RRPs Help Achieve the RoofPoint Designation for Roofing Projects

Your roof is an asset—an asset that protects your building and everything and everyone in it. So it’s important to get a high quality, environmentally friendly roof system for the lowest annualized cost. There is a new environmentally focused certification for roofing professionals to help building owners make informed decisions about their roofs. The certification
is the RoofPoint Registered Professional (RRP) program.


The RRP program adds to the suite of information from the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Environmental Innovation in Roofing (Center) and complements the RoofPoint certification program and its RoofPoint Guideline for Environmentally Innovative Nonresidential Roofing. In addition to the RoofPoint Guideline and certification program, the suite of information
includes the RoofPoint 2012 Energy and Carbon Calculator, the Center/PIMA Roof and Wall Thermal Design Guide, the Center/Spray Foam Coalition Spray Polyurethane Design Guidance document, and guideline documents from the Center’s PV Taskforce about racking and attachment criteria for integration of PV on low- and steep-slope roof systems. The RRP’s focus is to be fluent in the RoofPoint Guideline, however. (More information about RoofPoint and the Center is available in the May/June issue of this magazine, page 34.)

The Meridian Vineyards roof restoration in Paso Robles, Calif., was submitted by D.C. Taylor Co. and achieved a 17 within RoofPoint, as well as a 2011 RoofPoint Excellence in Design Award for Excellence in Materials Management.

The Meridian Vineyards roof restoration in Paso Robles, Calif., was submitted by D.C. Taylor
Co. and achieved a 17 within RoofPoint, as well as a 2011 RoofPoint Excellence in Design
Award for Excellence in Materials Management.


The RRP program is intended to provide individual certification for roofing professionals who are designing, specifying, constructing or managing sustainable roof installations certified under the RoofPoint Guideline. The RoofPoint project certification program was started several years ago and has certified hundreds of the most sustainable and environmentally friendly roof installations across the U.S. and North America.

Because many of the sustainable concepts in RoofPoint are likely new to many building owners seeking guidance in the selection of sustainable roofs, the RRP program provides an important link between the ultimate roofing customer—the building owner—and the green-building community, similar to the relationship between the LEED rating system and the LEED AP professional designation.

“RoofPoint Registered Professionals represent a dedicated group of professionals in the roofing industry who make contributions every day to sustainable construction and whose work helps to showcase the critical role roofs play in mitigating the impact buildings have on our environment,” says Center President Craig Silvertooth.

As ambassadors for RoofPoint, RRPs provide services to building owners, facility managers and other building designers interested in achieving the RoofPoint designation for their projects.


As a building owner, requesting a “RoofPoint roof” in an RFP for a new roof system accelerates the process of ensuring the design and installation of a sustainable roof system. Working directly with RoofPoint Registered Professionals can guarantee the installation of a sustainable roof. RRPs, because they understand the RoofPoint program and process, are capable of self-certifying a new roof as a RoofPoint roof.

A key feature to the RoofPoint program is acknowledgement of the excellent work done by every member of the project team with certificates or awards for the building owner, facility manager, architect or roof consultant, the general contractor, subcontractors and suppliers. Certificates can be awarded to the team as part of a formal or informal presentation.

“I recently had the opportunity to attend a reception sponsored by a charter member of the RRP program in Denver,” notes Jim Hoff, vice president of Research for the Center. “At the reception, we were able to recognize every member of the building team involved in a number of RoofPoint projects for the General Services Administration in Denver. In addition to the GSA’s chief roofing manager, we were able to recognize the roofing contractor, roof system manufacturer, and a number of key service and support organizations that made these award-winning roofing systems possible. RoofPoint and the RRP program really helped to acknowledge everyone involved in these outstanding projects.”

Honda Headquarters, Clermont, Fla., scored a 22 within RoofPoint for Tecta America and was recognized with a 2011 RoofPoint Excellence in Design Award, Honorable Mention for Excellence in Water Management.

Honda Headquarters,
Clermont, Fla., scored a 22
within RoofPoint for Tecta
America and was recognized with a 2011 RoofPoint Excellence in Design Award, Honorable Mention for Excellence in Water Management.

Furthering the marketing opportunity, a RoofPoint-certified roof is eligible for the Excellence in Design Awards (EDAs). EDAs are given annually to the best RoofPoint projects. The EDA categories include energy, water, material and life-cycle/durability management; global, community, private sector and public sector leadership; excellence in reroofing; and advanced sustainable roofing.


