Friday, May 28, 2010
Recently, I’ve seen a number of articles, blogs and online discussions regarding U-factor and R-value, especially with regard to fenestration products. It’s time for NFRC to set the record straight on this important issue.

NFRC recognizes only U-factors for energy ratings for important technical reasons, consumer reasons and legal reasons.

This is not a simple issue. From a technical perspective, U-factor is not a material property value. It is the result of a calculation that combines the conductance values of the numerous materials in a fenestration product. This includes glazing materials, gas fills, spacer materials, framing materials, weather strips, sealants, etc. In addition, it includes the convection and radiation elements that occur within and adjacent to the fenestration product surfaces that dramatically influence its energy rating. In thermal chambers, NFRC tests products at specific environmental conditions with tightly calibrated equipment, and also applies a standardized air film coefficient to assure repetitive results from lab to lab.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers has long recognized U-factor as the correct measurement for both fenestration products, and wall and roof assemblies. Only specific materials have a recognized R-value. In addition, the International Energy Conservation Code only recognizes U-factor for fenestration products. ASHRAE 90.1, for commercial buildings, and the IECC, for residential buildings, both reference NFRC’s procedure for determining the U-factor of fenestration products (NFRC 100).

As a 501(c)(3) public service organization, NFRC has an inherent responsibility to communicate to consumers, government bodies and others the most appropriate and credible information about fenestration product performance. Because U-factor provides more technically sound information for fenestration products, NFRC provides U-factors rather than R-values. U-factor is directly related to energy savings because it directly predicts reduced heat transfer. In contrast, the relationship of R-value to energy savings is more complicated and highly variable.

With the energy performance of products assuming increasing importance in today’s marketplace, fenestration product manufacturers face expanded legal risks if they advertise the energy performance of their products in an inaccurate or misleading manner. In fact, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has adopted regulations intended to protect consumers from misleading and deceptive advertising practices regarding R-values and home insulation products (70 Fed Reg. at 31,259). However, those regulations give no direct guidance regarding the use of R-values for fenestration products.

It is critically important that product performance is communicated consistently to all interested parties. U-factor is the recognized term for relating the thermal transmittance of windows, doors, skylights, curtain walls and fenestration attachment products. NFRC will continue to recognize U-factor – and U-factor only – for fenestration products.

--Jim Benney is the National Fenestration Rating Council’s chief executive officer. He has been involved in developing product and performance standards for the window and glass industry for more than 20 years. He can be reached at

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Glass Association, Glass Magazine editors, or other glassblog contributors.
Monday, May 24, 2010
You’ve probably heard that “a 1000-mile journey begins with a single step.” This is true. Just as true is the fact that “the journey continues with a single step.” In previous blogs I stated that I am training to run 56 miles on my 56th birthday. Also stated were potential conflicts/obstacles that could interrupt my training.

During my training every time an obstacle has appeared, I have been faced with a choice to stop or find a way to circumvent the obstacle. What I have realized is that the challenge is not physical but mental. In fact, it really comes down to taking another single step.

At the end of March, I was scheduled to run 28 miles. I can run 1.2 miles from my house to get on the Country Music Marathon course. I pick up the course at the 6-mile point of the CMM. The course finishes at LP Field, home of the TN Titans. Counting some deviation the stadium would be 22 miles into the run. The stadium is 6 miles from my house so that would give me 28 total miles. The CMM course runs through Music Row and The Gulch areas, which are attractive interesting parts of the city. After these areas it is a very boring unattractive course. It runs by government subsidized housing and through an industrial area that borders the housing. We go briefly through a park and return to the industrialized area. When I reached LP Field (22 miles) I called my wife to come pick me up. I just quit! I was pissed but did not know why I quit. I replayed the decision to quit in my mind for several days until I determined an answer.

I discovered that I was mentally bored. My mental exhaustion led to a perceived physical exhaustion. I was at the foot of a pedestrian bridge that goes from LP Field over the Cumberland River into downtown Nashville. Downtown Nashville is an alive place with construction, the Country Music Hall of Fame, tourists and other distractions. All I had to do was take a single step to begin to cross the bridge and get into the downtown area. My brain would have been awakened and any perceived physical exhaustion would have been diminished. I would have kept running and completed the 28-mile run. But I didn’t take that step.

