SKN N0243R6Solar Keymark Network

17th Solar Keymark Network meeting -

Final agenda (rev1) – R6(2014-09-29, jen)

Meeting time:Tuesday, September 30th, 2014, 13:00 - 18:15Wednesday, October 1st, 2014, 08:15 – 14:00

Registration for the meeting:

Online registrationDeadline for registration 5th September 2014

Meeting location:CEN-CENELEC Management Centre4th floor: CEN-CENELEC Meeting CentreAvenue Marnix 17B - 1000 Brussels, Belgium

More detailed info on location:

http://www.cencenelec.eu/aboutus/MgtCentre/VisitUs/Pages/default.aspx

Meeting starts: Tuesday, September 30th, 13:00

Item Decision/-resolution requested

ContentRelated documents / comments / details

1 Opening of the meeting (HD)Short welcome and some practical information by Gonzalo Piernavieja (Director - I+D+i / R&D&Innovation, ITC)

2

Introduction of participants (All)Excuses from:

Carsten Lampe, ISFH Luca Votta, KIWA Italy (colleague Matteo Sartori participates) Ralph Köbbemann-Rengers, Bosch Harald Dehner, ASIC Stamatios Babalis. Demokritos Allard Slomp, Kiwa Netherlands Mark Witt, TÜV US

3 x Approval of the agenda (All)

4 x

Comments to the minutes of the 15. meeting (HD / All)---Enclosed, two comments (clarifications) from my side:Item 8: Ulrich Fritzsche mentioned, that the performance test results out of steady state method for unglazed collectors cannot be….Item 39.1: Furthermore…..are now part of the test requirements for Solar Keymark and soon also for SRCC certification.Best regardsUli---I send comments to point 19 of the minutes of our last SKN meeting since I miss an important point we agreed upon during the meeting. I propose to add the following text at the end of the point 19:Some Certification Bodies present ask if it is possible to use the proposed new version of annex A1 during a trial period until the next SKN meeting of October. It is agreed that this is possible and JF will send out a revised version to the group. Using this inspection template shows evidence that all the requirements of Annex E are being evaluated since they are reflected on the check list. Using the actual version of Annex A1 it is hard to assure that the inspector is evaluating all aspects of Annex E. Saludos cordiales, Best regards, Jaime FERNÁNDEZ GONZÁLEZ-GRANDA

N0240R0 pdf

2

5 x

Date and place of next meeting(s) (HD) 18th meeting: March 10th 13:00 - 11th 14:00, 2015, Rome, Italy (Host/organiser: Vinod Sharma, ENEA) 19th meeting: October 6th 13:00 - 7th 14:00, 2015, Wels, Austria (Host/organiser: Harald Dener, ASiC)

Note: The item “Next meeting” is put first in the agenda, as it is kind of decision item.

6 (x) Review of Decision list/JENAny need for follow-up?

7 x

Equivalent absorber coatings equivalent absorber coatings---No new equivalent absorber coatings (but the issue kept in the agenda as reminder for future meetings)---Dear Jan Erik, we have currently an application for a new absorber coating to be tested according clause 4.7.1. Requirement 1. in clause 4.7.1 is asking for mean values of the of absorptivity and emittance of the equivalent group 1. Two identical collectors (apart from the absorber coating) are compared to verify the equality of the two coatings. The absorbers of the two collectors must be made of the same material and must have the same thickness. One of the collectors is coated with one of thereference coatings fulfilling the following requirements: alpha ≥ mean value of alpha values in the group - 1 % point; epsilon ≤ mean value of epsilon values in the group + 1 % point. The mean value shall be given and updated each time a new member is included. The other collector is coated with the new coating.Where can this mean value or the single values (I will be able to calculate the mean value ;-) ) be found? I could not find them in the scheme rules nor the mentioned document SKN_N0137, nor in the mentioned decisions.Best regards, StephanSecretary comment: Will revised N0137 with extended tables for the values of alfa and epsilon solve the problem? JEN

N0137R10 docx

8 (x) No new equivalent glazing (but the issue kept in the agenda as reminder for future meetings)

9 x

Proposals for priorities for SCF 6th call /All Round robin testing and certification of new systems and components (12977-systems, storage and controller) Prepare SK scheme rules for absorber surfaces (SO/DIS 22975-3) CE–marking of collectors (EN 12975-1) related to CPR (and other relevant EC regulation like PED, …?) Mapping requirements for collectors throughout the world. Based on this - and previous work in SKN_N0233 - make

relevant classes for load, and other climate impact – take into account safety factors. Develop a guideline for manufacturers to evaluate in an easy way for which class to go.

