Peter Lyons is an NFRC member through his organization Peter Lyons and Associates, of Canberra, Australia. He is an active participant of the Thermophysical Properties of Materials Subcommittee and current chair of the NFRC 101 and 103 Task Group and has contributed greatly to efforts to provide substantial background and modernize the NFRC documents. Lyons took a few moments to answer Insider’s questions about his role with the NFRC as well as the current changes on the horizon within the subcommittee and task group:

How did you get your start in the fenestration industry?

I became involved in the fenestration industry in 1992 when I joined an International Energy Agency (IEA) project called Task 18 – Advanced Windows. It was very exciting and through Task 18 I learned a lot. I was privileged to work with many of the top people in the field and I visited many wonderful places across four continents.

You have been involved with NFRC for many years now. What year did you begin attending? What were the biggest issues of the time?

My first NFRC meeting was in New Orleans in January 1994. I think the biggest issue for NFRC back then was getting NFRC 100 finished – which they did!

Can you briefly describe your role in the NFRC’s international outreach efforts? What do you see as the biggest issue currently facing the development of a ratings program in Australia?

In the early years I kept NFRC informed of what we were doing in Task 18. Later, my focus was on Australia’s evolving Window Energy Rating Scheme (WERS). In return, NFRC intellectual property and know-how has been a huge help to us. The biggest issue facing the Australian Fenestration Rating Council (AFRC) today is, without doubt, an almost total lack of support or interest by government agencies. It’s not easy when the burden falls entirely on our industry and its consultants.

You are also an active participant in the NFRC’s Thermophysical Properties of Materials Subcommittee as well as the chair of the NFRC 101 and 103 Task Group. This issue of the Insider puts the spotlight on this busy subcommittee. What is your view on the new activity with NFRC 101?

It’s very satisfying to help raise the standard by which properties of a non-optical nature get admitted into, and managed by, the NFRC system.

Why doesn’t NFRC just reference standard engineering manuals for thermophysical properties?

It could, but such sources are much too disparate and inaccessible to NFRC members and simulators. By acting as a clearinghouse for thermophysical properties, we reduce errors and raise the credibility of NFRC ratings.

What is a generic property and why are they being questioned?

A generic property is supposed to be ’default’, or ’average’, or ’representative’ for that material. This means that unless it is also punitive (unflattering) there is a real risk that people will use it instead of a ’real’ (and apparently worse) custom-measured property for the same type of material. This can undermine the manufacturer who went to the trouble of supplying test data.

Why do some manufacturer-specific properties come so close to generic? Can you define better generics and will NFRC 101 make changes to define it better?

Sometimes, properties come close to generic because those materials are mainly simple and homogeneous (uniform). Other times, a proprietary material may have a composite structure and embody a lot of R&D that results in much better performance than its main constituents would suggest.

If thermophysical properties are found to be in need of significant improvement or changed, what are the consequences for the window, door, and skylight ratings?

They should generally improve; the U-Factor will drop a little and possibly SHGC also if it is solar-control glazing.

There is a subset of thermophysical properties in the simulation software. Why aren’t all of NFRC 101’s properties there? Will the new electronic database include all of NFRC 101?

The current list in THERM is somewhat historical and it doesn’t update itself automatically to keep in sync with NFRC 101. The new electronic database will stay in sync with the PDF version of 101.

Will the coming NFRC 101 ballot for the Summer Membership Meeting resolve these issues?

Yes I think there’s a good chance it will. The objectives are clear and they will help the Thermophysical Properties database to become equal in quality to the International Glazing Database.

For further information on the Thermophysical Properties of Materials Subcommittee and the NFRC 101 and 103 Task Group, check out this issue’s Subcommittee Spotlight.