It wasn’t a physical reason I quit, but a mental one. The decision to quit is rarely physical; it is almost always mental. All I had to do was cross the bridge. It didn’t matter if I ran, walked or crawled over that bridge. It only mattered that I continued on my journey, took the next step and crossed the bridge. This has become my mantra. All anyone has to do to overcome an obstacle is just “cross the bridge.” In my case it was literal. In others it may be figurative.

“Just cross the bridge!”

—Bill Evans, president, Evans Glass Co., Nashville
Monday, May 17, 2010
2009 was a tough year for contract glaziers. Of the companies that made this year’s Top 50 Glaziers and provided exact sales figures for 2008 and 2009, 55 percent reported a decrease in sales volume. Glaziers cited decreased backlogs and increased competition among the reasons for the slide. Some described a bidding environment in which general contractors were “shopping numbers,” looking for the best deal. One company reported its competitor was bidding projects at cost, just to land the job.

Whether the fault lies with the clients for rewarding low bidders or with the glazing companies for submitting these bids in the first place, this type of environment is detrimental and frustrating for everyone involved.

I’m a firm believer, however, in the motto: “You get what you pay for.” And I think in the long run, our industry will actually benefit from this situation. If you’ve ever been burned by a service provider that you chose based solely on price, you know what I’m talking about. Oftentimes, it only takes one bad experience with a contractor to make you re-evaluate your selection criteria.

Companies that take jobs at unrealistic prices have to cut corners somewhere. As one glassblog reader pointed out: “If a contractor is 40 percent less than the rest, there is a reason. Material does not have that much of a swing from one guy to another, so … where are the shortcuts going to be applied?” Unfortunately, for some clients, those shortcuts are applied to the building itself, costing them more to fix than it would have to hire a higher quality company initially. Fortunately, for us, these clients will be better educated when they spec their next project, recognizing the value higher-priced companies bring to the table in the form of quality products, trained personnel and customer service.

While I don’t wish this experience on anyone, clients that look only at the bid number and not at the glazier are setting themselves up for failure. My bet is they won’t make the same mistake twice. What’s yours?

Jenni Chase, Editor, Glass Magazine
Monday, May 10, 2010
A Census Bureau person was on the news saying that, if conservatives don't participate in the census (due to their presumed anti-government sentiment), then they will be under-represented for the next 10 years in Congress, school funding, highway funding, etc. But really, everyone feels like "their position" is under-represented, whether they are liberal or conservative. We all believe that most people should think like we do, and that the system is stacked against us (and many times there are real abuses of the system that lend credibility to our assumptions).

While the census will never eliminate this "perceived" misrepresentation, neither will it result in an accurate count upon which to base our representation for the next decade. That's because the census is about counting warm bodies without regard to their citizenship, instead of counting citizens. Take a look at the form here. There are no questions about citizenship, only ethnic origin. Now, I'm not opening the whole immigration can of worms here, I'm just saying ... if we're going to use this count to establish our representation in the United States Congress, let's base it on the number of United States citizens.

Worse yet, the Census itself is a redundancy! The IRS already knows how many people are in this country, where they live, and how much money they make. They even know my kids' names and social security numbers. So, why are we counting everybody again, with an entire separate bureaucracy? Most everybody on the IRS rolls is at least a tax-filer, even if they are not a tax-payer. This seems like a much better way to establish congressional representation -- base it on law-abiding taxpayers/tax-filers, not a head count of every warm body. The result: the end of representation without taxation. The bonus: eliminating the Census Bureau will save billions of dollars, and eliminate one little bureaucracy. We can accomplish the constitutionally required count without them.

There are two possibilities regarding my theories: they make too much sense to become government reality, or I am way off base. Honestly, it could be either. Maybe the census is a wonderful thing. What do you think of the decennial enumeration? Do you have strong feelings about completing (or not completing) yours? Have you been visited by a Census worker, and what was that like? I ended up sending mine in before they came looking for me.

