

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—Introduction & Overview

11

5

NFRC I d i & O i

Wh i NFRC?


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


OOur familiar residentialresidential temporary label

9


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






11






12


…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


16%

16


16% is further broken down:

25%

16% is further broken down:• 25% is consumed by

lighting• 7% is consumed by

17

% yheating and cooling


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


The energy consumed by air conditioning is further broken down:• 42% is used to

offset gains from li h i !lighting!

42%

20


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


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


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


The energy consumed by heating is further 32%broken down:• 22% is used to

offset heat loss thru f i

32%

22%fenestration

25


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


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


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!


Do not ignore the “free energy” (solar gain) that offsets heating:

29


Do not ignore the “free energy” (solar gain) that offsets heating:• Solar gain contributes

14% of the heating i !

14%requirements!

30


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:


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:


Facts:

Single glazed units and … … Clear Glass (non low‐e) IG still being installed!

33

NFRC Introduction & OverviewNFRC—Introduction & OverviewFor more information…

Our webweb page

34

NFRC Introduction & OverviewNFRC—Introduction & OverviewFor more information…

CMACMA…

35

Future NFRC Ratings and MethodologiesMethodologies

22

36

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


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


F R i & M h d l iFuture Ratings & MethodologiesGoniophotometer output; generating the BDSFGoniophotometer output; generating the BDSF



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


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


B. Developing ratings for ‘attachment’ products– Initial work is with co‐planar

products; complex geometries will followg

Courtesy of Dr. R. McCluney

44


B. Developing ratings for ‘attachment’ products– Initial work is with co‐planar

products; complex geometries will followg

Courtesy of Dr. R. McCluney

45


C. Considering ‘illumination rating’– Such a rating is years in the future

46

image at: lifestyle.yahoo.ca/home-garden/photos/archive6

Overview, CMA Programand the CMA Software Tooland the CMA Software Tool

33

47

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


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


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


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


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


U-factor (thermal transmission)

VT (Visible Transmittance)transmission)

NFRC 100

Transmittance)

NFRC 200

SHGC (Solar Heat Gain)

53

SHGC (Solar Heat Gain) NFRC 200


Air Leakage (Air CR (Condensation Air Leakage (Air infiltration, no

exfiltration)

CR (Condensation Resistance)

NFRC 500NFRC 400

NFRC 500

54


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


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


B. Overview of the Component Modeling Approach (‘CMA’) ProgramApproach ( CMA ) Program

58


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


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!





E i id

64


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!





E i id

65


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


C. Overview of the CMA Software Tool(‘CMAST’)

77

NFRC CMA Software Tool ~ CMAST

O i CMA P CMAST

CMA software tool (“CMAST”) can:


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

As IGU is upgraded fromCl fillClear, no gas fill…

79

…to low‐e, krypton gas fillwith non conductive spacerwith non‐conductive spacer…

80

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

(cover page):page):

82

NFRC CMANFRC CMA Label CertificateCertificate (page 2):

83


84


85

NFRC CMANFRC CMA Label CertificateCertificate (optionalpage 4):page 4):

(project‐specificspecific sizes)

86

O i CMA P CMAST

F i M f d


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

NFRC Program Improvements;CMA vs Site BuiltCMA vs. Site‐Built

44

88

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


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


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 and Code Compliance

55

96

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!


The State of Nevada: Energy Code Related…

98

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


100

101

102

103


104


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




from Z3 to Z5: lower U-


lower U-factors required

107

SHGC < 0.25




from Z3 to Z5: higher


higherSHGC allowed

108

SHGC < 0.25

California!California!(and Title 24)

109


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)

118


119


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


CEC Default T bl 1

Calculated Th l

Percent diff

CMA Percent diff



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


3 U i CMA3. Using CMA

122

3 U i CMA3. Using CMA

123


CEC Default T bl 1

Calculated Th l

Percent diff

CMA Percent diff



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


CMA: The Potential Impact onAbove Code Incentive ProgramsAbove‐Code Incentive Programs

66

125

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

Summary & Conclusions

77

130

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

[email protected], (866) 411‐6845

CEC Staff– Nelson Peña: Energy Commission CMA Lead, [email protected]

CEC Energy Hotline (800) 772‐3300

133

THANK YOU FOR

OPPORTUNITY TO

PROVIDE THISPROVIDE THISINFORMATION!

134

John W. Lewis, Jr.Director, New Programs, g

National FenestrationRating Councilg

(NFRC)

135

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

CMAST “Live” demonstration

•Overview of IGDB•Overview of Projects•Etc.Etc.

137

NFRC's Certification Programs Commercial & Residential ...

Documents