SPRI Elects Sukle as President for 2018-2020 Term

SPRI has selected Zebonie Sukle as President for the 2018-2020 term. SPRI’s members elected Sukle at the association’s 36th Annual Conference and Business Meeting, held Jan. 13-15 in Clearwater Beach, FL.

Sukle currently serves as Director of Technology Roofing Systems Group at Johns Manville, a Berkshire Hathaway Company in Denver, CO.

“I am honored and excited to enter such a role at SPRI and I look forward to working with all of our members to continue SPRI’s work of developing industry standards and expanding our technical reach.” says Sukle.

During the meeting, SPRI’s membership also elected the following slate of officers and directors for the association’s 2018-2020 membership years:

  • President, Zebonie Sukle, Johns Manville
  • President-elect, Michael Hubbard, Firestone Building Products Co, LLC
  • Treasurer, Brad Van Dam, Metal-Era Inc.

Associate Directors

  • Bob Reel, Royal Adhesives (third term)
  • CJ Sharp, Georgia-Pacific (second term)
  • Brad Van Dam (second term)
  • Chris Mader, OMG Roofing Products

SPRI also recognized two of its members for outstanding contributions to the industry. Peter C. Garrigus, Vice President Engineering at Altenloh Brink & Co., Inc., was recognized for his thought-leadership and dedication in facilitating the development of an industry coalition charged with determining the impact on wind loads on flexible roofs systems and to develop appropriate load factors to apply to wind loads calculated by ASCE7. Garrigus was also recognized for his service on the SPRI Board of Directors.

Also recognized was Michelle Miller, Marketing Manager at FiberTite Roofing Solutions, for the guidance she provided in development of SPRI’s new website with an eye toward content relevance and the next generation of users. Michelle started from the design base and applied her marketing skills to shape the site into a vehicle to educate and promote our industry partners

For more information, visit www.spri.org.

SPRI Updates and Improves Roof Edge Standards

Low-slope metal perimeter edge details, including fascia, coping and gutters, are critical systems that can strongly impact the long-term performance of single-ply roofs. Photo: Johns Manville

The effect of high winds on roofs is a complex phenomenon, and inadequate wind uplift design is a common factor in roofing failures. Damage from wind events has historically been dramatic, and wind-induced roof failure is one of the major contributors to insurance claims.

Roofing professionals have long recognized the importance of proper low-slope roof edge and gutter designs, particularly in high-wind conditions. For this reason, SPRI, the association representing sheet membrane and component suppliers to the commercial roofing industry, has spent more than a decade enhancing testing and design standards for these roofing details.

SPRI introduced the first version of its landmark standard, ANSI/SPRI/ES-1 “Wind Design Standard for Edge Systems Used with Low Slope Roofing Systems” in 1998. Since then, the association has continually revised, re-designated and re-approved the document as an ANSI (American National Standards Institute) standard.

Testing of edge securement per ANSI/SPRI ES-1 is required per the International Building Code (IBC), which has been adopted by every state in the country.

This standard provides the basic requirements for wind-load resistance design and testing for roof-edge securement, perimeter edge systems, and nailers. It also provides minimum edge system material thicknesses that lead to satisfactory flatness, and designs to minimize corrosion.

Construction professionals have been successfully using the standard, along with the specifications and requirements of roofing membrane and edge system manufacturers to strengthen their wind designs.

Until recently, the biggest news on the wind design front was the approval of ANSI/SPRI/FM 4435/ES-1, “Wind Design Standard for Edge Systems Used with Low-slope Roofing Systems.” Let’s call it “4435/ES-1” for short. SPRI knew recent post-hurricane investigations by the Roofing Industry Committee on Weather Issues (RICOWI) and investigations of losses by FM Global consistently showed that, in many cases, damage to a low-slope roof system during high-wind events begins when the edge of the assembly becomes disengaged from the building. Once this occurs, the components of the roof system (membrane, insulation, etc.) are exposed. Damage then propagates across the entire roof system by peeling of the roof membrane, insulation, or a combination of the two.

Recognizing that edge metal is a leading cause of roof failures, SPRI has redoubled its efforts to create a series of new and revised documents for ANSI approval. As has always been the case, ANSI endorsement is a critical step toward the ultimate goal of getting these design criteria included in the IBC.

A Systems Approach to Enhancing Roof Edge Design

Roofing professionals understand that successful roof design requires the proper integration of a wide variety of roofing materials and components. For years, leading roofing manufacturers have taken a “systems” approach to their product lines. Recently, SPRI has zeroed in on the roof edge. Low-slope, metal perimeter edge details include fascia, coping and gutters, are critical systems that can strongly impact the long-term performance of single-ply roofs.

