Delineation of Roof Design Services

Pathways to
Professionalism
Proceedings of the
RCI 20th International
Convention & Trade Show
Miami Beach, Florida
March 31 – April 5, 2005
© Roof Consultants Institute
1500 Sunday Drive, Suite 204 • Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: 919-859-0742 • Fax: 919-859-1328 • http://www.rci-online.org
Delineation of Roof Design Services
Richard P. Canon, FRCI, RRC, PE
Spartanburg, SC
ABSTRACT
This presentation will address the need for a clear delineation of what constitutes “consulting”
and what constitutes engineering/architecture relative to roofing projects. The author will
also address the following.
• Definition of what constitutes a “roof system.”
• A brief history of “roof design.”
• Policy statements of several states regarding “roof consulting services.”
• A review of the International Building Code relative to roof design.
• Several examples illustrating the necessity for an engineer or an architect to be the lead
design professional on typical new and replacement roofing projects.
• Possible implications for non-licensed designers specifying and designing roof projects
(that is, those who are not professional engineers or registered architects).
• Delineation of the services that roof consultants, roofing contractors, manufacturers,
and distributors can provide and not cross over the line into the practice of engineering
or architecture.
• Recommendations for RCI to adopt a goal for establishing a declarative statement of what
a non-licensed roof consultant can do and cannot do.
SPEAKER
DICK CANON is a structural engineer registered in six states with a B.S. in civil engineering from
Auburn University. He served for three years in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before joining Milliken &
Company as a structural design engineer. After 4-1/2 years with Milliken, he was a structural design engineer
for Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc., and a senior roofing and materials engineer with Law
Engineering Testing Co. In 1983, Canon formed Canon Consulting & Engineering Co., Inc. He is a past
president and charter member of RCI, a Fellow of the Institute, and a recipient of RCI’s Herbert W. Busching
Memorial Award. Dick is a Registered Roof Consultant through RCI, and holds memberships in RCI, the
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), and the Standard Building Code Congress International
(SBCCI).
Canon – 3
Canon – 5
INTRODUCTION
The boards of registration for
engineers and architects of many,
if not most, states have clauses in
their statutes similar to the following
from South Carolina:
“‘Practice of engineering’
means any service or creative
work, the adequate performance
of which requires engineering
education, training, and experience
in the application of special
knowledge of the mathematical,
physical, and engineering sciences
to such services or creative
work as consultation, investigation,
expert technical testimony,
evaluation, design and design
coordination of engineering works
and systems, …performing engineering
surveys and studies, and
the review of construction for the
purpose of monitoring compliance
with drawings and specifications,
any of which embraces such services
or work, either public or private,
in connection with any utilities,
structures, buildings, …insofar
as they involve safeguarding
life, health, or property, and
including such other professional
services as may be necessary to
the planning, progress, and completion
of any engineering services.”
“The professional engineer is
required to safeguard the life,
health, property and welfare of
the public.”
That is not an option, it is the
law!
The words “design,” “drawings,”
and “specifications” are of
specific concern within this presentation
as they relate to roofing
projects. The roof system is defined
as a “component and cladding”
in ASCE -7, in FM Global’s
Data Sheet 1-28, and most importantly,
in the International Building
Code. The roof is clearly an
engineered component relative to
energy, wind uplift resistance,
loads, fire, and drainage. It is the
author’s contention and professional
opinion that both new and
replacement roofs should be
designed and specified only by
experienced professional engineers
or registered architects
(licensed professionals). The author
further feels strongly that the
licensed professional should also
hold active registration from the
Roof Consultants Institute as a
Registered Roof Consultant.
This presentation will address
the need for a clear delineation of
what constitutes “consulting” and
what constitutes engineering/
architecture relative to roofing
projects. The author will also
address the following.
• Definition of what constitutes
a “roof system.”
• A brief history of “roof
design.”
• Policy statements of several
states regarding “roof
consulting services.”
• A review of the International
Building Code relative
to roof design.
• Several examples illustrating
the necessity for an
engineer or an architect to
be the lead design professional
on typical new and
replacement roofing projects.
• Possible implications for
non-licensed designers
specifying and designing
roof projects (that is, those
who are not professional
engineers or registered
architects).
• Delineation of the services
that roof consultants,
roofing contractors, manufacturers,
and distributors
can provide and not
cross over the line into the
practice of engineering or
architecture.
• Recommendations for RCI
to adopt a goal for establishing
a declarative state
ment of what a nonlicensed
roof consultant
can do and cannot do.
Roof = Roof System
Who knows what served as
mankind’s first roof. A stone overhang?
A cave? An animal skin
thrown over a primitive frame of
wood or bones? Thatch? Pine
boughs propped over a fallen
tree? Whatever it was, we now
have “roof systems”. Just what is
a roof system? For purposes of
this paper, let’s assume a “roof” is
a “roof system” composed of the
following:
• Roof covering or membrane
with or without surfacing
• Thermal insulation
• Optional vapor retarder
(U.S)./vapor barrier (Can
ada)
• Structural decking
These components constitute
what will be identified later as
cladding, which is a structural
element of a building. On this
basis, use of the term “roof” herein
is the same as “roof system.”