An RRP understands the RoofPoint Guideline and can identify the many ways current roofing systems provide economic value and protect the environment. An RRP will wade through the myriad roof system choices to establish design, installation and maintenance criteria for the selection of sustainable roof systems. An RRP understands how to recognize and validate roof system
selection and reward environmental innovation in roofing. An RRP can help analyze the energy and carbon savings by using the RoofPoint Energy and Carbon Calculator, which helps promote life-cycle costs in lieu of the traditional initial-cost basis for roof system selection.

“For over 20 years, I have worked to promote the value of sustainable roof system design and construction with durable, time-tested materials and construction-detail design, delineated graphically for long-term service life, which is the essence of sustainability,” explains Thomas W. Hutchinson, AIA, FRCI, RRC, principal of Hutchinson Design Group Ltd., Barrington, Ill.; a Roofing editorial advisor; and co-chair of CIB W083 Joint Committee on Roofing Materials and Systems, an international committee on sustainable low-slope roof systems. “The RoofPoint program and the RRP designation help me validate to my clients proven design standards and detailing, as well as help ensure my clients are getting the most durable and sustainable roof systems available.”

If you would like to learn more about RoofPoint and the RRP program, please visit the RoofPoint website, RoofPoint.org. It contains the following detailed materials:

    ▪▪ Information about the function, structure and content of the RoofPoint Guideline.
    ▪▪ A comprehensive database of all certified RoofPoint projects in North America.
    ▪▪ Detailed instructions how to become an RRP, including a free copy of the RRP Program Manual and application form.
    ▪▪ Free online training videos about RoofPoint, including “Introduction to RoofPoint”, “Scoring RoofPoint Projects” and “Submitting RoofPoint Projects”.

The Center encourages all building owners and facility managers to work with RRPs to obtain appropriate, environmentally friendly roof systems.

Local Branding Can Trump National Competitors

The marketing game can certainly be complex. With hundreds of tools, thousands of options and one big learning curve in between, it’s easy to be inundated.

Throw in some big conglomerate-sized competitors and it’s downright daunting.

Nevertheless, local contractors actually have an advantage. They are in an incredible position to build the very best of brands. All they need to do is start!


Why do people choose big-name brands over competitors? Because they know what to expect.

The bar is set pretty low for blowing customers out of the water with service, quality and efficiency. However, when you can create a truly great customer experience, people will remember it. Customers tend to expect greatness to come from those companies that put forth an appealing and professional image. Their branding gets remembered. And the brands that get remembered are usually the ones that succeed.

A major flaw that many small businesses and contractors fail to recognize is that their brand is not memorable. Maybe they use initials for their company name or have bland truck-wrap designs. Maybe their website looks like it was made in 1995 or their brochure is full of grammatical errors. Whatever the case may be, there is always room for improvement.

A big brand excites and reassures. It doesn’t lead to skepticism or distrust. You can beat out the bigger companies when it comes to delivering personable, reliable and memorable service in your community. You just need to get your visual presence to reflect that.

So how do you make that happen?


Customers want a service that’s human and personalized. But they also want an outfit that looks the part. The challenge is how to blend the two.

If you think aspects of your service, like tidy uniforms, clean service equipment and a slick-looking company truck, don’t matter, you’re severely missing out. Thoughtful service can help get your company’s reputation in good standing. Yet it’s only when you’ve got a brand that matches your high-quality service that you can expect to crush the competition.

Put customer woes to bed by taking hold of your brand and getting a professionally designed logo. The degree of aesthetic quality and industry-appropriate imagery will position your name as an immediate authority.


Does your website and digital presence reflect your most current services and information? In 2014, this is a must!

You lose customers when you default on your brand promise by providing misleading information or not living up to expectations. Ignorance of an error is no excuse; customers will be disappointed and frustrated when certain expectations are not met. This is business.

Pages: 1 2

From Screw-down to Standing-seam Metal Roofing

Time to reroof an old screw-down metal roof? Are you thinking about upgrading to a new standing-seam roof? Great idea! Today’s new standing-seam roofs are truly state-of-the-art; available in many profiles and finishes; and, more importantly, address many of the issues encountered in older generation screw-down metal roofs.

Caulk, roof coating and tar patches were used to cover leaking fasteners and panel end laps.

Caulk, roof coating and tar patches were used to cover leaking fasteners and panel end laps.