--By Chris Mammen, president, M3 Glass Technologies, Irving, Texas
Monday, May 3, 2010
The glass and glazing industry is starting to see the trickle-down of government recovery money, but it is not without a price. These projects are tagged with important features that glaziers will do well to be aware of. Most of the projects are for Department of Defense installations or GSA, and have blast resistance requirements.

A significant percentage of the recovery money ends up in the hands of architectural firms responsible for design and construction oversight. The design budgets are nice and fat, and many of the architectural firms hire blast-load consultants to provide design input, write specifications and review submittals during the construction phase. So now the typical submittal has to jump through an additional hoop. The blast-load consultants are usually eager to make their value known, requiring every “t” to be crossed and every “i” to be dotted.

Sometimes, the blast-load consultants are not altogether familiar with glazing systems, and this results in a nightmare of rejections and resubmittals. Submittals that are rejected require time, effort and often a tangible dollar amount to be resubmitted.

Projects with recovery earmarks are good business when you understand their process, and glazing contractors who want to cash in on the recovery money should be prepared for the additional efforts that are now necessary. Stay tuned for my next blog, where we’ll cover some of the items typically required in submittals for blast-resistant glazing.

--By Stewart Jeske, P.E., president, JEI Structural Engineering
Friday, April 23, 2010

Solar panels have opened up a booming market for glass and glazing professionals. Most big names in the industry have entered the niche. Just in the recent past, Solutia, St. Louis, agreed to acquire Etimex Solar; the Dow Chemical Co. picked Midland, Mich., as the site for the first full-scale facility for its Dow Powerhouse Solar shingles; Cardinal Solar Technologies, part of Cardinal Glass Industries, Eden Prairie, Minn., opened a facility in Mazomanie, Wis., to grind, drill and temper two types of glass for use in PV; and Saint-Gobain, France, announced plans to boost its yearly sales related to solar power up to Eur 2 billion in five years and make acquisitions in the sector. First Solar, Tempe, Ariz., the market leader in commercial systems, is participating in the solar markets at a level of $1.9 billion; total market value for 2009 was $19.6 billion in 2009, according to a recent Research and Markets study.

Even non-core glazing players, such as Alcoa, Pittsburgh, and non-glazing companies, such as Chevron, San Ramon, Calif., are getting into the solar field. Alcoa has replaced the glass in parabolic troughs with reflective aluminum and integrated the mirror into a single structure. And Chevron has transformed an old refinery site in California into a test bed for seven advanced photovolatic technologies.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has done its share to help the solar industry. Companies like Abound Solar Inc., Loveland, Colo., picked up $12.6 million in tax credits from the U.S. Department of Energy, via the ARRA, through a competitive selection process that examines how many green jobs a firm creates, the cost-effectiveness of its operations, the speed at which it implements manufacturing processes, and the overall benefit in terms of greenhouse gas reduction.

The Solar Manufacturing Jobs Creation Act, H.R. 4085 in the House and S. 2755 in the Senate, would help the solar industry even more by expanding the commercial solar investment tax credit to include the purchase of solar manufacturing equipment. The improved tax incentive for solar manufacturing will create long-term growth and jobs. Passage of this bill would create a generally available and immediately reliable 30 percent credit for the tools to create solar panels, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, Washington, D.C.

You can do your bit to help pass the act. Here's how:

--Call and write your senators and representatives. If they are a co-sponsor of the manufacturing tax credit, thank them for supporting the legislation and encourage quick passage of the solar manufacturing tax credit.
--If your senators and representatives are not a co-sponsor, call and/or write and request them to co-sponsor H.R. 4085 and S. 2755.

Help create new solar jobs, while improving your lot in this wildly expanding field.

—By Sahely Mukerji, Senior editor, Glass Magazine

Monday, April 19, 2010
The first quarter has ended. Let’s review our goals. You are either on track to achieve your goal(s) for the year or you are not on track. So what are you going to do about it?