Support for revising ISO 9488 (Solar Energy – Vocabulary) (e.g co-financing of ISO WG convenor) Implementation and promotion of Global Solar Certification …

10 x

Proposal for resolution conc. „Changes of Solar Keymark data sheets due to ISO 9806“/HDIn all Solar Keymark data sheets issued from 01.01.2015 onwards the collector efficiency parameters shall be given related to gross area. Note: The aperture area (Aa) can be given as additional information.Note (JEN): No change in existing data sheets?

3

11 x

Proposal for resolution conc. „Name change of manufacturer or product”/HDIf only the name (including address and legal status) of the certificate holder is changed (but not the product itself) only a new data sheet has to be issued by the test laboratory. This data sheet substitutes the previously data sheet and may contain multiple trade names but shall only contain the information of one company and address. In this case issuing of a new test report is not required. As a prerequisite of the modifications mentioned above, a corresponding declaration of the certificate holder shall be made available to the test laboratory and the certifier.

12 x

Proposal for resolution conc. „Testing of solar collectors with frames in different colours”/HDIf collectors differ only by the colour and coating of their frame, only one collector needs to be tested. The test results determined by the test of this collector are valid for all collectors differing only by the colour and coating of their frame from the collector tested.The collector used for testing should be the one that has according to the manufacturer the largest market relevance.

13 xProposal for resolution conc. „Determination of gross area for roof integrated collectors”/HDFor the determination of the gross area of roof integrated collectors the part of the roof covered by the roof mounting kit surrounding the collector to prevent the ingress of water into the roof (cladding) shall not be taken into account.

14 xSKN fees and budget for 2015 and other financial issues / JEN &PD

No changes in fees are proposedN0106_AnnexC_R15 pdf, N0245R0 pdf, N0246R 0 pdf, N0247R0 pdf

15 x Resolution related to „Approval and exclusion of test labs by SKN“)/S. Scholz ?Proposal how to deal with complains on test labs and inspectors (see minutes of last meeting item 16) N0250R0 pdf

16 x

Improvements for organization and funding of SKN activities / J. FernandezI propose to choose one of two ways for funding the work of the Chairs of Working Groups:1) Decision:

On some occasions ad hoc working groups are created during SKN meetings in order to solve urgent problems and present a proposal for a decision or a resolution at the next meeting. On other occasions there are permanent working groups that deal with issues regarding areas of their expertise and also assure the harmonization of working methods of its members (for example the working group of Certification Bodies or the working group of Inspector Bodies)Funding of 500 € for each chair of a working group will be provided once the following conditions are fulfilled:

The ad hoc working group and its chair are chosen during an SKN meeting The working group provides a decision, resolution or a document that is approved by the SKN A chair of a working group can only receive funding once a year per working group -

2) Or the Resolution that is proposed in the attached document N0251 and is a more complex procedure.

Note from secretary: My excuses to Jaime for not including the italic part 1) from the beginning – I suggest that it is anyway taken into account at the meeting

N0251R0 docxSCF_N0001R 4 pdf

4

17 x Transition from old EN 12975-1&2 to new EN 12975-1 and new ISO 9806/ J. Fernandez SubstantiationThe testing standard EN ISO 9806 for solar collectors is to replace the older EN 12975-2. The new standard better reflects the current state of knowledge and should be supported. Unfortunately, the revision of EN 12975-1 with requirements for collectors is delayed and the current release still refers only to EN 12975-2. If EN ISO 9806 is accepted for SOLAR KEYMARK certification parallel to EN 12975-2, the data sheets will be incompatible because the performance tests are grounded on different areas. It is desirable not to prolong this ambiguous state and to set a time limit when the certificates based on EN 12975-2 tests must be replaced by new ones based on EN ISO 9806.Proposal for Resolution

1) Document N0106_Annex_H_R0 will become a temporary Annex to the SOLAR KEYMARK Scheme Rules.