The screw-down metal roof and wall panel has been the backbone of the metal building industry since its inception and still represents a significant part of the total market. Screw-down panels are lightweight, durable, inexpensive and strong enough to span up to 5 feet between structural supports. Screw-down roofs and walls also have a wonderful physical property: The panels can and frequently are used as “diaphragm bracing,” securely holding the building’s roof purlins and wall girts in position, adding rigidity to the structure in much the same way drywall strengthens stud walls. This is a huge material—and labor—cost saver!

The early systems were not without problems, however; much of the technology we take for granted today did not exist in the early years of pre-engineered buildings. Many roofs during the late ’60s thru early ’80s were installed using 10-year life fasteners to secure a 30-plus-year life roof.

The fastener issue seems crazy today given the numerous inexpensive, long-life, weathertight, self-drilling screws available. Back when I started in the metal building industry, you could have the newly developed “self-drilling” cadmium fasteners or “self-tapping” stainless. Self-tapping meant you had to pre-drill a hole in the panel and purlin to install it—a much slower and more expensive process. Most of us used the less expensive but (unknown to us at the time) fairly short-life cadmium-coated fasteners and often never provided the option of a stainless upgrade to our customers.

Another shortcoming with screw-down roof panels is that, generally speaking, screw-down panels on metal buildings should be a maximum length of about 80 feet. Longer roof-panel runs frequently suffered rips or slots in the metal caused by expansion and contraction. Metal panels expand and contract at a rate of about 1 inch per 100 feet of panel run. This is normally absorbed by the back and forth rolling of the roof purlin and some panel bowing, but after 80 feet or so they can no longer absorb the movement resulting in trauma to the panels and trim. I have frequently seen this 80-foot limit exceeded.

a rusted fastener has caused the surrounding metal to corrode and fail.

A rusted fastener has caused the surrounding
metal to corrode and fail.

Standing-seam panels eliminate both of these shortcomings. The panels are attached to “sliding clips”. These clips are screwed to the purlins and seamed into the side laps of the panels securing them and thus the panels have very few, if any, exposed fasteners. The clips maintain a solid connection with the structure of the building while still allowing the panels, which can be 150 feet or longer, to move with expansion and contraction forces without damage.

This is great news for the building owner: You’re providing a more watertight roof, few if any penetrations, and expansion and contraction ability. It does come with a catch, however; standing-seam panels, because they move, do not provide diaphragm strength. The building’s roof purlins must have significantly more bridging and bracing to keep them in their correct and upright position. This is automatically taken care of in new building design but when it comes time to reroof an older building, removing the existing screw-down roof could remove the diaphragm bracing it once provided and make the building structurally unsound. Yes, that’s bad!


Pages: 1 2 3

Vapor Retarders

The need for, use and design of a vapor retarder in the design of a roof system used to be a hotly debated topic. It appears now—when vapor retarders are needed more than ever—the design community seems to have lost interest, which is not good, considering how codes and standards (altered through concerns for energy savings) have changed how buildings are designed, constructed and operated. Most notably, positive building pressures are changing the game.

If not controlled, constructiongenerated moisture can have deleterious effects on new roof systems.

PHOTO 1: If not controlled, construction-generated
moisture can have
deleterious effects on new
roof systems.

A vapor retarder is a material or system that is designed as part of the roof system to substantially reduce the movement of water vapor into the roof system, where it can condense. Everyone knows that water in roof systems is never a positive. Typically, a vapor retarder has to have a perm rating of 1.0 or less to be successful. Through my recent observations, the lack of or poorly constructed vapor retarders contribute to ice under the membrane, soaked insulation facers, destabilized insulation, rusting roof decks, dripping water down screw-fastener threads, compromised fiber board and perlite integrity, mold on organic facers and loss of adhesion on adhered systems, just to name a few. Oh, and did I fail to mention the litigation that follows?

The codes’ “air-barrier requirements” have confused roof system designers. Codes and standards are being driven by the need for energy savings and, as a consequence, buildings are becoming tighter and tighter, as well as more sophisticated. This article will discuss preventing air and vapor transport of interior conditioned air into the roof system and the need for a vapor retarder. The responsibility of incorporating a vapor retarder or air retarder into a roof system is that of the licensed design professional and not that of the contractor or roof system material supplier.

It should be noted that all vapor retarders are air barriers but not all air barriers are vapor retarders. In so much that the roof membrane can often serve as an air barrier, it does nothing to prevent this interior air transport.