If you are on track, you run the risk of taking your success for granted. You begin to think it’s easy to reach your goals and this can lead to complacency. You have worked hard so far this year. You have been doing the basics and have stayed focused on the end result. It’s been said that yesterday’s successes can lull us into today’s complacency, which is the foundation of tomorrow’s failure.

If you are not on track to reach this year’s goal(s), you have to make a decision. You have to answer one of the following questions:
1) The goal you set is still viable; you need to refocus on it. Are you going to recommit to the original goal?
2) Your original goal is no longer realistic. Redefine the original goal to make it more relevant and obtainable. Will you take the time to do this and commit to the updated goal?

If you do not consciously answer one of these two questions, you need to understand that you have unconsciously made a decision to give up on your goal(s) and possibly to even quit setting goals altogether.

It’s easy to focus on the immediate and lose sight of the long term. I need to get this job; I need to make this bank payment; I need to get this ordered. All of these are daily necessary items that distract us from looking at the big picture. It takes effort and concentration to look past “obstacles” and focus on the end result. If you do not focus on the end result, you cannot celebrate its achievement.

At this time of year there are several external influences that impact our race toward achievement. The weather is warmer. The colorful flowers are blooming and the grass is green again. Daylight Savings Time has made the day seem longer. People are spending more time outside. This is a very positive time of year. It is vital that we use the external influences to gain lost ground or get ahead in the race to reach your goal(s).

Every spring the activity level at our company increases because of these external influences. We get more “pep in our step.” Our expectations increase. Our attitude improves because we have emerged from the winter hibernation. As the leader at our company, it is my responsibility to remain focused on our long term goal(s). As a leader, it is my job to let my associates focus on the immediate tasks of everyday business, yet keep them on track so we will achieve the long term goal(s).

Do you expect to win?

Stay committed to your decision but flexible in your approach.

—Bill Evans, president, Evans Glass Co., Nashville
Monday, March 29, 2010
E-mail is easy. Too easy. Richard Kelson, Esq., Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir P.C., Pittsburgh, says careless or casual e-mails can open companies up to problems if a legal dispute arises. Kelson spoke March 29 during the last day of the BEC Conference at Paris Las Vegas, hosted by the Glass Association of North America, Topeka, Kan.

Kelson emphasized to the audience of glaziers and suppliers the importance of watching what you say, and thinking before you speak. E-mail has shifted the way business is done, and the easy and often informal nature of e-mails can be dangerous for companies.

“Earlier in my career, my construction cases would have 100 exhibits. People would write one letter a week, if it was important. Today, I see 1,500 exhibits because of e-mails,” Kelson said. “E-mails are speaking without thinking. E-mails are too friendly to people who are not friends. E-mails are filled with bravado. … E-mails are coming from people who don’t have authority to speak for a company, and they are sent off without anyone reviewing them.”

Technology has made it possible for council to discover e-mails that were written but never sent. Mirror drives and back-up servers can house anything that has been drafted on the computer, even it if was never saved.

“I used to tell people to follow the 24-hour rule—to sit on an e-mail for 24 hours before sending,” Kelson said. “That rule won’t protect you now. Before you type an e-mail, write it out on paper, by hand.”

Kelson added that people should never send e-mails when “you’re overtired, emotional or upset.” Any e-mail sent after midnight can wait until the morning. “Don’t make a case for the other side by e-mailing after midnight,” he said.

The reply all, copy and blind copy functions in e-mail can lead to “devastating” unintended consequences if an e-mail is inadvertently sent to the wrong parties. “E-mails can end up in the wrong hands. … Always check and consider recipients before sending,” Kelson said. He also emphasized that no one should ever be copied on an e-mail to council. “This waives privilege.”

To prevent e-mail problems, and add legal protection, Kelson said managers need to train staff on writing e-mails. "If you can't train your staff to write e-mails the right way, then get a new staff."

--By Katy Devlin, associate editor

Monday, March 29, 2010
Lions and tigers and bears? That’s nothing. The glass industry’s got codes and standards, and emissions regulations. Oh my.