Some believe only the structural
deck is a structural component
of the roof system. Granted,
it is a load transfer element and
sometimes serves also as part of
the structure’s bracing system
also referred to as a diaphragm.
But the load path is from:
• Roof covering to insulation
to fasteners to deck to
beams/girders to columns
to foundations to soil.
So the roof system is a structural
component, explained further
below.
Canon – 6
Evolution of Roof Design
For thousands of years, roofs
were “designed” by the people
actually sheltered by the roof:
“owners.” Later, as cultures and
societies progressed, roofs were
designed by the people that constructed
the roofs, “craftsmen”
and “tradesmen.” One of my
favorite books gives an account of
the design and construction of the
roof of a cathedral. “Pillars of the
Earth,” a novel by Ken Follett,
tells the story of the building of a
Gothic cathedral in thirteenth
century England. In the story,
Tom, the Master Builder who is
an unschooled stone mason
learns to design the structural
framing and roofing of a cathedral.
This progresses the traditional
way of that time – by trial
and error. In Tom’s case, this covered
more than three decades
from failed attempts, to final success.
Such was the case in the early
history of construction where
stone masons and master
builders conceived of an idea and
then tried it. If it worked, the concept
was heralded as a success
and copied by others. If it did not
work (and he survived), the
builder learned that he needed to
“try” another method. So generally,
the failed attempt was of greatest
benefit to that designer
(unless he perished). Although
word of failed constructions traveled
from village to village and
even continent to continent, the
lines of communication were
nothing like we have with CNN
and Fox news giving us a blow-byblow,
brick-by-brick explanation
with animated graphics sometimes
more convincing than the
truth. Maybe you have seen the
Nova special, “Why the Towers
Fell” (www.pbs.orglwgbh/nova/
wtc). So “news” of failures traveled
much slower than that to
which we are now accustomed.
As time went on, the design of
roofs evolved from the craftsmen/
master builders to architects.
For centuries, architects
have been the “designers of
record” for roofing. Often the
“design” was the notation on a
drawing identifying only the basic
type of construction, such as
“roof.” The more sophisticated
architects went further calling
out: “built-up roof,” “copper roof,”
“metal roof,” “shingle roof,” “tile
roof,” “slate roof,” and more
recently, “single ply roof.” Still
even more sophisticated architects
went to the extreme, going
so far as to describe the number
of plies and the interply bitumen:
“four-ply, gravel-surfaced asphalt
organic felt over insulation.”
We have all seen such annotations
on drawings, and have all
encountered projects where the
only “specifications” were such
obscure notes on the drawings.
Obviously, some architects
have been very professional in
their specifications and their
detailing. To do this, many architects
have traditionally relied
upon the technical expertise of
benevolent roofing contractors in
the development of their specifications.
Some contractors depended
upon the membrane manufacturer’s
technical representative to
develop the specifications. This
was often done as a service and as
a marketing tool by the manufacturers.
Standard details and standard
specifications were provided
through product literature, at no
cost, with an understanding that
the manufacturer’s product would
be specified and hopefully used. It
is interesting to note that in many
of these same manufacturer’s
“specifications,” they stipulate
that they are not architects or
engineers and accept none of the
responsibility as such. So, the
primary “designer of record” was
the architect.
Roofing Contractors have also
provided a significant numbers of
“specifications” directly to owners.
This is often done in an itemized
scope of work, casually identifying
what they will do and what materials
they will use. Often, the specific
manufacturer or trade name
of materials is not stipulated, with
the specification thus being quite
generic. This can leave the final
selection of the material to the
best price for a specific type of
product, solely at the contractor’s
discretion. Generally, “ways and
means” and methods are not stipulated.
This can lead to troublesome
latitude to either “do it the
way we always have done it” or to
just wing it.
In many cases, these contractors
have provided professional
looking specifications and details,
generally taken directly from the
manufacturer’s CAD details.
Roofing contractors who have
been in business long enough
have also had the advantage of
learning from experience which
products have and have not
worked. Some of these products
they installed themselves. Others
were from accounts of other contractors’
unfortunate installations
that did not perform satisfactorily,
much like Tom, the builder.
Manufacturers have also been
open to discussing failures, but
almost always the “other guys’”
failures. A significantly large
number of roofs have been
“designed” by roofing contractors,
probably more than by all other
parties.
Distributors of roofing materials
have sometimes designed
roofs for their potential customers.
A distributor with an
aggressive marketing program
often calls on a building owner
and introduces them to their
product line. This transitions
from a marketing call intended
only to sell products, to the design
of the system so that the product
can be sold.
