ASHRAE Archives | MBCI Site

Proper Test Methods to Determine Thermal Resistance of Metal Panels

Posted on November 30, 2017 by MBCI

For a given assembly, if the right information is not specified in conjunction with the desired R-value, the designer will likely not achieve the results he or she expects. This can lead to code compliance issues as well as poor performance of the finished building. Therefore, a more thorough approach must be considered to ensure the specified assembly will be building energy efficiency code compliant. Where to begin? When looking at proper test methods to determine thermal resistance of metal panels, the place to start is ASHRAE 90.1 Chapter 5 (Building Envelope) and Appendix A.

ASHRAE 90.1 Section 5 specifies requirements for the building envelope.

Code Compliance for Thermal Resistance

The most widely accepted energy efficiency standard for commercial construction in North America is ASHRAE Standard 90.1. This standard provides both a prescriptive and a performance path to be chosen at the designer’s option. The prescriptive path is most commonly used. It also provides the baseline performance level that is used to determine compliance for the performance path, so understanding this set of requirements is critical. Within the prescriptive path, two possible methods of compliance are available to determine the minimum thermal performance of opaque areas on the building envelope. Section 5.5.3 is the pertinent passage and it reads:

Minimum rated R-values of insulation for the thermal resistance of the added insulation in framing cavities and continuous insulation only. Specifications listed in Normative Appendix A for each class of construction shall be used to determine compliance.
Maximum U-factor, C-factor, or F-factor for the entire assembly. The values for typical construction assemblies listed in Normative Appendix A shall be used to determine compliance.

Exceptions: For assemblies significantly different than those in Appendix A, calculations shall be performed in accordance with the procedures required in Appendix A.

What does this mean? Basically, there are standard types of construction that ASHRAE recognizes and if you have a wall that fits the description in Appendix A, you don’t have to test or do anything special to determine its thermal resistance. Appendix A provides tables based on calculation methods that have been derived on the basis of previous tests and general experience. What is perhaps less obvious is that if your assembly is adequately described by one of the standard assemblies in the Appendix, you may NOT use a tested or modeled value in place of the values in the table, even if that value has better performance! (i.e., lower U-factor) This is explained in Section A1.2.

The reason the code is set up this way is to prevent people from building unrepresentative assemblies that achieve high performance in the lab but are likely not built to the same specifications in the actual building.

Conversely, if the assembly you want to use is NOT adequately described in Appendix A, the appendix goes on to specify which methods are acceptable to determine the U-factor based on the assembly to which it is most similar. This is covered in Section A9. Two and three-dimensional finite element models are always acceptable and in some cases, simplified calculation alternatives are also available. Note that hot box testing is not always allowed.

Conclusion

To summarize, whether using a prescriptive or a performance path, the first and last stop when determining thermal resistance for metal panels is ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Chapter 5 and Appendix A. Designers would be well advised to familiarize themselves with the Standard and the specific set of requirements for their particular scenario in order to utilize proper testing methods for high-performance results.

How Energy Codes Influence Metal Roof Panel Selection

Posted on August 3, 2017 by Candy McNamee

On a very basic level, specifiers can look at a climate zone map and get an idea of the metal roof panel best suited to a specific geographic region. The issue, however, is actually much more complex. One must know that overlooking any detail could result, not only in less-than-ideal performance, but also in costly project fail, often related to the project not meeting required energy codes or other standards. With this in mind, an important initial question to consider is how to select metal roof panels that conform to new and fast-changing energy codes and their designated climate zones.

To begin making wise considerations, the architect must know what codes are in play. For instance, is it IECC or ASHRAE 90.1? Which year of the code/standard? Are there additional local code requirements? Even if a state adopts a particular energy code, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all jurisdictions will adopt the code at the same time. Along with this, some local jurisdictions may have their own or additional requirements. To be successful, it is imperative to know what the regional project goals and requirements are. This will require research prior to specifying the metal roof panel and its assembly.

