Message From the President It takes all of our members’ active involve¬ ment to keep RCI moving forward. It is not conceivable that our or- By: George Kanz, PE, CRC Shive-Hattery Engineers Cedar Rapids, Iowa ganization will ever be large enough that it will not need each member’s active commitment for the or¬ ganization to be successful. Some of our members’ activities include: Joe Hale, of HDH Associates, Roanoke, Virginia, serves as Region Director for Region 2 and Chairper¬ son of the Asbestos Committee. Among other things, Joe has successfully put together an EPA accredited continued on page 7 An Historic Development in the Quest for Understanding Wind Uplift Testing By: Single Ply Roofing Institute When the Single Ply Roofing Institute was in its infancy, the industry was faced with the possible elimination from the ICBO code of ballasted roofing systems. SPRI took on the challenge of providing data that demonstrated their safe and effective use, and in cooperation with ICBO Evaluation Ser¬ vice staff and the ICBO Evaluation Committee, developed acceptance criteria for ballasted systems. SPRl’s technical committee recognized then that one of the major problems af¬ fecting the industry was the lack of a single, meaningful test procedure to evaluate the various installation methods used in single ply roofing. – continued on page 2 Not What They Appear To Be By: Victor Bedikian CB Roofing Consultants Inc. New Orleans, LA In the construction in¬ dustry, the appearance of conformity to the contract documents does not al¬ ways prove true when in¬ vestigated in depth. One frequent example of this type is the apparent confor¬ mance of thru-wall flashings in brick masonry walls. The need for this type of detail in many roof top conditions is in¬ controvertible. Brick is porous and will allow rain water to penetrate unless something is done to prevent it. Details in “Architectural Graphic Standards” and SMACNA’s “Ar¬ chitectural Sheet Metal Manual” clearly show how this should be done. The sheet metal, as is shown in Detail A on page 6, must pass completely through the brick wall. These details are routinely placed by architects and engineers on their contract drawings. However, if a job is not closely su¬ pervised, the appearance of conformity may be all there ac¬ tually is. If a small sec¬ tion of counter¬ flashing at the joint is pried and pulled away, the in¬ spector will often find the imbed- If a job is not close¬ ly supervised, the appearance of con¬ formity may be all there actually is. ment into the wall is no more than 3/4 of an inch (See Detail A on page 6). The reason this is so often done is that the general contractor does not like having the mason come out to build part of the wall, then have the roofer install the sheet metal, and finally, have the mason come back to complete the wall. It is much easer, and less costly, to build the brick wall first and run a saw cut in the brick joint 3/4″ into the wall giving the appearance of thruwall flashing. The general contractor and roofer often continued on page 6 Newsletter of The Roof Consultants Institute 2 Six years later, there are many different agencies using different test methods, with little or unknown correlation Review of European Experiences – H.J. Gerhardt, WSP, West Germany among them. It has become prohibitive for manufacturers to run test programs to satisfy all the diverse requirements. More important, it is virtually impossible for the owner, designer, specifier or consultant to keep track of the test results reported and understand the meaning and significance of each. On May 17-18, 1989, the first session of a special Workshop on Wind Uplift Test Procedures for Roof Systems was held in Dallas, Texas. The session was organized by an It is virtually im¬ possible for the owner, designer, specifier or con¬ sultant to keep track of the test results reported and understand the meaning and significance of each. ll-member industry¬ wide Steering Com¬ mittee, and was at¬ tended by 40 invited experts with back¬ grounds in roofing and wind dynamics. The session provided an opportunity for this group to identify key issues within the context of a general discussion of wind in¬ duced roof uplift resis¬ tance testing. Dallas Program Highlights The Dallas program consisted of the following prepared presentations: Keynote Address – Richard Fricklas, RIEI Field Experiences – Dick Baxter, Carolina Roofing Ser¬ vices, Inc. Existing Test Procedures – Richard Coursey, IPS Elastomerics. Inc. Wind Dynamics – J.A. Peterka, Colorado State University Full Scale Testing – R.J. King, Carleton University Round Table Discussions and Reports Following these presentations, concurrent round table dis¬ cussions were held on the following subjects: Dynamics of Roof Uplift Problems Static vs. Dynamic Testing Is There an Ultimate Stand-Alone Test Procedure? A Proposal for Full-Scale Testing Ballasted Roofs Attached Roofs The meeting culminated in a series of reports from the round table discussions. In particular, the adequacy of available