Canon – 7
In the 1960’s roof consultants
came on the scene, generally from
the manufacturing community or
from the roofing contractor community,
bringing with them their
years of experience. Most had
technical backgrounds and in
some cases degrees in engineering
or architecture. Who would have
dreamed 45 years ago that we
would today have an international
organization of roof consultants,
the Roof Consultants Institute,
with a membership approaching
2,000 – 915 of whom
are Professional members and
280 of which are Registered Roof
Consultants.
In the late ’70s and early ’80s,
a growing number of engineers
became involved in roof consulting,
typically as a by-product of
their engineering support services.
Today we have several disciplines
of engineers involved in
roof consulting: civil engineers,
structural engineers, electrical
engineers, mechanical engineers,
chemical engineers, fire protection
engineers, and others. A common
thread throughout engineering
education is the formal training
received at universities and
colleges in applying the principles
of engineering. In fact, one of the
ultimate goals of an engineering
education is implementing the
engineering process of solving
problems referred to as the
“Scientific Method.” This systematic
technique of problem solving
is ingrained through countless
assignments and experiences.
So, the “design” of roofs has
progressed from the nomadic
primeval home builder to the
architect and engineer.
Impetus for Change
The driving force for change
over the last two decades leading
to roof design by consultants,
architects, and engineers (rather
than manufacturers, roofing contractors,
and distributors), has
been the unfortunate occurrence
of numerous roof membrane and
component failures. Here are
some of them:
• Coated two-ply systems –
blisters
• Early modified bitumen
systems – seams
• Early unreinforced PVCs –
shattering
• Asbestos BUR – splitting
• Early fiberglass BUR –
leakage
• Neoprene systems – degradation
• EPDM – seam failures
• Collapse due to load
• Collapse due to ponding
• Early fiberglass insulation
– corrosion of steel deck
• Phenolic foam – corrosion
of steel deck
• Fastener corrosion –
reduced uplift
• Granule loss – mat degradation
• Wind displacement – inadequate
attachment
• Wind blow-off – inadequate
attachment
• Flashing racking – deckto-
wall movement
• Improper UL system – fire
damage
• Early fiberglass BUR –
point load displacement
• Hail damage
• Ridging
On the heels of such problems,
the roof consultant offered
what was often described as unbiased
information and assistance
in resolving these problems and in
developing and designing solutions.
Sometimes even the consultant’s
solution for one problem
created a new problem. For example,
installing an unreinforced
PVC single-ply recovery system
over a failed coated two-ply system,
exchanged blisters for shattering.
A significant number of structural-
related issues is reflected in
the list above. Collapse due to
excessive loading is one example.
Most consultants have encountered
a project with a ballasted
single ply system installed as a
recovery on a building whose
structure was never designed for
the additional load of the ballast.
Another problem we often see is
what I refer to as “stratified recovery.”
This is where the original
roof is recovered, followed by
another recovery, followed by
another recovery.
Corrosion of steel deck has
also been a problem over the
years. Most recently, the aggressive
corrosion associated with
phenolic foam roof insulation has
resulted in the replacement of
millions of square feet of roofing
and remediation of steel decking
for a phenomenal amount of
money. Some say this is
approaching $1 billion. This was
not so much a “design” problem
as it was a material problem
resulting in two major U.S. class
action lawsuits and hundreds of
settlements.
Wind displacement of roofs
has often been determined to be
related more to improper design
and/or application of roofing systems
than to the forces of nature.
I was involved in an interesting
investigation of a roof that blew off
of a building several years ago.
The “designer of record” was
(using the term quite loosely) a
roofing contractor (also using the
term quite loosely). He stated that
he would install a “nailed base
sheet.” That is exactly what he
did. He laid Perlite insulation over
Canon – 8
steel deck, covered it with a G2
base sheet, and used 2″ diameter
tin discs and 16d nails to anchor
the base sheet to the steel deck! I
was not able to find that assembly
in the FM Approval Guide. Did the
owner get what he paid for?
Hopefully it was “cheap.” But he
surely anticipated getting a roof
that would perform under the
design criteria required by the
building codes, which it did not.
Education Related to Roofing
When it comes to educating
people on roofing, we see a wide
variance. From academia, architects
receive maybe one to five
days (or hours?) of generic
instruction regarding roofing systems.
Hope¬fully, there are exceptions
to this where more information
is provided.
Engineers likely receive less
formal instruction regarding roofing
systems than do architects,
(like, the roof weighs six pounds
per square foot). The main interests
of the engineer are: that the
primary and secondary framing
systems be capable of sustaining
the design loads, the energy efficiency
of the system (R-value),
drainage capacity, and perhaps
the fire rating.
Architects and engineers generally
get their information and
training related to roofing when
they are assigned their first roofing
project. This often happens
immediately after they have made
their boss mad and the assignment
is retribution or punishment.
So, historically, they just
sort of fall into roofing, no pun
intended. Outside of academia,
architects and engineers receive
on-the-job training, attendance at
seminars and trade shows, and
more formal training from RIEI,
RCI, NRCA, CSI, BURSI (Johns
Manville’s “Better Understanding
of Roof Systems Institute”) and
BPU (Firestone’s Building
Products University). This leads to
a fairly good understanding of
roofing systems and performance.