2) The beginning of Article 1.2 (List of European Standards concerned) of Specific CEN Keymark Scheme Rules for Solar Thermal Products will be replaced by the following text:

“The scheme refers to the normative requirements in the following European Standards: - EN 12975-1: Thermal solar systems and components – Solar collectors –

Part 1: General requirementsRelease EN 12975-1:2006+A1:2010 is currently under revision. Wherever this standard refers to testing according to EN 12975-2, it is also understood as testing according to EN ISO 9806.For testing and certification during this transition period, see also Annex H.

- EN 12975-2: Thermal solar systems and components – Solar collectors –Part 2: Test methodsSOLAR KEYMARK certificates based on testing according to this standard cease to be valid on 2016-12-31 and they shall be substituted by new certificates based on EN ISO 9806 tests.Testing according to this standard will be not accepted after 201x-12-31.

- EN ISO 9806: Solar energy – Solar thermal collectors – Test methodsTesting according to this standard is taken as equivalent for meeting all requirements of EN 12975-1, fully sufficient for SOLAR KEYMARK certification, and it should be preferred to testing according to EN 12975-2.

- EN 12976-1: Thermal solar systems and components – Factory made systems – Part 1: General requirements

- EN 12976-2: Thermal solar systems and components – Factory made systems – Part 2: Test methods

- …”

Proposed by Working group of SOLAR KEYMARK Certification Bodies (approved by 10 CB’s so far)-Document N0242R0 is proposed incorporated in the Annex H by the CB WG.SKN secretary note: It was not clear how to incorporate – to be decided at the meeting.

N0106_AnnexH_R0.docx(was N0241 before)

N0242R0 docx

5

--Input from Vassiliki Drosou conc. transition from EN 12975-2 to EN ISO 98065:Normally the transition period is established by the DoW (date of withdrawal of national standards) which is normally 6 months but it is possible (before adopting the standard) to ask for a longer DoW. Since the standard has already been published nearly a year ago this is not an option.This is not a harmonised standard so there is no citation in the official journal and not presumption of conformity linked to its application. Since standards are voluntary a company can do what they want and use the old standard to do the test but their clients may not accept such results if they are aware that the standard being used is the old version. To sum up, they can if they want but it is not recommend to do so if there is a new standard which has been in place already for nearly a year.Others related (JEN): Test lab listing on the SK web: EN12975 EN 12975 & EN ISO 9806 ?

18 x

Proposal for decision / M.CarvalhoThe Solar Keymark Network identified that a few editorial corrections are needed in ISO 9806:2003 in order to guarantee that no mistakes in testing occur when using the standard. A list of these editorial corrections is included in document SK_N0244R0. This list will be sent to ISO TC180 Secretariat in order to submit a request for amendment to the standard with the necessary corrections. Testing Laboratories using the standard ISO 9806:20013 shall consider these corrections when testing.”

N0244R0 doc

19 x

Finalizing Annex F - Freeze resistance test of evacuated tube collectors with heat pipes / D. Theis… The last revision (SKN_N0106_AnnexF_R2.pdf) seems to be not available and the document list refers to “SKN0228R0“ instead. But SKN0228R0 is still a draft and not approved too. Proposal: Deleting “SKN0228R0” in the document list, preparing an AnnexF_R2(R3) without comments/corrections, which can be approved (instead of an adaption of the EN 12975-2 test procedure, an adapted ISO 9808 test procedure should be described) Kind regards, DanjanaSKN Secretary note: Who will finalize Annex F?

N0106_AnnexF_R 2 .docx

20 x Proposal for a resolution conc. more specified requirements for changing the certification body /S.Scholz N0249R0 pdf

6

21 x Proposal for resolution conc. classification of collectors/JEN et al to be included in the scheme rules in new section “Classification of collectors” (sections marked with grey changed 24/9 and after in a lively e-mail exchange)

Classes for solar radiation / ambient temperature:Exposure-, internal thermal shock- and external thermal shock test for Solar Keymark Certification shall be done according to Class B (or higher if wanted by manufacturer) of EN ISO 9806:2013 / SKN_N0233R0.Classification of collector with respect to solar radiation / ambient temperature shall be reported in data sheet as: “Collector suited for locations with maximum annual horizontal irradiation < xxxx kWh/m²”where xxxx is:SKN_N0233R0 / EN ISO 9806:2013 Climate class B: 1600 kWh/m²SKN_N0233R0 / EN ISO 9806:2013 Climate class A: 2000 kWh/m²SKN_N0233R0 Climate class A+: No limit