test procedures for existing roof systems was discussed and the following con¬ clusions reached: A. The present test method (Factory Mutual’s 5X9 Uplift Table) is adequate in screening fully adhered systems for wind performance in the field. B. There was no resolution on how to test ballasted sys¬ tems. It was generally agreed that adequate data exist on present systems; however, procedures for testing innovative ballasted systems are not clear. Wind tunnels or techniques using full scale models and high velocity, large area air flows are possibilities. C. Dynamic testing was proposed as the preferred test method for evaluating mechanically attached systems. Ex¬ perimentally induced failures resemble field failures, and testing for system fatigue appears to be important. Several European laboratories are developing dynamic test proce¬ dures. Result of the Workshop The result of the workshop was the identification of five action issues which are now being reviewed by separate task groups. These issues are: continued on next page Newsletter of The Roof Consultants Institute 3 • Dynamic Testing for Mechanically Fastened System The result will likely be a recommendation that the U.S. adopt this test procedure. • Research Agenda There has been little cooperation between companies and laboratories conducting research. Different project areas serve different clienteles. Currently there is no priority rank¬ ing of research needs. The result will likely be a ranked list¬ ing of uplift resistance research needs. • Field Information There is a lack of performance data and a dearth of diag¬ nostic techniques available on wind uplift resistance. The result will likely be a report on this topic at the next workshop. • Ballasted Roof Systems Existing procedures and dynamic testing are not readily applicable to ballasted systems. Current code and insurance acceptances are based primarily, and not systematically, on wind tunnel data. Thus, no standard procedure exists for the evaluation of innovative ballasted systems. The result is like¬ ly to be a recommended procedure for systematically testing ballasted roof systems. • Technology Transfer and User Awareness Communication is poor on wind uplift resistance issues in roofing systems. Applications and limitations of existing test procedures are not well understood. The result likely will be the recommendation of specific actions to improve technol¬ ogy transfer of wind uplift resistance data and knowledge. Next Workshop in Oak Ridge, TN, November 8-9 The reports of the five task groups will be presented and discussed in depth at the next Workshop on Wind Uplift, to be held on November 8-9, 1989, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This workshop will be open to anyone with an interest in the topic of wind uplift resistance testing for roofs. RCI is a co-sponsor of the Workshop on Wind Uplift. In this landmark event, SPRI and other co¬ sponsors have joined together to raise the industry’s collective understanding of this most complex issue. In the long run, the goal is better unifor¬ mity in method¬ ologies, strong The reports will be presented at the Workshop on Wind Uplift on November 8-9, 1989 in Oak Ridge, TN correlations among test laboratories, and more practical, reliable, and usable data on the subject of the wind performance of roofing systems. For more information on the Workshop on Wind Uplift, contact Ruth Warshaw, SPRI, 760 Highland Ave #8, Need¬ ham MA 02194,617/444-1177 or RCI Headquarters, 7424 Chapel Hill Road, Raleigh NC 27607, 919/859-0742 This article was prepared with the assistance of SPRI members George Courville, Oak Ridge National Labs; Dave Roodvoets, Dow Chemical Co.; Brian Whelan, Samafil Inc. Photos courtesy of Dow Chemical Co and RCI. Past President Ruth Warshaw Assumes Managing Director Role at SPRI The Single Ply Roofing Institute (SPRI) is pleased to an¬ nounce the appointment of Ruth Warshaw to the position of managing director. She will serve under the direction of Carl Wangman, CAE, SPRI’s executive vice president and chair¬ man of the board of The Breeden Company. Ms. Warshaw was one of the original members of the steering committee that founded SPRI. She served on the SPRI Board of Directors from its inception in 1982 until her departure from the roofing industry in 1987. During that period, she held a variety of positions in the organization in¬ cluding public relations chairman, annual meeting chairman, and long-range planning committee chairman; she served as president from 1985-1986. Her responsibilities at SPRI will include meeting and con¬ vention planning, publications, committee support, publicity and public relations, and general administrative duties. Newsletter of The Roof Consultants Institute 4 Newsletter of The Roof Consultants Institute 5 THE ROOF CONSULTANTS INSTITUTE Proudly Presents Our 1990 RCI NATIONAL CONVENTION March 19-21, 1990 Chicago, Illinois • Expand Your Knowledge • Network With Other Professionals • Explore New Products and Methodology • RCI Certified Roof Consultants