So the question arises: “When is it prudent to use a vapor retarder?” This is not a simple question and has been complicated by codes, standards, costs and building construction, changing roof membranes and confusion about air barriers. Then, there is the difference in new-construction design and roof removal and replacement design. Historically, it was said that a vapor retarder should be used if the interior use of the building was “wet”, such as a pool room, kitchen, locker shower rooms, etc.; outside temperature in the winter was 40 F or below; or when in doubt, leave it out. In my experience, changes in the building and construction industry have now made the determination criteria more complex.

I find there are typically three primary scenarios that suggest a vapor barrier is prudent. The first is the interior use of the building. The second is consideration for the control of construction-generated moisture, so that the roof can make it to the building’s intended use (see photo 1). The third consideration is the sequence of construction. In all three situations I like to specify a robust vapor retarder that “dries in” the building so that interior work and construction work above the vapor retarder can take place without compromising the finished roof. Consider the following:


This characteristic is often the most determinant. If the interior use of the building requires conditioned air and has relative-humidity percentages great enough to condense if the exterior temperatures get cold enough, a vapor retarder is needed to prevent the movement of this conditioned air into the roof system where it can condense and become problematic.

Most designers consider building use only in their design thinking, and it is often in error as the roof system can be compromised during construction and commissioning (through interior building flushing, which can drive moist air into the roof system) before occupancy.

To seal two-ply asphaltic felts set in hot asphalt on a concrete roof deck, an asphaltic glaze coat was applied at the end of the day. Because of the inherent tackiness of the asphalt until it oxidizes, Hutch has been specifying a smooth-surfaced modified bitumen cap sheet, eliminating the glaze coat.

PHOTO 2: To seal two-ply asphaltic felts set in hot asphalt on a concrete roof deck, an asphaltic glaze coat was applied at the end of the day. Because of the
inherent tackiness of the asphalt until it oxidizes, Hutch has been specifying a smooth-surfaced modified bitumen cap
sheet, eliminating the glaze coat.


I have seen roof systems on office buildings severely compromised by construction- generated moisture caused by concrete pours, combustion heaters, block laying, fireproofing, drywall taping and painting. Thus, a simple vapor retarder should be considered in these situations to control rising moisture vapor during construction, which includes the flushing of the building if required for commissioning.


Building construction takes place year round. It is unfortunate decision makers in the roofing industry who are pushing low-VOC and/or water-based adhesives do not understand this; problems with their decisions are for another article. If the roof is to be installed in late fall (in the Midwest) and interior concrete work and/or large amounts of moisture-producing construction, such as concrete-block laying, plastering, drywall taping or painting, are to take place, a vapor retarder should be considered.

How will the building, especially the façades, be constructed? Will they be installed after the finished roof? This creates a scenario for a damaged “completed” roof system.

PHOTOS: Hutchinson Design Group Ltd.

Pages: 1 2 3

New VOC Regulations Threatened the Quality of Roofing Assemblies until the Roofing Industry Became Involved

Ellen Thorp, associate executive director of the EPDM Roofing Association, makes it a point to be responsive to the many inquiries she gets. Most deal with routine requests for information about EPDM, but one phone call Thorp fielded six years ago from one of ERA’s member companies stood out from the rest. Ultimately, it changed the way ERA and the roofing industry do business.

A manufacturer’s rep had heard from a customer in Connecticut that the state was about to implement VOC regulations. The problem: The new regulations would ban some of the adhesives, sealants, and primers essential to installing EPDM and other roofing products, and there were no substitute products available to meet the new standards. If the new regulations went into effect as scheduled, they threatened to negatively impact the safety and quality of roofing assemblies in the affected area and the roofing industry as a whole.

The proposed regulations were part of an effort by the Ozone Transport Commission, or OTC, to achieve federally mandated air-quality standards in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. The OTC was created under the Clean Air Act to develop solutions for the New England states, as well as Delaware; Maryland; New Jersey; New York; Pennsylvania; Virginia; and Washington, D.C. At the time of OTC’s creation, most of these states had not attained federally mandated ozone standards, and the region lagged behind other parts of the U.S. in achieving compliance.

As part of its initial work, OTC developed a Model Rule for Adhesives and Sealants, based on regulations used in California, incorporating provisions effective in the climactic and market conditions of that state. At the time of the phone call to Thorp, the OTC had released the model rule, and states were beginning to draft their own regulations that included implementation dates within the next year. “The VOC limits the OTC was proposing would have required products that did not exist in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic,” Thorp explains. “It was also concerning that they were basing the limits on California regulations. The climate in the Northeast is very different than in California, so we didn’t feel it was good science to be creating a model rule based on a place that had a completely different climate.”

