CFL vs THERM — every section, run both ways.
CFL (AFRC Lab's Computational Facade Lab solver) compared against LBNL THERM 7.8, at NFRC 100 conditions. Every section we model is also run in THERM and the two are held to the same geometry and boundary conditions. This page reads the live record — it updates automatically as new sections are verified, and the numbers below are never typed by hand.
Last updated —
—
Agreement by metric
Frame, edge-of-glass and centre-of-glass U-values, and total heat flow — each compared head-to-head against THERM 7.8.
| Metric | Agreement | Median |Δ| | Max |Δ| | Within 2% | Within 5% |
|---|
Agreement over time
Each point is a batch of sections checked against THERM as it was added — agreement has stayed consistently high as the record has grown.
The verification record
Every verified section, anonymised. Difference is shown per metric as a signed percentage of the THERM value. Click a row to see the CFL and THERM values side by side.
| Label ↕ | Section ↕ | Frame ↕ | Glazing ↕ | ΔUf ↕ | ΔUeg ↕ | ΔUcg ↕ | ΔQtot ↕ |
|---|
How we test
Conditions
—
Difference
—
Zoning
—
CFL is AFRC Lab's own 2-D finite-element solver (Computational Facade Lab), run to ISO 15099 / NFRC 100. THERM 7.8 is LBNL's reference tool. This is an independent method check — AFRC Lab does not claim NFRC accreditation or certification, and modelled results reflect the systems and sizes provided; final NCC compliance is determined by your assessor / certifier.
Data: validation_live.json