Continental Exterior Films –RAL certification proves top performance of the films
A home is a decision for life. And that means: Building materials are of fundamental importance, as the house with its facade, windows, and doors should not only look good for a long time but also withstand any kind of weather. That is why a total of 185 exterior products from Continental Exterior Films are RAL-certified, including the new Conti woodec and Conti mattex.
Whether sun, rain, or snow – facades, windows, garage doors, and more are exposed to various weather conditions for a long time. Continental Exterior Films therefore conducts extensive weathering tests in the lab and at various outdoor locations in different climate zones before product launch to ensure top performance of the films. In addition, Continental Exterior Films also has the products tested in external laboratories under artificial weathering. One of the most important tests is required by the RAL Quality Association. These are approval-relevant and therefore of particular importance. Continental exterior films impress with the highest quality and easily pass intensive weathering tests over 20,000 to 30,000 gigajoules (GJ)/m². Two procedures are distinguished here.
Tested quality – minimum requirement M20 always met
In procedure 1, a moderate climate (also called M-climate) is simulated according to DIN EN 513. Here, a defined radiation intensity with above-average rainfall acts on the surface, as found in Central Europe. The weather cycle consists of permanent xenon radiation alternating with 18 minutes of rainfall and 102 minutes of dry period. This procedure is the basis for RAL approval.
In the second procedure, a hot climate zone is simulated (S-climate). Here, the sample temperature is higher and the rainfall time is shorter, as is typical for Southern Europe. The weather cycle differs from the first procedure with 6 minutes of rainfall and a dry period of 114 minutes. The sample temperature is set to 65°C based on a black standard, which is 5°C more compared to procedure 1.