Thorp and the ERA member companies were very interested in working with state regulators. “It certainly is our priority to reduce VOC emissions wherever possible, but it also is important to us to have regulations that our industry could work with and are based on the best available science,” she says. In fact, products that would meet the new regulations were in development but were not yet available. In addition, the new adhesives and sealants would require new or modified application techniques. That meant the roofing industry needed time to train thousands of roofing contractors.

ERA’s first step was to support its assertion that the climate of the Northeast differed dramatically from that of California. ERA hired Jim Hoff of Tegnos Research Inc. to review weather data and the effects the weather has on low-VOC products. “At ERA’s expense, we assembled relevant scientific data and provided it to the state regulators,” Thorp adds.

ERA worked with regulators in each state, sharing the results of its research. ERA provided the state environmental protection and air quality bureaus with detailed information about what sealants were available and explained the time needed to train roofing contractors. Working together, the regulatory bodies and ERA were able to agree on a phased-in or seasonal approach. For instance, in a majority of the states, the new low-VOC products were required initially only in the summer for three months. The year after, they were required for five months. Then, the following year, they were required year-round. Once these states had found success with this approach, others followed suit. “We explained to the regulators the importance of being consistent since many roofing companies do work across multiple states, especially in the Northeast where the states are small and roofing companies are likely to work across state lines,” Thorp notes.

Pages: 1 2

A Roofer’s Guide to Safely Navigating an OSHA Inspection

Almost every American can recite his or her Miranda rights. We have all seen enough cop dramas and world’s wildest police chases on prime-time television to know that when the police, FBI or other law-enforcement agencies get involved that we have the right to remain silent, and we know that everything we say can and will be used against us in a court of law. Unfortunately, many roofing contractors in the construction industry do not remember their rights when an OSHA inspector arrives at their job sites, and this can lead to hefty fines. It is very important for residential and commercial roofing contractors to remember OSHA inspectors are adversaries when they visit your job site, and they are not inspecting your equipment and interviewing the crew out of curiosity. When an OSHA inspector arrives onsite, he or she is usually there to gather evidence to issue a citation.

One of the most discouraging situations that we have seen from OSHA’s recent push for larger fines and more citations occurs when honest men and women in the roofing industry open their arms to OSHA inspectors who arrive at the job. Roofing contractors and their crews are not criminals, and most truly have nothing to hide. The majority of contractors in the industry are hesitant to take a firm stance against an apparently well-to-do government agent on their job site. However, a roofer who opens up and allows OSHA inspectors free and unlimited access to a construction site is making a costly mistake. Therefore, it is important to remember that when OSHA visits on your next project, there are a few key questions that every roofing contractor needs to be able to answer about the inspection.


OSHA will investigate a job site for a number of reasons. Inspectors will show up if an employee has issued a complaint against you, if there is a recent fatality or if there is an imminent threat identified. However, in recent months, OSHA has been after
the residential and commercial roofing industry through a systematic targeting method. The dangers of fall-related injuries in the industry have been well-documented, and this has prompted inspectors in your area to be on the lookout for roofers. Additionally, roofers are the easiest to cite due to the fact that roofing is a highly visible construction trade and an inspector does not have to use much effort to determine the likelihood of a dangerous situation that needs inspecting.


First and foremost, you need to know that OSHA has a legal right to inspect your job site. OSHA has what is called “administrative probable cause” to inspect and investigate your project. OSHA’s probable cause is more easily obtained than that of other agencies. An officer of city, state or federal law enforcement needs a much more specific probable cause to enter a private citizen’s property. When an active construction job is taking place, there is an inherent risk of danger and injury, and this gives OSHA all the administrative probable cause it needs.

This is not to say that you or your site superintendent does not have the right to deny OSHA access to the project and demand that the inspector get a warrant. The site superintendent has the option to consent to OSHA’s inspection or deny the inspector access to the project. The superintendent is well within his or her rights to tell the inspector to get a warrant. This is not an easy fix, however. If you tell OSHA to get a warrant, it most certainly will. Because of OSHA’s broad power to oversee safety within the U.S., the agency can obtain a warrant from a judge or magistrate. Once OSHA obtains a warrant for a site inspection, its inspection can become much more invasive. This means OSHA inspectors can get permission from a judge to examine documents; conduct extensive interviews; and also perform scientific tests on items, such as air quality, presence of combustible material or any other danger.