Examination • Annual Meeting of The Roof Consultants Institute • Social and Business Contacts • Entertainment • Spouse Program • President’s Banquet and Awards Ceremony • Auxiliary One-Day Metal Roofing Seminar — March 22, 1990 …See You in Chicago, Illinois! Newsletter of The Roof Consultants Institute 6 not what they appear to be continued from page 1 believe that the thru-wall flashing is not really necessary. They consider it one of those Cadillac details for which ar¬ chitects are noted. The problem with that view is that some¬ time after completion of the roof, the roof begins to leak near the masonry wall. Rather than accept the fact that the leak is The general con¬ tractor and the roofer often believe that the thru-wall flashing is one of those Cadillac details for which architects are noted. caused by the bogus, thru-wall flashing and cor¬ recting it, the general contractor insists on finding the cause else¬ where. Going through a series of unsuccessful at¬ tempts to stop the leak, he first tries to silicon the brick wall. This is almost always futile. In my experience, silicon treatment of a brick wall does not work. It seems to be one of those products on the market which feed on wishful thinking. Its main attribute is that it is cheap. If it would work, it would be wonderful but it just adds a little more to the final cost. Next, more costly repairs are tried such as replacement of the base flashing, reworking areas in the field membrane around nearby penetrations, and replacement of sections of the coping. The avoidance of admitting the true cause of the leaking is understandable. To tear out large sections of brick, installing the flashing and then rebuilding the wall is very costly. It is almost never achieved without a law suit. Another false diagnosis which frequently occurs is the case of brick veneer walls which begin to leak. A leak which is blamed on the roof system at first, turns out to be caused by poor brick masonry work. When water pours in around the baseboard, sheet metal work at the roof level is usually suspected. Very often this is the case: water getting behind the joints and working its way down inside the stud space and entering at the floor line. Sometimes, however, the cause is due to sloppy brick laying. The mason, in laying his brick, must maintain al” clear space between the brick and the face of the sheathing of the stud wall. The only elements to bridge the gap are the metal ties holding the brick wall in place. In a poor job, the mason forces out too much mortar as he goes up. This mortar falls down the air space and piles up on the membrane flashing near the bottom. This random dropping frequently blocks up the weep holes and creates dams of mortar with voids be¬ tween. During heavy rains, the brick becomes saturated. Through capillary action, water penetrates the brick and begins to run down the back face of the brick filling up these voids. When the water rises in these dams above the height of the membrane flashing, it penetrates into the stud space through joints in the sheathing. Then, the water runs down to floor level, making its entry into the building beneath the baseboard. Sometimes the water in these dams does not rise above the membrane flashing but pools in the cavity. Moisture from this condition causes mildew spots to appear on the in¬ terior wall surface. One way to prevent these mortar droppings from happen¬ ing is to require the mason to hang a one-by wood member in the cavity, lifting it as is necessary, as he continues to lay his brick. However, if there is infrequent supervision on the job, the board may be found on the ground alongside the wall rather than in the cavity. These examples are two of the many conditions roof con¬ sultants find in the field which appear to be one thing and ac¬ tually are another. It pays not to jump to an early conclusion until a complete examination is made and analyzed. FLASHING DETAIL A Newsletter of The Roof Consultants Institute 7 message from the president continued from page 1 course on asbestos design with an emphasis on roofing. The purpose of this course is to provide information on asbestos to you. Allan Kidd of Canon Consulting and Engineering, Spartanburg, South Carolina, participated in a workshop on Roof Uplift Test Procedures held in Dal¬ las, Texas on May 17 and 18. Allan is also serving on a task force developed from this workshop to research wind dynamics. Bruce Tolf of STS Consultants, Northbrook, Il¬ linois, has accepted the challenge of making the Water Proofing Committee one of the most active committees in RCI. Hal Crooks of RCIS, Mill Creek, Washington, at¬ tended the week-long Shopping Center Convention in April to determine if this is a convention in which RCI should participate. Arthur Sark of ARC and Associates, Orlando, Florida, is serving as President of the first RCI Chapter. Thirty-eight RCI members attended the Ninth Con¬ ference on Roofing Technology May 4 and 5, 1989, in Gaithersburg, Maryland. RCI involvement is an investment in your future. Al¬ though