Using IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 for Energy Code Compliance

Three of the basic metal building roof panel types are single-skin standing seam, screw-down and insulated metal panels (IMPs). When using the tables in IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 for metal building roofs it must be remembered that these tables are based on single-skin standing seam roof panels and purlins that are 5′ on center. The tables provide the required R-values and/or U-factors based on climate zones, along with other assembly requirements noted with each tables. In the Appendix of some versions of ASHRAE 90.1, there are allowances for modified roof assemblies, including screw-down metal roofs.

DOE-Developed Climate Zone Map

Often, in certain climate zones, the required R-values and U-factors may be so stringent that the logical first consideration is to use insulated metal panels. IMPs are a great choice for offering high insulation properties in a top-of-the-line product and the R-values and U-factors are readily available for use in compliance calculations.

Keep in mind when deviating from the prescribed assemblies in IECC and ASHRAE 90.1, calculations will be required to show compliance, along with modeling and/or the use of approved compliance software, such as COMcheck.

Making Informed Decisions

Selecting the right metal roof panel is an important step to achieving energy code compliance. Even though energy codes can be complex and are constantly evolving, by making informed metal roof panel selections you will add to the overall success of your project.

Top Five Tips:

Know your code. Find out what energy code is required for your project.
Know your zone. Requirements vary by climate zone. Identify your project’s climate zone.
Understand your options. Deviating from specified assemblies will require approved proof of compliance.
Choose wisely. Research the properties and assembly requirements of any metal roof panel. Use this information in conjunction with energy code requirements to make wise choices.
Call with questions. Call the manufacturer with questions before you get too far down the road.

Understanding R-Values and K-Factors in Considering Thermal Resistance

Posted on July 19, 2017 by MBCI

Described in their most basic terms, R-value is a measure of heat resistance, while U-factor (also know as U-value) is a measure of heat transfer (heat gain or loss). The lesser known K-factor is simply the reciprocal of the R-value of the insulation divided by the thickness. What they all have in common is a relationship to the effectiveness of insulation material in resisting heat flow through a roof or wall element. There are different ways that this would be spec’d from a manufacturer to an architect or engineer. While the terminology might be familiar, the specifics are not always as clear cut as they seem. Understanding the differences will allow architects to make smart and effective choices to suit a given project’s needs.

Let’s consider some of the variables that might have an impact on what to look for and which metric to spec. As means of illustration, put yourself in the shows of a fiberglass or insulation supplier. You have a product, you know what it’s rated to, you know what the performance capability is, it’s been spec’d out to you—and you submit the bid based on those factors. But at that point you inevitably lose control over how the specs would actually get implemented. For instance, the architect may take that spec and incorporate it into a wall where it’s not used the most efficient way. This may not even be the result of a mistake; it could just be that other project elements have taken over.

Choosing the right insulation for the project can provide the building significant energy savings.

A good example would be stud walls. The fiberglass insulation supplier might indicate a given R-value, such as R-19. This would be the heat resistance value. The architect might spec and submit that bid to supply x number of square feet of that insulation based on that R-value. However, it could be cut or delivered in rolls and designed to fit between the metal studs. Metal studs are much more conductive than insulation and they provide an alternate path for the heat to flow through the assembly, almost irrespective of what the R-value and insulation is. Given these factors, the architect might have to make tradeoffs.

Choosing U-Factor

Because of all the variables encountered with R-value, U-factor is actually more recommended and reliable, and it more appropriately meets code requirements.* The concept of U-factor relates to the heat transfer coefficient but is described in the code as total heat flow per unit area through the assembly inclusive of all the short circuits as it is planned out to be built. So, an architect or engineer would know the stud spacing, the cladding material, the interior finish material and the R-value of the insulation. With that information in hand, one can go to a textbook, ASHRAE 90.1 or the ASHRAE Book of Fundamentals and find the U-factor for the assembly. It is this U-factor that is actually compared against the code requirements. It’s a better way to spec because it already takes into consideration all those things that come into play and encourages the use of suppliers (such as MBCI) that staff people who can help do those calculations or give assistance as opposed to saying, “I need R-19” and then wind up with a building that’s bridged or has more short circuits than anticipated—and having the building not perform as needed. This, in essence, is the key difference between R-value and U-factor.

