CGSB has been reviewing its CAN/CGSB 44.227 standard through a working group for efficiency reasons. I was part of that working group. I really like this formula as this is much more efficient than the full meetings where a lot of time is wasted for “red tape” purposes. The standard is now up for committee ballot. Committee members have to submit their comments before September 30th. This standard still calls up BIFMA X5.5, BIFMA X 5.9 and some Coating testing as well as some dimensional criteria. You will find below our comments about this standard. We trust this will help you better understand where this standard is going and vote appropriately.
In parallel to this work Public Works Canada (PWGSC) is still struggling to finalize its supply agreement bidding process for Panel Systems, Freestanding Furniture and Storage Cabinets. Per the current RFSA document re-testing must be done within a 9 month period once a standard has been issued. I do not foresee be many contentious issues with the current CAN/CGSB 44.227 standard re-write. Please bear in mind that once the standard comes out, you only have to prove you meet the requirements of the new standard. Which means if the new standard did not change significantly from the old one or if the requirements are easier to meet then you don’t have to re-test. That is unless your test reports are older than five years; which is another requirement from PWGSC.
Micom is a material testing industrial laboratory accredited by the Standards Council of Canada, CGSB and ISTA.
/* Style Definitions */
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
Canadian General Standards Board
Comments and secretariat
Commentaires et note du secrétaire
(e.g. Table 1)
Type of com-ment2
|Comment (justification for change) by the MB|
Commentaires (justification) par le MB
Proposed change by the MB
Changement proposé par le MB
|Secretariat observationson each comment submittedNote du secrétaire sur chaque|
French text in English document
Remove “(tablette à
Roll-out keyboards are more for SOHO and low end applications
Remove Roll-out keyboards from standard
I got a hold of a contact at NEMA: the 72 (Mr. Kevin Connelly). He indicated this test is used as a screening test:
Light resistance testing with 285.1 kJ/m2 at 70C black panel 50%RH (approx 72hr) has worked well for light fade screening.
This is based on manufac-turer comparison data of batch QC test results compared to field complaints. In other words, the manufactures routinely did this test on pretty much all their production runs. They also
This is the “xenon weatherometer” test. Test temperature is critical. Lower test temps will not give the same results given the same light exposure. We did extensive comparative testing at NCSU to get test parameters that gave test re-sults comparable to results from the old (1985?) enclosed carbon arc test.
If you are designing an ambient temperature test, exposure times would need
Senior Program Manager
The question is do we want a screening test or do we really want to simulate 5 or 10 years. Furthermore, he indicates “Products that showed perceptible fade with the test procedure tended to have field complaints”. If we decide to leave the exposure time at 72 hours should we tighten or acceptance criteria & it appears to permissive based on his statement
ASTM F1515 for resilient flooring calls for a 400 hours exposure by 100 hours increments.
Increase light exposure from 72 to 300 hours. Keep acceptance criteria the same or keep 72 hours exposure and use a greyscale rating of 5.
I would keep the deflection requirement. It is a signify- cant asset to the end user.
PWGSC waived this requirement because they have determined that too many manufacturers can’t meet this criteria
Lower requirement from 65 to 50 %
Same comment as section 3.1 above