you are very busy, if you don’t do it now, later you may have more time than you ever want. The aspects of involvement in RCI are limitless. We need to open our minds to the possibilities, much like we have to open an umbrella before we realize the value. There are some extremely exciting opportunities for member involvement. The seven co-sponsors of the 1991 International Symposium on Roofing to be held in Canada in September, will be asking you if you would be interested in writing a paper to be presented at the symposium. What will be your answer? Several of the terms of the Region Directors are up in the spring of 1990. Will you volunteer? The INTERFACE can always use articles. Do you have a project that you want to share? RCI needs you! Additional Items to Note Convention activities have been guided by Donna Kuehn, Convention Chairperson, with assistance from Paula Baker and Bob Phillips. Donna reports the 1990 convention has the makings of a sellout. Members are encouraged to register as soon as the materials are made available for the convention. Mark your calen¬ dars for March 19, 20, and 21, 1990, in Chicago, Il¬ linois. In addition, on March 22, 1990, there will be an add-on program one day in length. The subject is metal roofs. There have been several questions regarding the structure of RCI. The structure as set out by the BYLAWS is illustrated below. If you have questions or comments, please contact headquarters. Organizational Structure Asbestos School The Asbestos Committee reminds you to attend the Project Design With Emphasis on ROOFING Course Oc¬ tober 16-20, 1989 in Richmond VA. Contact Joe Hale, Asbes¬ tos Committee Chairman, 703-563-8282 for more information. The “Interface Newsletter” is published quarterly by the Roof Consultants Intstitute. Copyright © 1988 Roof Consultants Institute. All rights reserved. Please address all submittals, subscription requests, advertising, etc. to the Roof Consultants Institute, 7424 Chapel Hill Road, Raleigh, NC 27607. Telephone 919/859-0742. The RCI logo, the name “Interface Newsletter” and the title “Certified Roof Consultant’ abbreviated “CRC” are copyrighted by the Roof Consultants Institute and must not be used without permission of the Roof Consultants Institute. Newsletter of The Roof Consultants Institute 8 New Certified Roof Consultants We are proud to recognize these new RCI Certified Roof Consultants. Barton D Colthurst, CRC Detroit Roofing Inspection Service 3560 E Nine Mile Road Warren MI 48091 313/759-2143 Richard L Cook Jr, CRC NAVFACENGCOM-Southem Division 2155 Eagle Drive Charleston SC 2941 1 803/743-0949 Lyle D Hogan, PE, CRC Trigon Engineering Consultants PO Box 18846 Greensboro NC 27419-8846 919/668-0093 Richard C Rinks, PE, AIA, CRC Richard C Rinks & Associates Inc PO Box 691 Cookeville TN 38503 615/528-5543 A L (Pete) Simmons CRC Roofing Consultants Inc 3900 City Terrace Drive Los Angeles CA 90063 213/263-4172 David H Siple CRC Ribble & Associates Inc 2189 Cleveland St #216 Clearwater FL 34625 813/442-9394 There are now 22 CRCs with about eight more in the pipeline. The Credentials Committee reminds all who have passed the written examination of the following deadlines for submitting Education and Experience requirements 1988 exam January 1, 1990 1989 exam March 1, 1990 RCI will offer the examination to eligible candidates on March 18, 1989 at the Ramada O’Hare, Rosemont IL. The examination will start at 12:00 NOON. Budget Rental Car Program We are pleased to announce a new money saving program for RCI members. Headquarters recently distributed Budget Rental Car cards. The card offers RCI members a reduced corporate rate for auto rentals. We encourage you to take ad¬ vantage of this program for RCI members. It is not a charge card. Use it in conjunction with your own charge card. Upcoming Region Meetings Region One November 20, 1989, Newark NJ Region Two October 10, 1989, Atlanta GA Region Three October 20, 1989, Chicago IL Region Five November 10, 1989, Denver CO Region Six & Seven November 13, 1989, UC Berkeley CA RCI Announces Specification Competition sponsors first annual judging We are proud to announce the First Annual RCI Specifica¬ tion Competition. William B. Early, IRCA Inc., McHenry, IL chairs the Specification Competition Committee. The Committee will mail competition details and a Call for Specifications in October. We will recognize winners at the Annual Convention, in the Interface Newsletter and in trade journals. Subject to individual approval, we may dis¬ play the winning specifications at the Annual Convention. GenFlex Sponsors Fall Issue GenFlex Roofing Systems has manufactured and marketed both EPDM and PVC roofing systems since 1979 and recently added GenFlex RM, a reinforced heat sealable membrane system to its program. Utilizing the most current technology, GenFlex Roofing Systems offers high quality roofing systems that are specified, installed and maintained with confidence. GenFlex Roofing Systems – Taking Quality to New Heights. Newsletter of The Roof Consultants Institute