A Word About K-Factor

As for K-factor, as noted this is the thickness of the insulation divided by the R-value. Its intention is to spec out an insulation when you’re not entirely sure what thickness it will be at the time you spec it out. This is fine for design-build scenarios but not a good practice for a hard bid. Bottom line: U-factor is most often the most reliable choice.

*Note: The code defines U-factor as discussed but underlying heat transfer theory may describe U-factor as 1/R-value. Insualtion suppliers might invert it and make it an R-value (but doesn’t take all the variables into consideration). Therefore, an architect would be advised to specify a “U-factor in compliance with ASHRAE, ” which includes thermal bridges, joints, etc.

The Benefits of Integrating Daylighting Systems with Metal Panels

Posted on July 25, 2016May 2, 2023 by MBCI

When metal roofing and wall systems of insulated metal panels, or IMPs, are combined with integrated daylighting and electrical lighting systems (such as with skylights, windows and translucent panels) it can improve occupant wellness and overall building performance. Are you curious if the return would be worth your investment? Uncover the recent advancements in daylighting technologies, the benefits and how to measure your building’s success.

Advancements in Daylighting Technologies and IMPs

In recent years, IMP assemblies have seen significant improvements, including more effective seals and thermal breaks as well as better thermal performance.

A range of novel daylighting products and technologies have been introduced in recent years that aid in the deployment of natural illumination for a multitude of occupancies—maximizing daylighting effectiveness while also maintaining the envelope’s barrier and thermal performance. These tools include pre-engineered, integrated metal envelope and roof solutions with compatible curbless skylights, light tubes, pan-type prismatic skylights, automated dimming controls for lighting, motorized shades and other components.

One example of how new tools are replacing more traditional products is the use of domed and pan-type units with prismatic embossing, which refracts and directs two to four times as much illumination into the indoor spaces when solar incidence angles are more acute, such as in the early morning and late in the day. These prismatic elements also help eliminate “hot spots” and reduce glare and ultraviolet (UV) deterioration from daylighting.

Benefits of Investing in Daylighting

Overall, using the current crop of novel skylight products in combination with a highly thermally efficient base system of metal panel walls and roofing will reduce excessive solar heat gain as they reduce the electrical base load for lighting. Highly diffusing acrylic and polycarbonate lenses and spectrally selective glass openings are very effective for maximizing functional visible light indoors while inhibiting unwanted heat gain. Many of the skylight aperture designs block 85% of infrared (IR) and 99.9% of UV light, which also reduces the unwanted degradation of products and materials inside the buildings. Additionally, the new generation of skylights also optimizes solar harvesting because many of the lenses have a minimal effect on VT.

In this way, the use of skylights with metal roofing and IMPs can be an effective way to meet the requirements of IECC 2012 and state energy codes. The skylights reduce overall electrical loads without adding unacceptable levels of solar heat gain, and their small relative area means the overall roof U-values remain low.

How to Measure the Success of Daylighting

Building teams will encounter a number of key variables that help measure the effectiveness of proposed daylighting designs. The most common (and valuable) daylighting performance metrics in use today include the following:

• Daylight factor
• Window-to-wall ratio, or WWR
• Effective aperture, or ea.
• Daylighting depth
• Solar heat-gain coefficient, or ShgC
• Haze factor
• U-factor

Using the above tools and terminology, building teams can better assess the benefits of daylighting strategies with skylights, prismatic pan-type products and solar light pipes, among others. In particular, these are important for meeting the widely used 2012 International Energy Conservation Codes (IECC) and ASHRAE 90.1 as well as state energy codes and “reach targets” such as green building certifications, the Passive House standard and others.

How to Learn More

The use of building systems combining metal roofing with skylights and integrated lighting provide significant life-cycle performance. Much of this is due to the research and development behind the individual products and materials used for these applications.

