#1109 EAA standard design issue for doors

[Ken Nittler]

On EAA in SVN 1378, altered doors are not being modeled correctly. Attached is a EAA case with a verified existing door with 0.5 U-factor and an altered door with 0.2 U-factor. The standard design should be with the 0.5 U-factor but instead it is using the 0.2 U-factor. The proposed value is modeled correctly. The existing door front for standard case should match the value for the existing door back.

[Ken Nittler]

There is also a second issue where an extra door is being added to the standard design. In the above .ribd19 file, this causes the standard design to have an extra 20 ft2 of door at the 2019 standard door 0.2 U-factor. The attached figure shows the standard .cse input for this extra door.

[Dee Anne Ross]

Related ticket (hoping they do not conflict) includes this correction: Opaque Exterior Doors
If status = existing or altered, the standard design should equal proposed so there is no credit or penalty.

Opaque Exterior Door requirements are contained in 150.1(c), and there is no reference from 150.2 back to 150.1. Therefore, there is no alteration requirement for opaque exterior doors.

[Thao Chau]

Verify that the issue is still relevant for 2022. File attached.

[Trevor Thomas]

Still relevant as far as I can tell.

I tested in 2022.3.1 and 3.2 RV (1355) BEMCmpMgr (2481) using the file attached by Thao above.

[Becca Evans]

Re-ran in SVN 2492. I tried a number of combinations of U-factors for the door named "verified altered door" in the model. What I've found for this door (status is Altered and Verified is checked) is that the U-factor inputted for the altered door is used in both the proposed model (correctly) and the standard model (incorrectly, totally ignores the input for 'Existing U-factor'). I inputted altered values of 0.19, 0.25, 0.4, 0.5 for the U-factor and every model used this value in both the proposed and standard models for this door. Previous comment (from 2020) on this thread by Dee Anne Ross indicates that a previous ticket changed opaque exterior doors that are existing or altered to have the standard design equal to the proposed so there is no credit or penalty. I'm not familiar with credits/penalties for doors, does this still apply? Seems to match what the program is doing.

According to Table 28 in the 2022 ACM, a Verified-Altered door should use the Existing condition for the standard design. Along with this, the ACM language in the beginning of the EAA section says for an altered-verified component that if the altered component meets or exceeds the prescriptive alteration requirement (U-factor maximum 0.20 for doors in all CZs), then the Existing value entered is used (or else the Std design would use U-0.20). The ACM also indicates that fire-rated doors (between house and garage) use the proposed design U-factor as the standard design U-factor. This is also the same as what the program is doing right now, but the door being tested here is between the house and outside, not the garage.

I ran a case where the door was only Altered and not verified and set the Altered value to U-0.19. According to the ACM, Altered swinging doors should use U-0.20 for the standard design. When running this case the proposed used U-0.19 correctly, but the standard showed U-0.19 being used instead of U-0.20 as the ACM indicates.

Solution: Verify if the statement about standard design equal to proposed so there is no credit or penalty was ever true or if this still applies at all. Otherwise, following the ACM, Verified-Altered doors should use the value inputted as 'Existing' for the standard design, as long as the altered value is greater than U-0.20, otherwise the standard design defaults to U-0.20. If the door is Altered, the standard design should default to U-0.20.

[Scott Criswell]

Ruleset mods checked into SVN @ r2503 -

• Std door Ufactors applied to doors of exterior walls (previously was only working for demising interior doors)
• added logic to ensure verified-altered std design door Ufactor is max( ExistingUfactor, StdDesignAltUfactor ) when Alt Ufactor <= StdDesign value
• added CSE Comments to Door Construction and Material objects to help document Ufactors being simulated (as opposed to just matCond)

These are the final mods pending testing by others to confirm.

[Becca Evans]

Verified with tests in SVN 2503. All problems identified have been fixed.