The bottom line is that it is rarely a good idea to tell an OSHA compliance officer to get a warrant. The reasoning behind this has to do with the scope of OSHA’s inspection rights under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The CFR demands that OSHA’s inspection be “reasonable.” This essentially means that the agency is limited to inspect only the men, equipment and materials that are within “plain sight.” “Plain sight” is a doctrine borrowed from criminal law and the Fourth Amendment, which says that a government agent may not sample or manipulate anything that is not within his or her reasonable line of sight. If an agent violates this doctrine, it is possible all the information he or she obtained during the inspection may be suspect.

Pages: 1 2

Substrate Boards

The third installment in my series on the roof system is about the substrate board. (To read my first two articles, “Roofs Are Systems” and “Roof Decks”, see the January/February issue, page 52, and the March/April issue, page 54, respectively.) For the purpose of this article, we will define the substrate board as the material that is placed upon the roof deck prior to the placement of thermal insulation. It often is used in part to support vapor retarders and air barriers (which will be discussed in my next article in the September/October issue).

The type of substrate board should be chosen based on the roof-deck type, interior building use, installation time of year and the cover material to be placed upon it.

The type of substrate board should be chosen based on the roof-deck type, interior building
use, installation time of year and the cover material to be placed upon it.

Substrate boards come in many differing material compositions:
• Gypsum Board
• Modified Fiber Reinforced Gypsum
• Plywood
• High-density Wood Fiber
• Mineral Fiber
• Perlite

Substrate boards come in varying thicknesses, as well: 1/4 inch, 1/2 inch, 5/8 inch and 1 inch. The thickness is often chosen based on the need for the board to provide integrity over the roof deck, such as at flute spans on steel roof decks.


The type of substrate board should be chosen based on the roof-deck type, interior building use, installation time of year and the cover material to be placed upon it. For example, vapor retarder versus thermal insulation and the method of attachment. Vapor retarders can be adhered with asphalt, spray foam, bonding adhesive, etc. The substrate board must be compatible with these. You wouldn’t want to place a self-adhering vapor retarder on perlite or hardboard because the surface particulate is easily parted from the board. Meanwhile, hot asphalt would impregnate the board and tie the vapor-retarder felts in better. The substrate board must have structural integrity over the flutes when installed on steel roof decks. The modified gypsum boards at 1/2 inch can do this; fiberboards cannot. If the insulation is to be mechanically fastened, a substrate board may not be required.

It should be more common to increase the number of fasteners to prevent deformation of the board, which will affect the roof system’s performance.

It should be more common to increase the number of fasteners to prevent deformation of the board, which will affect the roof system’s performance.

The substrate board should be able to withstand construction-generated moisture that may/can be driven into the board. Note: In northern climates, a dew-point analysis is required to determine the correct amount of insulation above the substrate board and vapor retarder, so condensation does not occur below the vapor retarder and in the substrate board.

Substrate boards are often placed on the roof deck and a vapor retarder installed upon them. This condition is often used to temporarily get the building “in the dry”. This temporary roof then is often used as a work platform for other trades, such as masonry, carpentry, glazers and ironworkers, to name a few. The temporary roof also is asked to support material storage. Consequently, the substrate board must be tough enough to resist these activities.

The most common use of a substrate board is on steel and wood decks. On steel roof decks, the substrate board provides a continuous smooth surface to place an air or vapor retarder onto. It also can provide a surface to which the insulation above can be adhered. Substrate boards on wood decks (plywood, OSB, planking) are used to increase fire resistance, prevent adhesive from dripping into the interior, provide a clean and acceptable surface onto which an air or vapor retarder can be adhered, or as a surface onto which the insulation can be adhered.


Pages: 1 2

The NRCA ProForeman Certificate Program Helps Roofing Contractors Invest in Their Foremen

High Life Speedboats was experiencing a problem with its newest model speedboat engine, which, when hitting top speeds, would frequently cut out. This resulted in boats that were traveling 60 mph to be almost dead in the water within seconds. More than once, someone had been seriously injured by being thrown off balance, crashing into onboard components or being thrown overboard.