Classes for positive mechanical load (snow load):Positive mechanical load test for Solar Keymark Certification shall be done according to Class C (or higher if wanted by manufacturer) of SKN_N0233R0.Classification of collector with respect to positive mechanical load / snow load shall be reported in data sheet as:

“Collector is tested for positive mechanical load up to tttt Pa. Using a safety factor of 1.5 this should make it suited for locations with maximum positive mechanical load conditions < pppp Pa”

pppp = tttt/1.5 and tttt and pppp shall be chosen from: SKN_N0233R0 class C: tttt = 1000 Pa => pppp = 670 Pa tttt = 3000 Pa => pppp= 2000 Pa SKN_N0233R0 class A+: tttt = 5400 Pa => pppp= 3600 Pa

Classes for negative mechanical load (wind load):Negative mechanical load test for Solar Keymark Certification shall be done according to Class B ( (or higher if wanted by manufacturer) of SKN_N0233R0.Classification of collector with respect to mechanical load shall be reported in data sheet as:

“Collector is tested for negative mechanical load up to ssss Pa. Using a safety factor of 2.0 this should make it suited for locations with maximum negative mechanical load conditions < nnnn Pa”

nnnn = ssss/2 and ssss and nnnn shall be chosen from: SKN_N0233R0 class C: ssss = 1000 Pa => nnnn = 500 Pa ssss = 2000 Pa => nnnn = 1000 Pa SKN_N0233R0 class A+: ssss = 3000 Pa => nnnn = 1500 Pa

N0233.R0, N0248.R0

7

Classes for impact resistance:Impact resistance test for Solar Keymark Certification shall be done according to Class C (or higher if wanted by manufacturer) of SKN_N0233R0.Classification of collector with respect to impact resistance shall be reported in data sheet as: “Collector suited for locations with maximum hail diameter < yy”where yy is:SKN_N0233R0 class C: 15 mmSKN_N0233R0 class B: 25 mmSKN_N0233R0 class A: 35 mmSKN_N0233R0 class A+: 44 mm

Example/illustration of class indication for a collector just fulfilling the Solar Keymark requirements:“Collector suited for locations with maximum annual horizontal irradiation of < 1600 kWh/m²”“Collector suited for locations with maximum positive mechanical load conditions < 670 Pa”“Collector suited for locations with maximum negative mechanical load conditions < 500 Pa”“Collector suited for locations with maximum hail diameter < 15 mm”

Explanation and new suggestion from Korbinian:The minimum values of +/-2400 Pa according to the PV-standards IEC 61215/646 are based on a safety factor of 3. See also IEC 61215:2008 chapter 10.16.3: NOTE 1: 2 400 Pa correspond to a wind pressure of 130 km⋅h–1 (approximately ±800 Pa) with a safety factor of 3 for gusty winds. If the module is to be qualified to withstand heavy accumulations of snow and ice, the load applied to the front of the module during this test is increased from 2 400 Pa to 5 400 Pa. See also the following notes of IEC 61215:2008 chapter 10.16.3: NOTE 2: Test conditions higher than 2 400 Pa might become necessary if the module is to be qualified for general use in areas with snow or wind loads exceeding 2 400 Pa. For example, snow load requirements can be concluded from relevant national standards or snow load maps. NOTE 3: If different mounting methods for the module are permitted, the test is to be performed with different test configurations representing the range of envisaged mounting methods. Since solar thermal collectors have a higher weight by far, a safety factor of 2 seems to be adequate for negative pressure loads caused by wind. According to positive pressure loads a safety factor of 1.5 seems to be adequate. This suggestion is based on the value which was given in the former EN 12975-2:2006. In this former version also 1.5 was given for negative pressure load, this was somehow to low for negative loads compared to the suggestion of the IEC 61646:2005. In the end safety factors are based on experience. There is no mathematical method to determine them "correctly". To save the Solar Keymark network for legal problems a safety factor should be recommended rather than stated.