For a more in-depth look at daylighting within the context of metal roof and wall systems, please refer to MBCI’s whitepaper, Shining Light on Daylighting with Metal Roofs, which showcases the strong rates of return of using integrated daylighting systems with novel prismatic optics and high-efficiency lighting on metal envelopes with good thermal and barrier performance.

Part III – Transparency Plus Consensus: A Win-Win for Everyone

Posted on September 30, 2015 by MBCI

It has been a long time since my last blog on this subject. This is not only because I’ve been busy but also because the landscape of green building programs in general has changed significantly since Part II, and I wanted to wait to see how things shook out before I wrote something that might be immediately outdated. If you remember, we left off in Part II talking about how LEED, the most popular green building program in the US, has not been developed through an ANSI accredited consensus process. Furthermore, the resulting lack of transparency was dubiously ironic given that LEED demands a high level of transparency from building product manufacturers min the latest version of their program, LEED v4.

We also discussed the related but more general movement for manufacturers to fully disclose all of the ingredients in their products to a third party who then compares that list to lists of known hazardous substances and disclose any matches on a product label or public disclosure for all to see. This movement has been fueled by several large architecture firms sending letters to building product manufacturers threatening to stop specifying their products unless they participate. Although most manufactures agree that there is merit to disclosure and are anxious to participate in a fair program, they have not been privy to discussions regarding the logistics of such a program nor have they been allowed to participate in any kind of a standard development governing the disclosure process. This makes manufacturers reluctant to participate, given their vulnerability in such a situation. This risk is leveraged by the fact that currently the only standards that dictate the rules of such a program are under the control of consortiums who have little to no scientific expertise and, frankly, have not been friendly to the building products industry in the past.

I also mentioned that there are alternative programs to LEED that have been developed through a valid consensus process. Specifically, the International Green Construction Code (IgCC), ASHRAE 189.1 and Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Buildings (also known as Green Globes) are ANSI standards that outline the relevant requirements for anyone to view. However, the USGBC marketing machine and resulting popularity of LEED prevented wide use of these standards. Thus, they remained largely unutilized. That is until this year, when the USGBC, IgCC and ASHRAE signed a Memorandum of Understanding, promising to work together and create a favorable consensus by eliminating duplication of provisions and assigning an area of responsibility for each group to maintain separately.

Although no documents have yet to be created, it appears that the administration and enforcement provisions of the new standard will come from the IgCC, and the technical content will come from ASHRAE 189.1, both of which are consensus based. Meanwhile, LEED will require compliance with 189.1 as a prerequisite to an upcoming interim version of LEED. This approach allows an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) to adopt the IgCC as a minimum standard of construction; dropping any reference to LEED they might currently have as minimum project requirements for all buildings. This leaves LEED to evolve as a completely voluntary program going forward and push the envelope of green building, which is their core mission. Meanwhile, Green Globes remains ANSI accredited and still exists as a commercial competitor to LEED. This environment should result in a more user friendly application process, the lack of which been a ubiquitous criticism of LEED for years, because Green Globes is much more user-oriented.

So, it appears that the most popular green building programs are poised to move in the
direction of a true consensus, which is fantastic news for everyone involved. However, the creation and development of disclosure programs, which will not be in the initial technical requirements provided by ASHRAE 189.1, remains largely a one-sided affair with no seat for manufacturers at the table. Besides the contentious nature of the subject in general, there are major philosophical questions that have to be addressed before Health Product Declarations (HPDs), or any type of disclosure in general, can be brought into the main stream. That subject is beyond the scope of this blog, but I encourage you to read a very good article on the trappings of HPDs called “Disclosure: The Newest Dimension of Green Building” by Jim Hoff.

The good news is that there may be a viable alternative to HPDs on the horizon. ASTM has a current open work item to develop a true consensus based standard guiding the issuance of a Product Transparency Declaration (PTD), which has much the same intent as an HPD. As discussed in Part I, the development of ASTM standards is a highly transparent process that allows everyone, including manufacturers, to come to the table. I encourage every designer to join ASTM and get involved in this process, especially those firms who participated in the letter writing campaign, and forgo HPDs until PTDs are available.