The major threat to the glass industry right now, according to some presenters and industry officials here at Glass Week in Las Vegas, isn’t the economy, but proposed codes and standards, and emissions regulations or legislation. The economy, and construction industry, will recover (though, perhaps not as soon as we’d like). These codes and regulations, however, could limit the use of glass in buildings and weaken manufacturers' abilities to compete.

On the codes and standards front, ASHRAE 90.1 topped the conversation during the meetings. The 2010 version of the standard limits the window to wall ratio of buildings at 30 percent, down from 40 percent. A 25 percent reduction in glass could severely hurt an already suffering industry.

Fire-rated glass manufacturers are also facing code movement toward less glass. The sprinkler industry is issuing proposals to limit—or even eliminate—fire-rated glass in interior fire corridors, according to several fire-rated manufacturers.

And glass manufacturers could possibly see emissions requirements coming through legislation or through regulation. Both Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency are working to limit manufacturer emissions nationally. The California assembly has a bill that could be approved in the near future. Emissions regulations could make it difficult for U.S. glass manufacturers to compete in the global market.

What is the industry to do in the face of somewhat overwhelming forces? Bill Yanek, executive vice president of GANA, recommends coming together to help influence change. Energy codes, such as ASHRAE, aren’t going away. However, a whole industry voice to recommend performance-based standards that provide benefits for daylighting, rather than just eliminating windows, can make an impact. And a fire-rated glass industry, often-divided over code issues, can only challenge the sprinkler manufacturers through one voice. Emissions regulations are also coming, sooner or later. Glass manufacturers need to keep up with advancements in climate change proposals, and the industry collectively needs be vocal with government bodies about its interests.
By Katy Devlin, associate editor

Sunday, March 21, 2010
Last week, President Obama signed an $18 billion jobs bill to spur hiring by giving tax breaks to small businesses. The bill also includes $20 billion for highway and transit programs.

The bill was passed March 17 on a bipartisan 68-29 vote, according to an AP report. The new measure would exempt businesses hiring unemployed from the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax through December and give employers an additional $1,000 credit if new workers stay on the job a full year. Taxpayers would reimburse Social Security for the lost revenue.

In addition to the hiring tax incentives and highway funding, the bill would extend a tax break for small businesses buying new equipment and modestly expand an initiative that helps state and local governments finance infrastructure projects, according to the AP report.

It remains to be seen if the bill will spike hiring in the construction sector. Construction employment continued to shrink in most American communities as 313 out of 337 metro areas lost construction jobs between January 2009 and January 2010, according to a new analysis of federal employment figures released March 18 by the Associated General Contractors of America, Arlington, Va.

Phoenix lost more construction jobs (27,600) than any other city in America, according to the AGC report. Steubenville, Ohio, and Weirton, W. Va., experienced the largest percentage decline in construction employment (44 percent, 1,600 jobs), followed by Grand Junction, Colo., (34 percent, 3,400 jobs); Las Vegas (32 percent, 24,500 jobs); Napa, Calif., (32 percent, 1,100 jobs); and Santa Cruz, Calif., (31 percent, 1,100 jobs.)

Eau Claire, Wis., added the most construction jobs (500) between January 2009 and January 2010, and experienced the largest percentage increase (23 percent) the report noted. Other cities adding construction jobs included Ithaca, N.Y., (9 percent, 100 jobs); Michigan City, Ind., (6 percent, 100 jobs); Waterbury, Conn., (5 percent, 100 jobs); and Grand Forks, N.D., and Minnesota (5 percent, 100 jobs).

The report stated that 230 metropolitan areas experienced double-digit percentage decreases in construction employment, while no city experienced a double-digit increase in construction employment. Meanwhile, 18 cities nationwide lost more than 10,000 construction jobs between January 2009 and 2010.

What’s your take on the new jobs bill? Is it going to encourage construction company owners to hire? How will it influence the glass and glazing industry?

—By Sahely Mukerji, Senior editor, Glass Magazine
Page 49 of 66
 << First | < Previous 47 | 48 | 49 50 | 51 Next > | Last >> 

Blog Archive