Several roof membrane manufacturers
provide superb in-house
training courses for their employees.
This is to assist them in the
production and/or sale of their
products. Much of this training is
quite proprietary.
Roofing contractors typically
develop their experience from onthe-
job training and from the
internal exchange of information
within one’s company. Trade
unions offer apprenticeship programs.
As unions are somewhat
geographically isolated, the training
from union apprenticeship
programs is not available in some
areas, such as much of the southeast.
Roofing contractors also
have in-house training, tool box
seminars, lunch box seminars,
and training from RIEI, NRCA,
and regional associations of roofing
contractors. We have also seen
a significant number of roofing
contractors involved in the RCI
educational programs.
Owners of roofs seem to have
traditionally received much of
their information about roofs
directly from roofing contractors.
Roof manufacturers have also
provided a significant amount of
information to owners, but it is
not often that you hear from a
manufacturer, “We don’t have a
very good product for your use.”
“Newer,” “better,” “approved,”
“less expensive,” may be key
words that are used to attract the
owner. After all, the owner has a
problem and wants someone to
give him an inexpensive solution.
An ambitious owner can also get
information from seminars conducted
by NRCA, regional contractor
associations, RIEI, BURSI,
RCI, CSI, and some courses
offered at universities such as the
University of Wisconsin.
Roof consultants get their
training from the same places
that all of the above received their
training. It is very important that
the intern roof consultant receive
information from as unbiased a
source as possible. Few sources of
roof training and education are as
unbiased as that offered by the
Roof Consultants Institute and
are therefore an excellent resource
to not only roof consultants,
but engineers, architects,
contractors, and manufacturers.
Even universities could partner
with RCI for some of the best
training attainable in the roofing
industry.
Time for a New Direction?
Ken Follett’s master builder,
Tom, and others like him (sorry
ladies, this was an all-male profession
for centuries), learned the
hard way of construction techniques
that did not work well.
Often times there were casualties
and fatalities for unsuccessful
designs.
Even in our own lifetimes, we
have experienced a number of
construction failures due to
improper design. The Tacoma
Narrows Bridge in Tacoma,
Washington, is a prime example.
“Galloping Gertie” collapsed in
1940 because of the designer’s
failure to recognize the benefit
and necessity of diaphragm framing
members to resist the dynamic
forces of wind. (See
www.ketchum.org/tacomacollapse.
html).
I investigated a roof failure
several years ago that was the
result of the substitution of materials,
specifically from a steel
standing seam metal roof panel to
an aluminum roof panel.
What do structures that were
improperly designed and failed
have to do with roofing? After all,
the roof is just a cover for shade
and shelter. “It’s just roofing.” Or
is it? Is the roof just a finish of the
building such as carpeting, wallpaper,
painting, and other nonCanon
– 9
structural components or features
of a building. No, it is not.
The roof is a structural component
of the building. Technically,
roofing is called “cladding,”
as defined in both ASCE 7
and in the International Building
Code. In SEI/ASCE 7-02, Second
Edition, ¶ 6.2 Definitions: “Components
and Cladding – Elements
of the building envelope that do
not qualify as part of the main
wind-force resisting system.” The
accompanying Commentary C6.2
states, “cladding receives wind
load directly… Examples of cladding
include wall coverings and
roof coverings…” On that basis,
roofing is cladding. Cladding is a
structural element of the building.
So, the roof is in fact structural
cladding in all jurisdictions under
the International Building Code
and presumably others. Who then
can “design” a roof?
Historically, just about anyone
could design a roof: owners,
contractors, distributors, manufacturers,
consultants, engineers,
architects. What about the Twenty-
First Century? What guidelines
are there to delineate who can do
what? Who can design roofs? It is
really a rather complex question
and one possibly fraught with
emotion. What should we use as a
basis of answering such a question?
Do we look at tradition? The
code? The law?
Based upon tradition, just
about anyone could, and did,
design roofs. But, if there is law in
place, law takes precedence over
tradition. Law establishes the
rules of society. So, let’s look at a
few points of law first.
As early as 1986, Colorado
issued a policy related to the
delineation of who could provide
certain services. They went so far
as to state that the inspection of
roofing/waterproofing constitutes
the practice of engineering. The
policy is now law. A copy is
attached.
The South Carolina State
Board of Registration of Engineers
and Land Surveyors issued a
Statement of Policy in December
1989 in response to a question I
personally posed to them: Does
roof consulting constitute engineering?”
Their discussion and
statement is attached as a reprint
from the Board’s newsletter. In
June 1991, the State of North
Carolina issued a similar, though
more stringent, policy. An
excerpted copy of their News
Letter is attached.
I felt then, and feel now, that
the South Carolina response did
not adequately or properly answer
the question of who can design
roofs. The South Carolina policy
permits a non-licensed individual
(i.e. a person who is not a professional
engineer or registered
architect) to determine if and
when a licensed professional is
needed for load analysis, drainage
analysis, and deck design. This is
tantamount to the state permitting
a nurse to determine if a
patient needs surgery to be performed
by a physician, or for a
dental hygienist to extract a tooth.
