The Future of NAFS · • NAFS Strategy Task Force convened Nov. 2015 • Proposed a Purpose and Mission for the future of NAFS • Approved by all three sponsors – WDMA – CSA

The Future of NAFS

Joe Hayden Pella Corporation

Chair – EPSC June 30, 2016

June 28-30, 2016 InterContinental Chicago

Chicago, Illinois

Setting the mood …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UtoYsQJdeM


Chicago, Illinois

We’ve Created a Monster


Chicago, Illinois

NAFS-11

• 13 sections • 190 pages • 170+ referenced primary standards

– Numerous secondary, tertiary, etc. standards • 36 different Product Types • Numerous material/component requirements • Overly complex and cumbersome


Chicago, Illinois

Time to “Sedate” the Monster

• NAFS Strategy Task Force convened Nov. 2015 • Proposed a Purpose and Mission for the

future of NAFS • Approved by all three sponsors

– WDMA – CSA – AAMA


Chicago, Illinois

Purpose • Enable end product performance evaluation

for certain US and Canadian building codes

• Will not focus on: – Product comparison – Marketing information – Durability (if not inherent in code requirements) – Certification procedural issues – Prescriptive requirements that stifle innovation


Chicago, Illinois

Mission

• Identify the “certain US and Canadian codes” • Focus on air-water-structural • Reduce the number of performance classes • Move material & component requirements to

a separate document that can be referenced

SIMPLIFY


Chicago, Illinois

Deadlines for Code Adoption

• Published NAFS is needed by: – December 2017 for adoption in 2018 I-Codes – Mid 2018 for adoption in 2020 Canadian Code

• What ever version is complete and published

at that time will be adopted into that code


Chicago, Illinois

Parallel Efforts

• Can full simplification be achieved that soon?

• Plan “A” – full simplification

• Plan “B” – incremental improvements

• JDMG is pursuing both simultaneously


Chicago, Illinois

Plan “A” - Simplification

• Performance Classes – Current JDMG thinking: R – Normal Duty C – Heavy Duty AW – Severe Duty

• General consensus to-date on three classes,

but still deliberating on the designations


Chicago, Illinois

Plan “A” - Simplification • Gateway Minimum Test Sizes

– Current thinking is to eliminate for Class R and Class C, but maintain for Class AW

– Test what you want to qualify – Anything larger than tested is not qualified – Potential other differentiators between R and C

• Minimum Performance Grade • Deflection limits • Auxiliary tests • ???


Chicago, Illinois

Plan “A” - Simplification • Allowable Operating Force

– Harmonize US and Canadian limits – Considering elimination of “initiate” and

“maintain” limits. • Single limit for entire range of motion • Base on current “initiate” limits

– Consolidation of operator types • Single limit for each mode of operation:

– Vertical sliding, horizontal sliding, projecting


Chicago, Illinois


• Material and Component Requirements – Current thinking is to move to an appendix or

similar companion document – Separate into three categories:

• Mandatory with no alternative option • Mandatory but allow equivalent alternative options • Non-mandatory design guidance


Chicago, Illinois


• Mandatory – no alternative – Glass strength (ASTM E1300) – No lead added (ASTM E1753) – Preservative treatment of wood (WDMA I.S.4) – PVC integrity (AAMA 303) – Fiberglass integrity (AAMA 305)


Chicago, Illinois


• Mandatory but allow equivalent alternatives – Wood adhesives (ASTM D5572 and D5751) – Coatings per applicable AAMA & WDMA specs – Aluminum mechanical properties – Steel corrosion resistance – Fastener corrosion resistance – Plastic glazing durability


Chicago, Illinois

Plan “A” - Simplification • Non-mandatory design guidance

– Safety glazing (ANSI Z97.1) – WOCDs (ASTM F2090 and F2006) – Hardware per applicable AAMA specs – Weather seals per applicable AAMA specs – Sealants (AAMA 800) – Setting blocks per applicable IGMA specs – Reinforcing – Integral ventilation devices


Chicago, Illinois


• Auxiliary Tests – Current thinking is to keep all as mandatory – no

alternative

– TBD how they will be applied to the 3 classes


Chicago, Illinois


• Next steps

– JDMG to continue deliberations and compile a first draft for public review and/or ballot

– Time frame TBD


Chicago, Illinois

Plan “B” – Incremental Improvements

• Back-up plan in case simplified version isn’t complete by December 2017 for 2018 I-Codes

• Ballot was issued in March, closed April 29 – Second ballot – Continuation of first ballot issued in 2015


Chicago, Illinois


• Significant changes vs. NAFS-11 – Air/water exclusion for SHED lock/latch hardware – Mullion tributary width and mulled assemblies – Harmonized US/Canadian operating forces – Specimen mounting in test buck – Clarified provisions for WOCDs – Addition of Folding Doors as a Product Type – Categorization of clauses

• AWS, HS, DL, CPM, COM


Chicago, Illinois


• Significant changes vs. NAFS-11 – Categorization of clauses (1st step in simplification)

• AWS (air-water-structural) • HS (health & safety) • DL (durability & longevity) • CPM (component parts & materials) • COM (commentary)


Chicago, Illinois


• Next steps – JDMG will review/resolve all responses

• Two conference calls held to-date • Next conference call scheduled for July 15 • In-person meeting planned for July 27 in Portland • Approx. 80 total comments received

– Third ballot is likely

• Substantive changes only vs. second ballot draft • Issue date TBD


Chicago, Illinois


• Likely items for third ballot – Combination vs. composite mullions – Mandatory warning labels on all window screens – Expansion of LW option to other door types – Restriction of unglazed sash/leaf torsion tests to

aluminum products only – Clarification of Folding Door provisions


Chicago, Illinois

Questions

Joe Hayden (p) 641-621-6096 (c) 641-780-0591

(e) [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

The Future of NAFSSlide Number 2We’ve Created a MonsterNAFS-11Time to “Sedate” the MonsterPurposeMissionDeadlines for Code AdoptionParallel EffortsPlan “A” - SimplificationPlan “A” - SimplificationPlan “A” - SimplificationPlan “A” - SimplificationPlan “A” - SimplificationPlan “A” - SimplificationPlan “A” - SimplificationPlan “A” - SimplificationPlan “A” - SimplificationPlan “B” – Incremental ImprovementsPlan “B” – Incremental ImprovementsPlan “B” – Incremental ImprovementsPlan “B” – Incremental ImprovementsPlan “B” – Incremental ImprovementsQuestions

Documents

The Future of NAFS · • NAFS Strategy Task Force convened Nov. 2015 • Proposed a Purpose and Mission for the future of NAFS • Approved by all three sponsors – WDMA – CSA