Since wind- and snow loads are depending on regions, having a wide variety of values (for example there are also regions were

8

snow can be neglected), it does not make sense to hardly classify the specifications into four or less classes. They are already classified in the corresponding Eurocodes!!! If classmate classes encounter Eurocode classes, intransparency raises and in the end we have the risk of a mess for the customer/consumer. Based on this reasons a new Option3 makes sense. The real determined values are reported, safety factors are recommended and it is directly linked to national standards. Option3: Classification of collector with respect to positive mechanical load / snow shall be reported in data sheet as: “Collector successfully tested up to a positive mechanical load of pml+ = xxx Pa and a negative load of pml- = -yyy Pa To calculate suitable locations for the application of the collector, it is recommended to use a safety factor for positive load of SF+=1.5 and for negative load of SF-=2. (The maximum permissible load is calculated as pperm=pml / SF.) Snow- and wind load requirements can be concluded from relevant national standards.” mit freundlichen Grüßenwith kind regardsKorbinian Kramer

Comment from Andreas:… After all I think the most neutral approach is …:“The collector is successfully tested up to a positive mechanical load of pml+ = xxx Pa and a negative load of pml- = -yyy Pa. The application limits concerning wind- and snow-load, including safety factors, are defined by the relevant national regulations.”

9

22 x Proposal for a decision / Andreas Bohren “Completely correct and “nice” Solar Keymark data sheet for solar collectors (flat plate and ETC)” /A. BohrenThe collector data sheet format shall be improved according to the proposals/comments given below:Andreas:The intention was to have one proper datasheet for Flat plate and for ETCs as decided in Spring on the Canaries.Sorry, but air collectors, Tracking collectors etc. will come later.Some remarks and thoughts:

i) Page 1 and page 2 should be the same size. (This is an incredible challenge when using .xls)ii) Font size and type should be the same for all: Calibri 9, except for titles (Calibri 11)iii) Certification Logos etc. fit should into the header and footer boxes. The boxes are greyed out just as example, later thy

should be filled as desired by the certifier.iv) I tried to use the nomenclature given by the ISO9806v) In the current version we have some blue text and some yellowish fields. Sorry but I did not find a rule for those

colours. What is blue what is yellow: I made it all black and white.vi) The word module is replaced by collectorvii) Dates are always indicated in YYYY-MM-DD (ISO8601)viii) If subscripts are defined in the ISO9806 we make subscript in the data sheetix) I removed the line PVT “Yes” or “no”: To be replaced by for example «PVT Flat-plate collector». Else 99% of the data

sheets will have a line with PVT = No. PVT is not important enough to mention on every datasheet. x) Additional column added on Page 1 as suggested by Stefan Fischer: “performance per collector at the maximum

operating temperature”. xi) Performance Test method: No need to mention «liquid Heating Collector»,

Reduce to Quasi Dynamic/Steady State and Indoor/Outdoorxii) Incidence angle modifier:

Proposal: Always indicate IAM T and L for all angles, be it measured or computed. This would harmonise the appearance considerably and simplify the use of the data sheet. The same sheet is used for Flat plate and ETC.

xiii) If test method for Performance is mentioned also the test method for IAM should be mentioned (Just to know who is doing Indoor IAM….).

xiv) Stagnation Temperature: New: Standard Stagnation Temperature. Indicate weather conditions and use correct parameter names

xv) Maximum Intended Operating temperature and pressure. No added value of note 3 (manufacturers information?), delete!

xvi) Optional weather data: Why mention on first page???? DELETEDxvii) Test Reports: In general there are several reports to mention. More space added.xviii) GDiff: Indicating the range of Diffuse radiation does not add any value to the data sheet. The range is given by the

standard. The results given in the test report are not directly linked to the indicated range. Delete.

continues next page

N0252R0

10

Comment on v), JEN:Conc.: v) In the current version we have some blue text and some yellowish fields. Sorry but I did not find a rule for those colours. What is blue what is yellow: I made it all black and white.The intended rules:

Input values: Blue text (here you need to give data) Choice/drop down: Yellowish field colour (here you have to choose from fixed values)

I suggest to keep this in the input spread sheet page - but to go black and white in the printed version. Comment on x), Andreas:I understand the idea, but thinking about it I have some doubts:- maybe confusing because the other columns are ΔT and maximum operating temp is absolute, also Tamb must be defined.- This could be less than zero for good reasons- Information is maybe not too valuable as Tmax is not necessarily a reasonable point of operation.