Doctors and dentists stipulate
what is to be done, not nurses or
hygienists. Why is that? Because
the doctor, dentist, engineer, and
architect fall under the auspices
of the South Carolina Code of
Laws, Title 40 – Professions and
Occupations, which regulates
professionals. Currently, a “roof
consultant” is not a “professional”
in South Carolina, nor any other
state, as far as I know. This leaves
a chasm of uncertainty regarding
who can do what.
As I recently looked into this
issue again, I did some research
into who can do what, specifically
related to roofing. Laws mandate
codes. So the code was a logical
point of embarkation in this
search.
Building codes are developed
by organizations such as ICBO,
BOCA, SBCCI, Metro-Dade, South
Florida, etc. Code content is the
result of input from a variety of
groups and professions: code officials,
fire marshals, architects,
engineers, contractors, manufacturers,
owners, and professional
associations. Their purpose is to
assure a safe minimum standard
of construction, so as to provide
for the welfare and safety of the
public. Life safety and quality are
two fundamentals of codes. The
International Code Council (ICC)
now assimilates ICBO, BOCA, and
SBCCI into a single “international”
organization, and a consolidated
code, the International
Building Code (IBC). As this code
affects the majority of the United
States, I will focus on IBC.
As indicated above, the IBC
stipulates that roofing is in the
structural category of “components
and cladding,” more specifically,
cladding. ASCE-7, which is
referenced in the IBC and by FM
Global in their Loss Prevention
Data Sheet 1-28, also stipulates
the same, specifically by reference
in the ASCE-7 Commentary. The
roof is clearly an engineered component
relative to: gravity loads,
fire, drainage, energy, and wind
uplift resistance.
Referring to the 2000 Edition
of the International Building Code
(IBC), Section 105, Permits,
states, “Any owner or authorized
agent who intends to construct,
enlarge, alter, repair, move,
demolish, or change the occupancy
of a building or structure…
shall first make application to the
Building Official and obtain the
required permit.”
Paragraph 105.2 lists exemptions
from permit requirements.
Roofing is not exempted. Painting,
papering, tiling, carpeting, etc.
are exempted. Although some
code officials do not include roofing
in their permitting process,
the code clearly indicates that it
should be. For the sake of safety,
Canon – 10
all code officials are encouraged to
include roofs in their permitting
process.
The next section of IBC, 106,
Construction Documents, says in
subparagraph 106.1 that, “Construction
Documents… shall be
submitted in one or more sets
with each application for a permit.
The construction documents shall
be prepared by a registered design
professional where required by
the statutes of the jurisdiction in
which the project is to be constructed.”
A “registered design
professional” is defined by IBC as,
“an individual who is registered or
licensed to practice their [sic] respective design profession as
defined by the statutory requirements
of the professional registration
laws of the state of jurisdiction
in which the project is to be
constructed.” (The word “registered”
is not to be confused with
that associated with the Registered
Roof Consultant from RCI.
IBC is speaking specifically to
professional engineers and registered
architects.)
Referring back to Paragraph
106.1, there is an exception. “The
Building Official is authorized to
waive the submission of construction
documents and other data
not required to be prepared by a
registered design professional if it
is found that the nature of the
work applied for is such that
reviewing of construction documents
is not necessary to obtain
compliance with this code.” As
roofing is a requirement of the
building code, there is no exception
to submission of construction
documents for roofing projects. So
as stated above, these construction
documents must be prepared
by a registered design professional,
i.e., an architect or an engineer.
Paragraph 106.3.4, Design
Professional and Responsible
Charge, states, “When it is required
that documents be prepared
by a Registered Design
Professional, the Building Official
shall be authorized to require the
owner and designate on the building
permit application a ‘Registered
Design Professional,’ who
shall act as the Registered Design
Professional and responsible
charge.”
So construction documents
are required to be submitted to
get a permit, a roofing project
must have a permit, and the
building official may require that
the permit indicate who the registered
design professional will be.
From this, it is my contention
that both new and replacement
roofs are to be designed and specified
only by experienced professional
engineers or experienced
registered architects, collectively
referred to hereafter as licensed
professionals. I advocate that the
licensed professional should also
hold active registration as a
Registered Roof Consultant from
the Roof Consultants Institute.
Is a “Registered Roof Consultant”
a “Registered Design Professional?”
No, not unless the RRC is
also either a professional engineer
(PE) or registered architect (RA).
What’s the difference? Why isn’t
an RRC a Registered Design Professional?
The Roof Consultants Institute
(RCI) is self-governed and an
independent, non-profit organization.
The enforcement of the registration
process is from within the
Institute. The primary penalty or
punishment for members who
have not met the standards of the
Institute include censure, reprimand,
and possible revocation of
membership, benefits and credentials
of the Institute. The implications
for punishment for failure to
meet the standards, therefore, are
limited by the organization with
no power of law. There are no
state or federal statutes associated
with this registration. RCI
operates only under the auspices
of the provider of the registration,
the Roof Consultants Institute.