As part of the ES-1 testing protocol, RE-3 tests upward and outward simultaneous pull of a horizontal and vertical flanges of a parapet coping cap. Photo: OMG Edge Systems

SPRI first addressed roof gutters in 2010 with the development of ANSI/SPRI GD-1. The testing component of this document was recently separated out to create a test standard and a design standard. The test standard, GT-1, “Test Standard for Gutter Systems,” which was approved as an American National Standard on May 25, 2016.

Similarly, SPRI has revised 4435/ES-1 to only be a test standard.

Making both edge standards (4435/ES-1 and GT-1) into standalone testing documents makes it easier for designers, contractors and building code officials to reference the testing requirements needed for metal roof edge systems.

IBC requires that perimeter edge metal fascia and coping (excluding gutters), be tested per the three test methods, referred to as RE-1, RE-2 and RE-3 in the ES-1 standard. The design elements of ES-1 were never referenced in code, which caused some confusion as to how ES-1 was to be applied. The latest version of 4435/ES-1 (2017) only includes the tests referenced in code to eliminate that confusion.

Test methods in 4435/ES-1 2017 have the same names (RE-1, RE-2, and RE-3), and use the same test method as 4435/ES-1 2011. Because there are no changes to the test methods, any edge system tested to the 2011 version would not need to be retested using the 2017 version.

FM Global’s input was instrumental in the changes in 2011 when ANSI/SPRI ES-1 incorporated components of FM 4435 to become 4435/ES-1. However, there are no additional FM related changes in the latest 4435/ES-1 standard.

This gravel stop is being tested according to the ANSI/SPRI ES-1 standard using the RE-2 test for fascia systems. Photo: OMG Edge Systems

Per ANSI requirements, 4435/ES-1 2011 needed to be re-balloted, which is required by ANSI every five years. SPRI took this opportunity to have it approved as a test standard only to eliminate the confusion referenced above. FM Global was consulted and indicated it wanted to keep “FM” in the title. (FM was on the canvas list for the test standard and actually uses it as its own test standard.)

With 4435/ES-1 becoming a test standard for coping and fascia only, and GT-1 being a test standard for gutters, SPRI determined that a separate edge design standard was needed. Meet ED-1, a design standard for metal perimeter edge systems.

The design portions of the ES-1 edge and the GD-1 gutter standards have been combined and are now referenced by SPRI as ED-1. It has been developed and is currently being canvassed as an ANSI standard that will provide guidance for designing all perimeter edge metal including fascia, coping, and gutters.

ED-1 will be canvassed per the ANSI process later this year. However, SPRI is not planning to submit ED-1 for code approval.

SPRI ED-1 will include:

Material Design

  • Nailer attachment
  • Proper coverage
  • Recommended material thicknesses
  • Galvanic compatibility
  • Thermal movement
  • Testing requirements
  • “Appliance” attachment to edge systems

Limited Wind Design

  • Load to be required by the Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).
  • Tables similar to those included in 4435/ES-1 will be included for reference.

If this sounds a tad complex, imagine the design work required by the dedicated members of SPRI’s various subcommittees.

The Test Methods in Detail

The GT-1 standard is the newest, so let’s tackle this one first. As noted above, the ANSI/SPRI GT-1 test standard was developed by SPRI and received ANSI Approval in May of 2016. Testing of roof gutters is not currently required by IBC; however, field observations of numerous gutter failures in moderate to high winds, along with investigations by RICOWI following hurricanes have shown that improperly designed or installed gutters frequently fail in high wind events. GT-1 provides a test method that can be used by manufacturers of gutters, including contractors that brake or roll-form gutters, to determine if the gutter will resist wind design loads. Installing gutters tested to resist anticipated wind forces can give contractors peace of mind, and may provide a competitive advantage when presented to the building owner.

This gutter is being tested using the test method specified in ANSI/SPRI GD-1, “Design Standard for Gutter Systems Used with Low-Slope Roofs.” Photo: OMG Edge Systems

GT-1 tests full size and length samples (maximum 12 feet 0 inches) of gutter with brackets, straps, and fasteners installed per the gutter design. It is critical that the gutter be installed with the same brackets, straps, and fasteners, at the same spacing and locations as per the tested design to assure the gutter will perform in the field as tested. The fabricator should also label the gutter and/or provide documentation that the gutter system has been tested per GT-1 to resist the design loads required.

GT-1 consists primarily of three test methods (G-1, G-2, and G-3). Test method G-1 tests the resistance to wind loads acting outwardly on the face of the gutter, and G-2 tests the resistance to wind loads acting upwardly on the bottom of the gutter. G-3 tests resistance to the loads of ice and water acting downwardly on the bottom of the gutter.