Yes, it will take a little longer; the reality that the development of consensus based standards takes time. But just like the development of the laws that govern this country, there is far too much risk involved in getting it wrong. Instead, having these standards developed by a consensus-based process is the only way the finished product will be truly useful and meaningful.

Part II – Transparency in Building Products

Posted on April 28, 2015 by MBCI

A huge buzzword in the building products industry these days is transparency. The green building movement, which has previously focused on high-performing buildings with a strong emphasis on energy efficiency and fossil fuel use reduction, has increasingly put its cross hairs on occupant exposure risk in the last few years. Although that change alone is probably enough to start some controversy, how this new emphasis is being implemented is really fueling the fire for new arguments. If you read our last blog, Part I – The importance of consensus in building standards, then you should be familiar with how building codes are developed in a consensus-based forum in which all affected parties have some say. However, many of the movers and shakers of the green building movement have bypassed that forum by folding the requirements they want to emphasize into voluntary programs of their own creation. At the same time, they lobby owners and building officials to carry some level of compliance to these programs, offering a benefit of being able to say their buildings or communities are “green” by displaying plaques on the façade or being listed on a website.

Although that tact seems fair on the surface, it really puts a lot of power into the hands of self-proclaimed experts to decide on the definition of “green” they want to use for their program. As we discussed in Part I, the ANSI consensus process requires policy-making organizations to transparently prove their competence in subjects they affect with their policy. Furthermore, they also have to publicly announce the formation of a committee (called a “Call for Committee”) they designate to create and maintain this policy. They must also allow members of the public to submit curricula vitae for consideration to join the committee without necessarily being a member of the organization. This introduces a mechanism to balance the power the committee is usurping by having control of the policy going forward. Unfortunately, no such mechanism exists for many of the authors of voluntary green building programs and the negative aspects of this are particularly pronounced in the area of building product transparency.

One of the most common ways green building programs administer transparency is through the use of a “red list,” which is essentially a list of banned substances. Using California Proposition 65 or Europe’s RoHS as a model, many of the NGO-based programs related to buildings have some type of requirement that aims to reduce or eliminate the use of ingredients that could possibly be harmful to building occupants. In many instances, these same NGOs offer third-party listing programs that a building manufacturer can join and have their products declared as meeting the requirements. Many people see this as a conflict of interest since an NGO, typically funded through donations, is in a position to act as a gatekeeper, allowing in only those companies or industries that support the NGO financially or align themselves with the NGO’s agenda.

But there is a deeper, more disturbing aspect: Although the list itself may start out as a publicly accepted and scientifically based enumeration of toxic ingredients, NGOs often add other substances that are not known, or in some cases, even suspected, to be toxic in order to dissuade architects from specifying certain products or deploying certain construction methods. Quite often, the NGO will develop the red list in closed discussion forums where manufacturers have no ability to provide evidence to substantiate that their products are indeed safe. At best, a manufacturer can ask the NGO to consider exceptions or modifications. But ultimately, a manufacturer has no assurance that their case has been adequately considered because they are not allowed to attend the forum. Sadly, this is what passes for transparency in green construction more often than not lately.

This lack of due process came to a head in 2013, when members of congress began to express concern that LEED, the green building program used by the military and the General Services Administration, was not an ANSI-based standard. In response, the GSA formally announced that they would take public comment on the subject and decided nine months later that they would continue to specify LEED but other ANSI-based programs would be considered going forward as well. Meanwhile, the military announced that they were developing their own standard, distancing themselves from LEED. This quelled the discussion for a while and allowed other, even hotter subjects like healthcare to take the spotlight. But concern lives on that the lack of transparency in the development of LEED and similar programs is leading the public down a dangerous, politics-as-usual road.

However, the news is not all bad. There are several organizations that use an ANSI-based process to develop and maintain their programs so that the requirements can readily be incorporated into public policy. ASHRAE, ICC, and a newcomer in the U.S., The Green Building Initiative, have all invested the tremendous amount of time and effort it takes to develop their standards in an ANSI-based public forum, and their respective programs offer a building owner or code official a great alternative to vague voluntary programs subject to interpretation by self-proclaimed experts. We will explore several of those options in our next blog.