“Licensure” as used in the
context of this paper relates to the
process implemented by states,
such as professional engineer (PE)
and registered architect (RA). The
source of this license is thus from
the various 50 states. The authority
for the licensure is by legislation
and the issuance of statutes
and policies, all of which carry the
force of law. Each state has something
along the lines of a Board of
Licensure or of Professional Registration.
The prime directive to
each professional engineer and
registered architect is to “safeguard
the life, health, property,
and welfare of the public” and to
“hold paramount the safety,
health, and welfare of the public
in the performance of his professional
duties.” That is not an
option. It is a mandate backed by
the weight of law.
To reiterate, this term “registration”
in the paragraph above is
not to be confused with the term
“registration” or “registered” such
as the Registered Roof Consultant.
At the present time there is,
to the best of my knowledge, no
state that has implemented a legislated
“Registered Roof Consultant,”
although there is activity to
attain such.
Punishments for failure to
meet the standards at a State
Board of Registration include civil
court (where one person sues
another person), criminal court
(where a state or federal jurisdiction
brings charges against an
individual), and revocation of professional
license, as well as reprimand
and financial penalties. The
implications of such action by the
Board extends beyond the state,
possibly to the entire country
because of reciprocity agreements
between individual state boards of
registration.
Canon – 11
In summary, an organization
such as the Roof Consultants
Institute can set its standards
and penalize a member who does
not meet the standards of the
Institute in a number of ways. The
same mistake under the auspices
of a State Board of Registration,
however, can result in financial
penalty and/or imprisonment. It
is, therefore, quite obvious that a
Registered Roof Consultant and a
licensed professional are not synonymous.
That is certainly not to
infer in any way that the RRC has
no value. To the contrary! An RRC
should be an integral part of the
design of roofs.
Road Map to Delineation of
Services
So where should the line be
drawn between the various parties
within the roofing community?
A rather simplistic and idealistic
approach would be something
like this:
Owners……………..Own
PEs/RAs …………..Design,
specify, and prepare construction
documents
Roof Consultants..Consult
Manufacturers……Manufacture
Contractors ……….Construct
But, we are not living in such
an idealistic world. So what are
the options? If the Roof Consultants
Institute takes the lead with
this question, the Institute needs
to clearly stipulate the limits of
what a “roof consultant” can and
what a “roof consultant” cannot
do. This is addressed in general
terms in the attached “The
Professional Roof Consultant,”
adopted by RCI in May 1996.
Another option is to continue
efforts to undertake state registration
of roof consultants and have
the states delineate our responsibilities
and limitations. The ultimate
goal in either option should
be, and must be, to provide for the
safety of the public.
It would be wise to follow the
logic wherein the registered design
professional is either a professional
engineer or a registered
architect. If this is determined to
be the best route, some entity still
needs to delineate the services
that non-registered persons can
provide.
It seems that this responsibility
best falls to the Roof Consultants
Institute.
The final determination of who
can do what related to roofing lies
not with this writer/presenter,
but with others: the Roof Consultants
Institute, the codes, code
officials, and/or and the various
state’s boards of professional registration
for licensure.
To move toward resolution, it
is sometimes beneficial to have at
least a starting point. Let me suggest
such a starting point as a
guide for implementation.
Table 1 lists tasks or assignments
a non-RRC, non-licensed
individual could perform.
Table 2 lists tasks or assignments
an RRC-non-licensed individual
could perform.
Table 3 lists tasks or assignments
a licensed PE or RA could
perform.
Table 4 summarizes attributes
of licensed professionals.
I am a strong advocate of
RCI’s RRC program. A licensed PE
or RA should have no hesitation
to seek and attain this prestigious
credential. With experience directly
related to roofing, the RRC is
attainable. Without experience, I
doubt an engineer or architect
could pass the RRC examination,
nor should they.
Restraint of Trade?
One of the arguments that has
been presented in previous discussions
regarding who can
design a roof is that of restraint of
trade. I see no merit in this argument,
regardless of tradition.
• If I want to be a contractor,
I must get a contractor’s license.
(I am aware that there are some
states, such as Georgia, that do
not have such requirements. I
challenge the members in such
states to address this issue.)
• If I want to be an architect,
then I must get a degree,
get some experience, and
then get a license.
• If I want to be a dentist, I
must get a degree, get
some experience, and get a
license.
• If I want to be a surgeon, I
must get a degree, get a
vast amount of experience,
and get a license.
• In my state of South
Carolina, if I want to be a
hairdresser (which by the
way I have no desire to do),
I must get a degree, I must
get experience, and I must
get a license.
It makes no sense to me that
in a jurisdiction where a license is
required to cut hair, a license is
not required to design roofs over
the heads of the very children
whose hair was cut by a licensed
hairdresser. That is just absurd.