Panache Speedboats also was trying to improve its engines. The company had been in business for two decades and was known for building reliable boats. With operations systematized and production running in turnkey mode, company engineers wanted to explore the possibilities of building a higher-performance engine and securing Panache a spot in the elite racing market.

There are two equal and opposite drives for improvement in both of these cases. High Life needs to improve; its product is unreliable and the company will ultimately go out of business—not to mention people may be hurt and killed if steps are not taken. Panache wants to improve; it has a reliable product but it’s not as good as it could be.

So, now you may be asking, “How does this relate to the roofing industry?”

Most reputable roofing contractors are not like High Life. Their roof systems don’t fail outright, causing damage and ruining companies’ reputations. Most roofing contractors are Panache engines. They are reliable and their roof systems serve customers well.

But if you have the itch, like Panache, to increase performance, then you have a drive to improve for the best reason— because you want to be better. You are not panicking. You are planning. You want to see whether you can shape your company to become an elite contracting company, known for its excellence.

Thoughtful contractors will consider what investments will yield the most significant returns for their companies. New equipment? A better facility? Increasing the types of systems they install?

Consider the following statement from Ethan Cowles of Raleigh, N.C.-based management consultant FMI: “World-class contractors all have incredible talent at the foremen level. That is not to say company leadership, business strategy, project management, etc., are not important, but operations without great foremen always struggle to achieve anything but mediocrity.”


Cowles’ quote resonates with what the Rosemont, Ill.-based National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) has heard from its contractor members, as well. Tom Shanahan, NRCA’s associate executive director of risk management, states that after asking hundreds of contractors over the years how much of each dollar flowing through a company is affected directly by foremen, he has safely landed on 85 cents. Eighty-five cents of every dollar.

Foremen drive your trucks, use your equipment, manage your labor, direct quality control, affect insurance rates and often are the face of your company for customers.


It makes you want to ensure your foremen are high-performance engines, doesn’t it?

NRCA has been focused for years on providing education for roofing foremen. Recognizing that most foremen are promoted into their positions because of their roofing skills and work ethic, rather than for their leadership prowess, For Foremen Only has provided a venue for training thousands of foremen about leadership and communication during the past 15 years. Now, packaged within this larger ProForeman initiative, the classes provide a cornerstone for a well-rounded experience aimed at helping roofing-contractor operations to achieve world-class excellence.

Foremen need to be leaders, not just crew managers; therefore, they need to understand the whole picture—the process of selling and installing roof systems, their role in keeping employees safe, outside forces that necessitate compliance and more—if they are to understand the importance of their role.

The ProForeman program is designed to help roofing foremen shift their perspectives of their role from being roofing installation managers to company leaders. As leaders, the burden of responsibility is greater and, when understood, frees them to think differently about how to work with their crews and their supervisors.

The ProForeman program comprises six main topics:

    • General education
    • Roofing technology
    • Construction/business practices
    • Leadership
    • Safety
    • Training others

Pages: 1 2

Wind Loading on Rooftop Equipment

I recently attended a continuing-education conference for civil/structural engineers that discussed changes in the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) and the referenced ASCE 7-10 “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures”. During the seminar, the question was asked: “Who is responsible for the design of wind loading to rooftop equipment as defined in the IBC and Chapter 29 of ASCE 7-10?” The most accepted response was to add a section in the structural general notes that wind design on rooftop equipment is to be designed “by others”.

A structural engineer designed the metal support system and load transfer from the new HVAC unit down through the structure.

A structural engineer designed the metal support system and load transfer from the new
HVAC unit down through the structure.

The design requirements for wind loading on rooftop equipment have been included in previous editions of the IBC and ASCE 7, but significant changes have been included in ASCE 7-10. The increased attention is in part because of more severe wind events in recent years. While it is not the primary responsibility of the roofing consultant or contractor to evaluate the systems being placed on the roof, it is good to understand the code’s requirements for loading to rooftop equipment, how the load is determined and applied, and how the load is transferred to the building structure.


The primary focus of the roofing professional in the IBC is concentrated on Chapter 15 (Roof Assemblies). While there are requirements in Chapter 15 addressing rooftop structures, these requirements, particularly in relation to wind loading, extend beyond Chapter 15. It is therefore imperative to be familiar with other sections of the code.

