×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Window Leakage (Water) Test by CSA A440 Std - Minimum or Prescription?

Window Leakage (Water) Test by CSA A440 Std - Minimum or Prescription?

Window Leakage (Water) Test by CSA A440 Std - Minimum or Prescription?

(OP)
Window manufacturer, XYZ, claims their windows meets "B-7" (700 Pa) water leakage and has documentation to prove it. CSA standard guideline suggests minimum requirements for general application are only "B-3" (300 Pa). (B-7 is the highest rating that CSA standard tests to.) Standard suggests that allowance be made for other circumstances than the general application where applicable. Designer looks at cost of a B-4 window vs. a B-7 window and decides for this, and other, reasons to go with the B-7 (B-7 is specified.) Construction proceeds. Air leakage test of building at 50 Pa reveals issues with windows. Glaring issue leads GC to comply and have window installer 're-do' window and sub-window interface. Marked improvement in results at 50 Pa. Owner elects to field test windows to see if they meet air and water specs. Certified lab tests windows to spec and reports that they meet 'air' spec, but do not meet 'water' spec. GC claims spec is not 'appropriate' for application per standard, that a reduced value is ok and that spec is 'wrong'.

You ask for B-7, pay for B-7 then are asked to allow B-??? Seems clear that Owner should get what they paid for, no? Is there 'room' for argument when the spec and associated standard is clearly stated? Is there merit or precedent in the argument that the standard allows for a 'reduced' rating somehow?

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Resources

Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close