Recommendations
There are two primary goals in
roofing: provide good roofs that
are economical and functional;
and provide for life safety insofar
as the loads, drainage, fire, and
wind uplift resistance. How do we
accomplish this goal? Currently,
roof consultants as designers of
roofs are in a gray zone. I challenge
RCI to aggressively define
roles and to aggressively lobby for
model licensure. A timeline would
be 24 months to 48 months.
Canon – 12
Further, I recommend that
each state Board of Professional
Registration adopt a clear policy
regarding the design of roofs. I
would encourage that each of
these boards require that “roof
design professionals” are licensed
registered architects or professional
engineers and be Registered
Roof Consultants, without
exception. To facilitate this, the
Institute’s Board of Directors
could provide this paper to each of
the 50 states’ Boards of Professional
Registration as a “white
paper” for their consideration.
PRACTICAL EXAMPLES
In closing, a few practical
examples may be of interest.
Example No. 1:
Project Information: The
existing roofing system is a ballasted
45 mil EPDM membrane
over 1.5″-thick polyisocyanurate
insulation over 22-gauge, wide rib
steel deck welded to open web
steel bar joists spaced at 5′-0″ o.c.
The deck slopes 1/8″ per foot to a
perimeter gutter. The owner does
not want to have ballast on the
roof because of the high volume of
traffic on the roof to service mechanical
equipment, and because of
difficulty finding cuts and tears.
Question: Would tear-off to
the deck and retrofit with a twoply
Class A SBS hotadhered
membrane,
mopped to 3/4″ thick
Perlite insulation, mopped
to 2.5″ polyisocyanurate
insulation, mechanically
fastened to the steel deck
be an acceptable design?
Attachment will meet the
local code.
Answer:
• Fire rating – Class A
assembly – no problem.
• Slope – 1/8 inch per
foot provides positive
drainage to gutters –
acceptable for retrofit by
code.
• Securement of system –
code compliant.
• Weight of roofing system –
less than original roof.
The designed system is
acceptable. Or is it? What about
the weight of the roof system?
It seems logical that since the
new roof weighs less than the
original roof, there is certainly no
problem with gravity loads to the
structure. But what about uplift
loads? The modified bitumen system
is fully adhered to a mechanically
fastened layer of insulation.
Assuming the deck is properly
attached to the joists, and the
joists are properly attached to the
beams, load transfer is complete:
roof covering to insulation to fasteners
to deck to beams/girders
to columns to foundations to soil.
What about the joists and
footings? Referring to Figure 1, if
the joists were designed to resist
uplift loads of say 30 psf (FM 1-
60) with 12 psf being resisted by
the roof’s dead load, then the net
uplift load resistance the joist producer
built into its joist was 30 –
12 = 18 psf. But now, with the
modified bitumen system, instead
of 12 psf roof load, only 5 psf of
roof load is present. There is a difference
of 12 – 5 = 7 psf roof load
no longer on the roof. If the end
diagonals of the joists were
designed and fabricated for the
original roof loads, with only 5 psf
of roof load present, they could
buckle in uplift and fail. A structural
engineer would have to
check the original design and confirm
the design parameters with
the joist supplier. If the joist shop
drawings are not available, field
measurements will have to be
taken and loads calculated by a
structural engineer.
So, less may not be better. It
may, in fact, lead to catastrophe!
Example No. 2:
Question: Who is responsible
for determining the “corners and
perimeters” of a project and the
attachment patterns?
A. Roof membrane manufacturer/
supplier
B. Roofing contractor
C. FM Global field/resident
engineer
D. Registered Roof Observer
E. Registered Roof Consultant
F. Registered design professional
Original System New System
Ballast 10.00 psf Cap Sheet 0.90 psf
Membrane 0.28 psf Asphalt 0.25 psf
Polyisocyanurate, 1.5″ 1.19 psf Base Sheet 0.62 psf
Asphalt 0.25 psf
Perlite 3/4″ 0.68 psf
Asphalt 0.25 psf
Polyisocyanurate, 2.5″ 1.98 psf
Total 11.47 psf Total 4.93 psf
(Say 12 psf ) (Say 5 psf)
Figure 1
Canon – 13
Answer: F. Registered design
professional who is either a registered
professional engineer or a
registered architect. I advocate
this person should also be a Registered
Roof Consultant. Although
all of the other parties may be
familiar with the process and have
been trained in such, if they are
not a registered design professional,
they should not perform
this service.
1 One manufacturer states, “We do not practice architecture or engineering. The commercial/industrial
roofing systems outlined in this manual will provide satisfactory installations when properly
applied.”
2 On a project several years ago, a distributor became a primary defendant in a lawsuit involving a
failed single ply membrane. Since the distributor was the “designer of record,” the company shared
the title, “Mr. Defendant” with the installing roofing contractor and membrane supplier. If one takes
on the role of “designer of record,” they must be prepared to suffer the consequences.