Tests G-1 and G-2 are cycled (load, relax, increase load) tests to failure in both the original GD-1 standard and the new GT-1. The only change being that in GD-1 the loads are increased in increments of 10 lbf/ft2 (pound force per square foot) from 0 to failure, and in GT-1 they are increased in increments of 15 lbs/lf (pounds per linear foot) from 0 to 60 lbs/lf, then in 5 lbs/lf increments from above 60 lbs/lf to failure.

Note also that the units changed from lbf/ft2 (pound force per square foot) to lbs/lf (pounds per linear foot), which was done so that the tests could be run using the test apparatus loads without having to convert to pressures.

The GT-1 standard specifies a laboratory method for static testing external gutters. However, testing of gutters with a circular cross-section is not addressed in the standard, nor does the standard address water removal or the water-carrying capability of the gutter. In addition, downspouts and leaders are not included in the scope of the standard.

SPRI intends to submit ANSI/SPRI GT-1 for adoption in the next IBC code cycle.

As referenced above, IBC requires that perimeter edge metal (fascia and coping), excluding gutters, be tested per three test methods, referred to as RE-1, RE-2 and RE-3 in the ES-1 standard.

RE-1 tests the ability of the edge to secure a billowing membrane, and is only required for mechanically attached or ballasted membrane roof systems when there is no peel stop (seam plate or fasteners within 12 inches of the roof edge). RE-2 tests the outward pull for the horizontal face of an edge device. RE-3 tests upward and outward simultaneous pull on the horizontal and vertical sides of a parapet coping cap.

Calculating Roof Edge Design Pressures

All versions of ANSI/SPRI ES-1 and ANSI/SPRI GD-1, the 2011 version of ANSI/SPRI 4435/ES-1, and the new ED-1 standard all provide design information for calculating roof edge design pressures. These design calculations are based on ASCE7 (2005 and earlier), and consider the wind speed, building height, building exposure (terrain), and building use.

A gravel stop failure observed during roof inspections after Hurricane Ike in Sept. 2008. Photo: OMG Edge Systems

However, as stated above, IBC requires that the load calculation be per Chapter 16 of code, so the SPRI design standards are intended only as a reference for designers, fabricators, and installers of metal roof edge systems.

ES-1-tested edge metal is currently available from pre-manufactured suppliers, membrane manufacturers and metal fabricators that have tested their products at an approved laboratory.

The roofing contractor can also shop-fabricate edge metal, as long as the final product is tested by an approved testing service. The National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) has performed lab testing and maintains a certification listing for specific edge metal flashings using Intertek Testing Services, N.A. Visit www. nrca.net/rp/technical/details/files/its details.pdf for further details.

A list of shop fabricators that have obtained a sub-listing from NRCA to fabricate the tested edge metal products are also available at www. nrca.net/rp/technical/details/files/its details/authfab.aspx.

SPRI Continues to Take Lead Role in Wind Testing

As far back as 1998, SPRI broke ground with its ANSI/SPRI/ES-1 document addressing design and testing of low-slope perimeter edge metal. Today, the trade association has a variety of design documents at the roofing professional’s disposal, and is working to get ED-1 approved as an Edge Design Standard to be used for low-slope metal perimeter edge components that include fascia, coping and gutters.

All current and previously approved ANSI/SPRI standards can be accessed directly by visiting https://www.spri.org/publications/policy.htm.

For more information about SPRI and its activities, visit www.spri.org or contact the association at info@spri.org.

RICOWI to Host Underlayment Seminar on March 17

The underlayment systems play a vital role in today’s roof designs for long-term performance. The challenges of selecting the right materials, application techniques and performance criteria can be challenging to the roofing professional. RICOWI‘s Spring Seminar, which will be held March 17, 2017, in Anaheim, Calif., will provide an in-depth look at the two styles of underlayments—organic and synthetic—that might be used in low- and steep-slope roof designs. This seminar will touch upon the product designs, product approvals and code language that address how to select and properly use these various underlayment products in roof system applications.

Underlayment Speakers
Organic Underlayment: Doug Thagard, Fontana Paper Mills
Synthetic Underlayment: Mark Strait, Synthetic Roof Underlayment Institute

When underlayments are installed as part of a roof system, they may have special requirements for how they are designed, selected and installed to meet the anticipated roof performance. To better understand the relationship of the components, the speakers will cover the various styles of roof applications that will help inform the audience of best practices from the various industry associations.

