fore, I believe it is quite essential or desirable that a standardized or standard apparatus be developed which can be reproduced on the Pacific Coast, Gulf States, or anywhere else, and replicated so that manufacturers can be assured of comparability of results obtained at various places. This is an evident need that requires cooperative attention and solution by the whole industry and its customers. R. W. McKinley: Yes, Mr. Orbesen. G. Orbesen: Mr. Robinson, you have referred several times to the Canadian test method, and the SIGMA test method. Is there not a GSA specification for insulating glass units? Mr. Robinson: The Public Buildings Service of GSA has an Interim Guide Specification for glaz ing (PBS 4-0885 (INT), June 1967) which sets up requirements for insulating glass units (Paragraph 2.1). Few details are given concerning testing procedure or equipment. It requires that units withstand one of two optional alternative tests. It will be of interest that one option calls for tests of 250 days, and of one year, duration; the other option requires 700 days for completion. I have no information as to who has conducted certifying tests under this guide specification. R. W. McKinley: Yes, Roger? Mr. O'Shaughnessy: Have you worked on any costs involved for the suggested apparatus? Mr. Robinson: No. I think the cost could vary by 2 to 1 depending on who has the building of it. 6. Proposals for Future Action-Panel Discussion III Introduction of the Third Panel Henry E. Robinson The clock is moving and we have a full schedule. I'd like to ask the meeting to come to order. We are about to have, I think, the action part of this Seminar take place. Up to now we have been getting educated and have discussed various aspects of the questions. The motif for today is, I think, action. The title of this part of the program is "Proposals for Future Action." Action is the key word but the agenda now is soliciting proposals. To put these before you, the program calls for a panel which will consist of Mr. Lynford K. Snell, would you take position... ; Mr. Roger O'Shaughnessy, President of the Cardinal Insulated Glass Company; Mr. Robert W. McKinley of PPG Industries; and Mr. C. C. Stout, Treasurer and Product Development Manager of the Andersen Corporation. This panel is convened to give you in short form their suggestions as to what course of action this Seminar and your industry might consider. I say again the motif of this session is action. After the four panel members have made their suggestions, I think we will not have time for much discussion because we will have a coffee break. After the coffee break, I hope that the fifth member of the panel, yourselves, will swing into action and help us to define and understand what should be done and what might be done. I will call upon the first member of the panel, Mr. Lynford K. Snell, to start off. 6.2. Proposals for Future Action Roger O'Shaughnessy Cardinal Insulated Glass Co. Mr. Roger O'Shaughnessy did not present a formal paper and no transcript of his remarks is available. Some of his ideas, however, appear in the discussion following Mr. Stout's paper. 6.3. Proposals for Future ActionRound Robin Comparison of Test Methods Robert W. McKinley,' Chairman PPG Industries, Inc. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Preceding speakers and discussions have made it clear that there are a variety of test methods, facilities, and procedures now in use by various organizations which have, in at least some respects the same general objective, namely; reliable accelerated evaluation of insulating glass unit performance. Key words: ASTM; insulating glass unit; round robin; test farms; test methods. 1. Introduction At present accelerated testing methods rely, at least in interpretation, calculation, and application of their results on judgmental processes not necessarily constrained by similar guidelines. Since the original purposes of these methods have varied as their creators, important differences in results are to be expected. It is indeed fortunate that there exists such a wide experience from which to draw. Practical correlation of accelerated test results with on-the-job performance is difficult at best, and impossible without experience. Within the durability task group of subcommittee VIII, ASTM Committee E-6, the preparation of a durability test method for glazed sash has been proposed. Drafts have been circulated and discussed. It seems appropriate, therefore, that we propose and perhaps undertake a comparison of existing test methods for insulating units. 2. Proposal for Comparing Test Methods For your consideration and discussion, it is our proposal that the durability task group plan and conduct a round-robin program of test method comparisons. Such a program might include the following features: (1) Assemble a group of representative manufacturers, laboratories and test farms. Encourage interested manufacturers to assemble a number of units following their usual production practice. Insofar as possible, these units should represent product characteristics typical for their process. They should be of a size selected to facilitate testing. (2) Identify each such test specimen permanently with a non-proprietary code (ASTM NO. -). Omit or remove proprietary labeling. (3) On ASTM order, each manufacturer would ship (at no charge) fifteen (15) of these test specimens to each laboratory and/or test farm and retain fifteen (15) as control samples. (4) Each participating laboratory and test farm would test samples (submitted by ASTM) following its usual procedure and report results to ASTM in a uniform fashion. A suggested data format follows. Task group E would assemble and analyze the results and prepare a formal report. This might be published in Materials, Research, and Standards. It would report on the test methods-not on the test units. 1 Manager, Technical Services, Glass Division. ASTM COMMITTEE E-6 SUBCOMMITTEE VIII TASK GROUP ON DURABILITY ROUND ROBIN REPORT TEST METHOD EVALUATION Date: Laboratory/Farm: Address: Engineer in Charge: Telephone Number: Test Method: Usual Purpose of Test: Number of Units previously tested: Results normally reported: Means of correlation with on-the-job performance: Facilities and Equipment: Procedure: (Start with receipt of test samples at laboratory and go all the way through to describe storage after tests are completed.) RESULTS ASTM Test Unit No. Performance Criteria |