3 The Scientific Method generally has at least five steps:
1. State the problem;
2. Form the hypothesis;
3. Observe and experiment;
4. Interpret the data;
5. Draw conclusions.
4 We have documented a seven layer stratified recovery. The system, excluding the deck, weighed 11.2
pounds per square foot. The original roof weighed 2.0 pounds per square foot. On another roof with
three strata, the upper being a ballasted EPDM, the system above the deck weighed 23.2 pounds
per square foot.
5 Canon, Richard P., Joplin, Blake S., and Watson, S. Thomas, “SMARF Building, Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station, Florida: Seven Years Later,” Interface, September 2002, Pages 24 – 27, 29 – 36.
6 Referring to the Preface of the International Building Code, Introduction, “Internationally, code officials
recognize the need for a modern, up-to-date building code addressing the design and installation
of building systems through requirements emphasizing performance. The International
Building Code® is designed to meet these needs through model code regulations that safeguard the
public health and safety in all communities, large and small.”
7 French, Warren, PE, “Legislative & Regulatory Issues for Roof Consultants,” Interface, April 2002,
pages 9 -11.
FOOTNOTES
Canon – 14
ATTACHMENTS
TABLE 1
What services related to roofing can a non-RRC, non-licensed individual provide?
1. Nuclear moisture surveys.
2. Capacitance moisture surveys.
3. Fasteners pull-test (ANSI/SPRI FX-1).
4. Visual inspections.
5. Roof condition surveys.
6. MicroROOFER.
7. Quality assurance services, full-time or occasional.
8. General “technician services.”
9. Cores, probes, gravimetric analysis.
10. Leak investigations.
TABLE 2
What services related to roofing can a non-licensed RRC provide?
1. All listed in Table 1.
2. Specialized expertise and consultation related to roofing.
3. Provide information to assist in selection of roofing systems.
4. Infrared roof moisture surveys*
5. Test cuts.
6. Roof management programs.
7. Roof maintenance programs.
8. Repair specifications.
9. Expert testimony with limitations established by court.
10. Fact witness services (without opinions)
11. Quantification of damage from hail, wind.
12. General recommendations for damage from hail, wind.
13. Negative pressure wind uplift testing.
14. Pull tests, uplift (FM 1-52).
15. ASTM testing.
* The data collected in an infrared roof moisture survey is completely subjective and completely
dependent upon the operator’s experience and judgement concurrent with the survey,
while actually on the roof. On the other hand, data collected for nuclear or capacitance
survey is quantitative and reduced to a contour map in the office.
Canon – 15
TABLE 3
What services can a licensed individual (PE or RA) perform?
1. All listed in Table 1.
2. All listed in Table 2.
3. Preparation of or direct supervision of the preparation of Contract Documents.
A. Technical specifications
B. Details
C. Roof Plan
D. Demolition plan
E. “Front end” documents
4. Gravity load analysis.
5. Energy analysis.
6. Drainage analysis.
7. Uplift load analysis.
8. Attachment requirements.
TABLE 4
What are the attributes of a licensed professional, PE or RA?
1. Trained problem solvers with big picture mind-set.
2. Formally trained in college or university.
3. Familiar with building code or codes.
4. Professional affiliation (NSPE, AIA, etc.)
5. Under state jurisdiction.
6. Mandatory continuing education (most states)
7. Legislated investigation teams for infraction.
8. Under the jurisdiction of criminal court.
9. Under the jurisdiction of civil court.
10. Charged with primary responsibility of providing for the public’s welfare.
11. public disclosure of disciplinary action by board of registration.
12. Formal accredited testing of professional qualification for PE or RA.
13. Legislated code of ethics.
14. Legislated standards of practice.
15. Mandated peer enforcement subject to legal action.
Canon – 16
Canon – 17
Bylaws and Rules of the Colorado Board of Licensure for
Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors
2.2 – Definitions in Alphabetical Order
Practice of Engineering. The Board of Registration for Professional Engineers
and Professional Land Surveyors interprets the language of Section 12-25-
102(10), C.R.S., the “practice of engineering” to include, or exclude, but not be
limited to the following.
(b) Inspections. Inspection and examination of single or multiple family
residential, commercial, industrial or institutional buildings, regarding
their structural, electrical, mechanical, thermal insulation and
roofing/waterproofing subsystems for proper integrity or capacity,
constitutes the practice of engineering as defined in C.R.S. 12-25, Part
1. Any attempt to determine the structural integrity or capacity of a
building, or any subsystem thereof, other than detection of problems by
visual inspection or normal operation of the user’s controls, constitutes
the practice of engineering. This would include the diagnosis and
analysis of problems with buildings and/or the design of remedial
actions. Therefore, an individual who advertises or practices in this area
shall be registered as a professional engineer in the State of Colorado.
Thank You,
Joyce J. Young
Administrative Assistant III
Colorado Board of Licensure for
Professional Engineers & Professional Land Surveyors
Phone/Fax (303) 894-7792
joyce.young@dora.state.co.us
NOTE:
This policy was first revised and adopted by the State of Colorado on March 21, 1986.
Canon – 18
Canon – 19
Canon – 20