Port de Mer Condominium 4 building roof replacement

Title: Port de Mer Condominium 4 building roof replacement

Award Category: Roofing

Project Address/Location

1236 Hillsboro Mile,
Suite 400
Hillsboro Beach, Florida 33062
United States

Submitted By: Tarcisio Noguera

Company Info

Walter P Moore

6303 Blue lagoon drive
Suite 400
Miami, FL 33126
United States

9548504288

[email protected]

Project Description and Background: The building owner desired to replace the roof of four buildings, which are located in an aggressive, coastal environment. Two of the buildings directly face the ocean and the other two face the intracoastal waterway. Providing roofing consulting for these mid-rise structures facing the open water in Hillsboro Beach, Florida, presented several unique challenges, including the following: 1. High Wind Loads and Wind Pressures in a Hurricane-Prone Area: Hillsboro Beach is in a region prone to hurricanes, requiring the building to withstand high wind speeds. Roofs must comply with stringent building codes designed to ensure safety during such events. The building will experience significant wind pressure, especially on the roof level. This necessitates robust structural design, including reinforced roof assembly at the roof perimeter and corners. 2. Saltwater Corrosion and Material Durability: Proximity to the ocean means exposure to saltwater, which can accelerate the corrosion of building materials. Using corrosion-resistant materials, such as stainless steel, aluminum or treated concrete, is essential in any concrete restauration of the roof parapets and any roof penetration flashings. 3. Indoor Air quality, Insulation and Waterproofing: High humidity and salt air can affect the building envelope. Proper insulation and waterproofing are crucial to prevent moisture ingress and maintain indoor air quality. 4. Aesthetic and Functional Design: The insurance company required to have a white roof, to increase the reflectivity, in order to reduce the insurance policy.

Scope: The roofing consultant was hired to review the current thermal condition of the roof, since it was reported that high condensation was occurring in the top floor units. Also, the roof drainage condition was challenging because no emergency overflow scuppers were installed in the original construction 50 years earlier. Finally, the building owner was concerned with the wind uplift condition of this location due to the need of having a roof that can perform in this high velocity wind zone. During the construction of the roof, the design indicated to use a tested NOA roof Assembly in order to meet the design up-lift pressures. Additionally, the roofing consultant indicated in the Construction documents the requirement to perform a chamber test of the installed roof to confirm performance. Unfortunately, the installed roof did not pass the filed uplift testing even though the system was installed in accordance with the NOA. This required the roofing consultant to work with the team to design a suitable retrofit solution. During this testing process, the uplift chamber and the bonded methods of the Testing Application Standard (TAS) 124-11 were followed. This presentation will explain the two testing protocols and the conclusions and solutions that were obtained.

Solution: The results from both testing precools following Testing Application Standard (TAS) 124-11 indicated that the roof system failed at the adhesion between the cover board and the insulation board. Another challenge was to identify the type of roof deck, to determine if a mechanical enhancement was viable. After performing GPR on the concrete slab, it was clear that a cast in place reinforced concrete slab with a concrete cover of 3” was present, which allowed for a mechanical attachment enhancement to compensate the uplift resistance of the roof assembly. A plan was developed with the roofing contractor to install mechanical fingers that will not affect the drainage pattern of the roof.

Value: The roofing consultant was involved in the development of the initial assessment, which allowed to understand the drainage patter of the roof, and the insulation deficiencies. Also, the preparation of the construction documents and specifications that indicated clearly the need to pass the field uplift testing resulting in the building owner not being responsible for the cost of the installation of the mechanical roof enhancements. Coordination of the up-lift testing with the roofing contractor during the performance of the work in the other buildings helped to minimize the impact in the timeline of the schedule. The roofing manufacturer also coordinated to review and accept the proposed solution, so the warranty of the roof system was not affected.

Project Images