Comment on / explanation to comment above from Andreas, Stephan F:Sorry for not communicating the idea corretly. What I meant here was to include the last column showing the max ΔT (ΔT = max. ΔT during measurment + 30 K). The idea for giving this is:- to show the maximum ΔT the data sheet is valid for and- to give an indication of the performance of the collector at high operating temperaturesComment on Pressure drop Andreas:Pressure drop is very important, we all agree. For a single collector the data will be correct, for collector families it is almost impossible to indicate the correct data. Highest dP can be a collector of the family that was not tested, i.e. not the biggest and not the smallest. Who knows for sure? Furthermore, if we indicate the highest dP we support using pumps that are overdimensioned.Therefore: Delete pressure drop. The information is in general not reliable.

Comment on pressure drop JEN:I not so happy to delete the pressure drop - it is important information, especially when you compose/design larger collector fields. But maybe we could instead require from the manufacturer a complete table of pressure drop values for all different collector sizes with the recommended fluid(s) to go with the installation manual? Comment on Page 2 “AnyOtherCity”, Andreas:It makes sense to have this option. However for comparability I would suggest to have only the data for the four cities on page 2. This would also allow to have the same collector-model-name-length as on page 1. If someone wants to have other cities, a third page would be introduced to make very clear that this is not the standard value, but something in addition. Comment on performance parameters (line 37) / gross area, Stephan F.:Line 37 Performance parameters (as well as line 47 Flow rate ..) should indicate gross area to be in line with like line 49 and to make sure that people see that the collector parameters are based on gross area

Comment on “Roof integration”, JEN:

11

23 x

Proposal for a decision / JENThe data sheet formats for systems – valid for both EN12976 and EN12977 systems, stores and controllers – document names:

SKN_N0106_AnnexB2_R3.4-system SKN_N0106_AnnexB3_R0.4-store SKN_N0106_AnnexB4_R0.4-controller

shall be used from 2014-10-02.Note: Files can be downloaded from: http://www.estif.org/solarkeymarknew/the-solar-keymark-scheme-rules

N0106_AnnexB2_R3.6-system.xlsx N0106_AnnexB3_R0.4-store.xlsxN0106_AnnexB4_R0.4-controller.xlsx

24 (x)Update of Annex G “Solar Keymark certificates and sub licences for other brands, product names and sellers” / PDWorking group: Pedro Dias (Chair), Sören Scholz, Jaime Fernandez Gonzalez-Granda, Ralf Köbbemann-Rengers, Allard Slomp, François-Xavier Ball, Hans Peter Weiss, João Santos, Jan Erik Nielsen

N0106_AnnexG_R0, PD presentation

25

Information on status of new versions of scheme rules Annex A and Annex E / J. FernandezThe working group has agreed on the following solutions that are being developed:

A) The Annex E regarding the FPC requirements will be divided in two parts:

1. One part will indicate in a general way these requirements for all types of products under the scope of SKN Certification. There will also be a table indicating which elements of the FPC may not need to be revised if the company has already an ISO 9001 Certificate.

2. The second part will be made up of the two tables for each type of certified product (collectors, systems, etc...): table for controls over incoming goods and table for control during production and on the finished product. (This part has to be developed with information on new products in scope of certification)

B) Regarding Annexes A’s, the different parts that make up the inspection report and surveillance test will be divided in different annexes so they may be combined separately. The FPC report will be revised to assure compliance with the FPC part that is mandatory to be always checked.

I can give a quick report on the status of the documents and discuss the ideas that are behind them. Saludos cordiales,Best regards, Jaime FERNÁNDEZ GONZÁLEZ-GRANDA-Note from SKN secretary: The annexes in the right column are under development

N0106_AnnexA1_R1.docx

N0106_AnnexA2_R3.docx

26 x?

Discussion/approval on result presentation from testing of unglazed collectors in the Keymark datasheet./P. Kovacs? … it is partly covered by Stephans/Andreas input to datasheet restructuring (item 22). When it comes to presentation of results from steady state testing of unglazed collectors I would say it’s simply a matter of including parameters bu, b1 and b2 in the datasheet. We(SP) have not yet started the SCF project aiming to implement this model in Scenocalc but I expect it to be done well ahead of the next (2015) SKN meeting. Best Regards Peter

27 Solar Certification Fund Projects – General Status Reports/PD

12

28 Global certification update / JEN 29 Initial proposal for “Fundamental new database that can also be used for the generation of data sheets” – for discussion/JEN N0253R0

30 Update on plans for Round Robin testing of systems/components/ JENAre there any plans for new round robin testing?

31CE marking of collectors / A. Bohren

General update Use of existing Solar Keymark collector tests for CE-marking (CPR)

32Energy labelling / Gv Amerongen?