For instance, Section 1504 (Performance Requirements) refers the user multiple times to Chapter 16 (Structural Design) for wind-loading-design requirements. While roof manufacturers typically prequalify their systems based on various industry standards (ASTM, FM, ANSI, etc.), rooftop equipment supports are not typically prequalified because of the variability of placement and conditions. Similarly, new to this code cycle, Section 1509.7.1 includes the requirement for wind resistance for rooftop-mounted photovoltaic systems per Chapter 16 of the IBC. Other industries or trades have similar requirements. Section 301.15 of the 2012 International Mechanical Code and Section 301.10 of the 2012 Fuel and Gas Code require “equipment and supports that are exposed to wind shall be designed to resist the wind pressures in accordance with the IBC”.

Section 1609 of Chapter 16 (Wind Loads) applies to wind loading on every building or structure. Section 1609.1.1 provides two design options. The designer can use chapters 26 to 30 of ASCE 7-10 or Section 1609.6 of the IBC. Note however that Section 1609.6 is based on the design procedures used in Chapter 27 of ASCE 7-10, which does not address wind loading on rooftop equipment and thus is not applicable. Chapter 29 of ASCE 7-10 (Wind Loading on Other Structure and Building Appurtenances) contains the procedures used to determine wind loading on rooftop structures and equipment.


Properly specified ballasting blocks are designed and formed to better address the freeze/thaw cycle.

Properly specified ballasting blocks are designed and formed to better address the freeze/thaw cycle.

To determine wind loading on rooftop equipment, the first step is to identify the building Risk Category (formerly the Occupancy Category) and the building location. The Risk Category is determined from Section 1604.5 and Table 1604.5 of the IBC or Table 1.5-1 of ASCE 7-10. There are slight variations in the two codes but typically each will produce the same Risk Category.

The Risk Category and the location are then used to determine the design wind speed based on published wind-speed maps, available in Section 1609.3, figures 1609 A to C of the IBC, or Section 26.5.1, figures 26.5-1 A to C of ASCE 7-10. It can be difficult to read these maps to select the appropriate wind contour line, specifically along the East Coast. The Redwood City, Calif.-based Applied Technology Council (ATC), a non-profit that advances engineering applications for hazard mitigation, has digitized the maps providing a valuable resource for determining design wind speeds by GPS coordinates or the building’s address. Visit ATC’s wind-speed website. Note however that it is always advisable to cross check this design wind speed with the maps in the adopted code or with the local building authority.


Pages: 1 2

The Success of Your New (Replacement) Roof Depends on Adjacent and Connected Elements, including Masonry

Although the name of this publication is Roofing, the roofing/waterproofing/construction industry recognizes more and more that the building envelope is a fully integrated and interrelated assembly of systems.

masonry cracks due to freeze thaw

Click to view larger version

As such, I feel the need to discuss the importance of water resistance and structural integrity in existing wall surfaces, which are adjacent and connected to your project’s new (replacement) roof system. The focus of this article is not how to design a replacement roof system but how to address adjacent masonry to ensure it doesn’t work against the success of the new roof.

These principles actually apply to any wall system that connects, generally above and adjacent, to your roof, but masonry poses some distinct concerns. Water intrusion, thermal movement and structural integrity of this masonry, along with locations of embedded flashing, all come into play as the new roof system is properly integrated into the adjacent rising wall, parapet wall or even perimeter edge wall beneath the roof.


Thomas W. Hutchinson, AIA, FRCI, RRC, a regular Roofing contributor, has said, “long-term service life is the true essence of sustainability”. Moreover, designers specify (for owners to buy) warranties of 20, 25 years or more with new roof systems. It’s just good common sense that you can’t allow a new roof to be jeopardized by water intrusion from an adjacent system because of an oversight in the original analysis of the situation.

Many of us have been called by an owner who says his or her new roof is leaking, only to find roof-mounted equipment or an unrelated system is actually leaking. However, if the leak is stemming from another aspect of the building envelope, such as an adjacent parapet or rising wall, which is now jeopardizing the investment made on a new roof, that you (the designer) should have foreseen, it makes for a very difficult position. The roofing system manufacturer, who holds the warranty, and the owner are going to look at you as being responsible.


Click to view larger version

Let’s examine three common occurrences using actual case studies. All three situations, which occurred on schools in the Northeast, exemplify the condition of adjacent masonry was deficient and had to be corrected, adding a significant degree of scope and cost to the project to guarantee a roof design that would perform over the long haul. These three cases cover:
1. Repairing the masonry and covering it.
2. Altering the masonry to change the location of embedded flashings.
3. Replacing structurally unsound/failed masonry with another material.

Pages: 1 2 3