Part 1 – The Importance of Consensus in Building Standards

Posted on March 3, 2015 by MBCI

Most people understand the purpose of a building code: To ensure the safety of the occupants and to establish the minimum accepted performance level of the building and its systems. Fewer people understand that because building codes are adopted into law by a governing body, technically referred to as an Authority Having Jurisdiction or AHJ, they are an in fact an extension of the law or ordinance that brings them into effect. Knowing that, you should not be surprised to learn that like laws, building codes in America can’t just be arbitrarily made up by somebody having the authority and know-how to do so. Instead, they must have gone through some type of consensus process in which all affected entities or their representatives have the opportunity to participate. This concept, called Due Process of Law, is central to many governmental charters such as the Magna Carta and The Constitution of the United States of America and is designed to ensure that a person’s individual rights are not unfairly taken away.

Under the US Constitution, laws are written by Congress and interpreted by judges. Members of Congress are elected by their constituents and judges are either appointed by elected officials or elected themselves. Similarly, building codes are written by consensus bodies, like the International Code Council or ICC, and interpreted by Building Officials, who are generally appointed by elected officials. The code development process used by ICC is one where any interested member of the public can participate and is guaranteed a forum to propose changes and comment on the proposed changes submitted by others using a system governed by Roberts Rules of Order. After discussion and debate, the code committee votes on the individual proposals and those that pass are incorporated into the code, guaranteeing due process. (Actually, it’s quite a bit more complicated than this but for purposes of this blog, let’s just leave it at that.)

However, building codes commonly do not actually spell out all of the requirements for buildings and building systems. More and more, the code will delegate low-level detailed requirements to a different type of document called a standard, and then brings the requirements contained within by referencing the standard in the code by name. Likewise, these standards then must also be developed through a consensus process administered by an adequate standard development body. But because all standard development bodies are structured a little differently, it is not realistic to mandate that consensus process directly. Instead, another independent body called The American National Standards Institute or ANSI, certifies standard development bodies as having a sufficient consensus processes to be deemed as meeting the incorporating code requirements for due process. Examples of these bodies are the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) who develop ASCE 7, the document that determines the minimum load requirements for buildings; the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) a group widely known for developing material and testing specifications for general use; and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), who develops ASHRAE 90.1, the document that spells out the minimum building energy efficiency requirements. If you are an architect or engineer, all of these acronyms should sound very familiar to you.

Another acronym that you are probably familiar with is LEED, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. It is developed and maintained by the US Green Building Council (USGBC) and is the premier green building program in the world. Interestingly though, the development landscape changes drastically when it comes to green construction programs like LEED. You see, the USGBC is not an ANSI accredited standard developer and thus LEED is not an actual official standard, hence the use of the word “program”. How then is it possible that USGBC can have so much say in how buildings, particularly publicly owned buildings, get built? The answer is that they get around this limitation by structuring LEED as a voluntary program and then lobbying the potential owners of buildings, like the US and state governments, into using their program by executive order rather than legislating the requirement directly. If you’ve watched TV at all in the last year, particularly with respect to immigration reform, you know how controversial this approach can be. Nevertheless, it is perfectly legal in this context.

This really has not been a significant issue to date because LEED does have a consensus process (albeit not an ANSI accredited one) and LEED credit requirements have been fairly uncontroversial in past versions. However, LEED v4, the latest generation of the wildly popular green building program, changed all of that by adding credits that are less about design and functionality of the building and more about transparency with respect to building product ingredients to ensure occupant health and comfort. Let’s be clear: Most reasonable people, including building product manufacturers, don’t have a problem with increased transparency and want more occupant comfort and health. But it is how LEED defines “transparency” in version 4 has many people up in arms and they point to the hypocrisy of developing a definition to the word “transparency” during a closed-door meeting with no manufacturers at the table as what is wrong with green building as it exists today. My next blog will explore that concept further.