General update Use of existing Solar Keymark system tests for Energy labelling (EcoDesign)

33Reporting from:

“Certification Body Group” / Sören Scholz “Inspection Group” /Jaime Fernandez

34 Reactivation of PVT group - and call for new members /Uli Fritzche35 Information from CEN TC 312 / Vassiliki Drosou

36 Information from CEN/CCB /H. Liauw Status for outsourcing the Keymark

37

Presentations of selected SCF project results /SCF project managers

Project Contractor Presentation topic5C5.1-TC312WG_SPF Andreas Borhen Presentation of Short summary reports of the WG1 meetings 5C8.1-EPBD_vAConsult Gerard van

Amerongen Presentation of Excel tool revised Fchart method and Excel tool new hourly method

5C4.1-LiasTC117-ITW Stephan Fischer Presentation the work of the liaison officer who will follow the work going on in the IEC/TC117

4C08-RR12977_IfEP Christian Weissmueller / Stefan Kunze

Presentation of the final results of a Round Robin Test of a solar water heater store according to EN 12977-3 and performance predictions of a complete solar water heating system according to EN 12977-2.

4C06-SK-12976 Danjana Theis Presentation of the harmonized conditions, corrected QAiST RR results, final data sheet generator, manual, round robin results with data sheet generator.

2C06-SysIndoor-ITW Stephan Fischer Presentation of the results of an indoor test procedure for factory made systems according to EN12976

38 Experience with misuse of Solar Keymark - exchange of information

13

39

Validation of ScenoCalc / P. KovacsAccording to M16.R1 new versions of Scenocald shall be validated and approved by SKN before they are made available to general use. This is very good, but I believe it is still not enough specific. If possible, I would therefore like you to discuss this at the upcoming meeting next week:I can imagine several levels of validation depending on how deep the revision has been and following that, different needs for engagement and potentially, for funding.

1. “Simple changes” like switching from aperture to gross area Should be enough with a limited number of labs/ certifiers checking the tool after changeHow many partners needed?

2. Changes in equations/ calculations, however small, may result in quite significant changes in results. These result changes could be “intentional” and then of course SKN need to confirm them and agree about if and how to communicate them (in addition to what we have today, i.e. a log of changes). Result changes could of course also be unintentional as a result of some mistake during the programming or in underlying assumptions which were not detected by the people doing this work. In this case we need the check from people who did not take part in the work to reveal these mistakes How many partners needed for this type of validation? Can we define a “standard budget” for this activity to be include in an SCF proposal? Or maybe define a “standardized validation/ check procedure” where we define the benchmark tests of the calculations that should always be made?

3. Inclusion of entirely new models e.g. the one SP is about to include on “unglazed steady state testing” or PVT:s or air heating collectors. This would actually require a “genuine” validation where measurement results can be compared to the Scenocalc outputSignificantly higher effort required and also largely dependent on the type of model/ product.

40 Any other business…

41 Important/interesting national news/developments…

42 End of meeting /HD

Meeting ends Wednesday, October 1st , 14:00

Meeting duration1st day: 13:00 – 18:15 = 5:15; 1 lunch break 0:45, one coffee break 0:30 effective meeting time 4:001st day: 08:15 – 14:00 = 5:45; two coffee breaks á 0:30 effective meeting time 4:454 + 4:45 hours = 8:45 hours = 525 minutes, 41 issues => ca. 12 minutes in average per issue

HD: Harald Drück, ITW, Stuttgart University, Chairman Solar Keymark Network, drueck@itw.uni-stuttgart.de JEN: Jan Erik Nielsen, Solarkey Int., ESTIF Technical Consultant, Technical Secretary of Solar Keymark Network, jen@solarkey.dk PD: PD, ESTIF Deputy Secretary General, Administrative Secretary of Solar Keymark Network, pedro.dias(at)estif.org

14

Note:2nd October will be CEN TC 312 meetings same place.

15