Association Speakers
Low-slope Underlayment Applications: Mike Ennis, SPRI
Steep-slope Underlayment Applications:

For more information, visit RICOWI’s website or contact Joan Cook, executive director, at (330) 671-4569.

Research Helps Industry Organizations Conclude Ballasted Roofs Provide Energy Savings

During the last decade, the roofing industry has been increasingly impacted by two strong forces: first, rising energy prices with no real end in sight, and, second, increasingly stringent building codes and regulations, designed to limit emissions, reduce energy use and mitigate the impact of urban heat islands.

The first definitive study to measure the energy-saving potential of ballasted roofs was done at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., in 2007.

The first definitive study to measure the energy-saving potential of ballasted roofs was done at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., in 2007. PHOTO: EPDM Roofing Association

The industry response has also been two-fold: In some instances, new products have been created, such as lower VOC adhesives, primers and sealants, self-adhering membranes and a wider variety of reflective membranes. At the same time, roofing professionals have taken a close look at some of the products that have been in use for a generation. Using rigorous science, they have tested these tried-and-true products to see how they measure up against the new standards. And in many cases, they’ve found that products that have been in use for decades are delivering great results in this new, energy-sensitive environment. Case in point: ballasted roofing, which has been available since the early 1970s, is turning out to be a great choice to meet 21st century needs.

2007 Study

The first definitive study to measure the energy-saving potential of ballasted roofs was done at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., in 2007. Andre Desjarlais, ORNL’s group leader of Building Envelope Research, and his colleagues had just completed work in which “we had done a fairly substantial comparison of different cool roof technologies, both membrane types, as well as coatings,” Desjarlais says. At the request of EPDM manufacturers, working together at the newly founded EPDM Roofing Association (ERA), Bethesda, Md., as well as manufacturers within Waltham, Mass.-based SPRI, Desjarlais designed and implemented a second study to assess the performance of ballasted roofing. “We undertook a study to effectively expand what we had done earlier on coatings and membranes,” he says.

Other factors also encouraged ORNL to generate data about ballasted roofing. The California Energy Commission, Sacramento, had just revised its codes, essentially defining roofs with high reflectance and high emittance as the only choice of roofing membranes that would deliver high energy savings. Desjarlais believed this definition of a “cool roof” might be inaccurately limiting roofing choice by excluding other roofing materials, such as ballasted roofs, that would deliver comparable savings.

The California Energy Commission, Sacramento, had just revised its codes, essentially defining roofs with high reflectance and high emittance as the only choice of roofing membranes that would deliver high energy savings.

The California Energy Commission, Sacramento, had just revised its codes, essentially defining roofs with high reflectance and high emittance as the only choice of roofing membranes that would deliver high energy savings. PHOTO: EPDM Roofing Association

In addition, in Chicago, a new Chicago Energy Code was adopted as early as 2001 “with high reflectivity and emissivity requirements that limited severely building owners’ and managers’ roof system choices”, according to a paper presented in 2011 by Bill McHugh of the Chicago Roofing Contractors Association. At the roofing industry’s request, a reprieve was granted, giving the industry until 2009 to come up with products with a reflectivity of 0.25.

Faced with that 2009 deadline, the Chicagoland Roofing Council, Chicago Roofing Contractors Association and Rosemont, Ill.-based National Roofing Contractors Association began in 2001 to conduct research on products that would help to meet the city’s goal of creating a workable Urban Heat Island Effect Ordinance while giving building owners a wider choice of roofing products. As part of their effort, the industry coalition turned its attention to the energy-saving qualities of ballasted roofing and coordinated its work with the research at ORNL.

Desjarlais points out the concept of thermal mass having energy benefits has been accepted for years and has been a part of the early version of ASHRAE 90.1. “Thermally massive walls have a lower insulation requirement, so there was industry acceptance of the fact that using mass is a way of saving energy,” he says. “But we had a hard time translating that understanding from a wall to a roof. Whether you do that with a concrete block or a bunch of rocks doesn’t really matter. The metric is no different. Roofs or walls.”

Pages: 1 2

SPRI Bulletin Addresses Code Evaluations for Roofing Products

Waltham, Mass.-based SPRI’s latest informational Bulletin (No. 1-15) updates building code officials, specifiers, building owners and others on code evaluations and product approval requirements for roofing products. The bulletin centers on the requirements of the international codes as they relate to membrane roof covering systems. SPRI represents sheet membrane and component suppliers to the commercial roofing industry.

The bulletin is designed to update building code officials and members of the International Code Council (ICC) on the various ways roofing manufacturers can provide evidence of code compliance. The bulletin considers products that are referenced in the code, as well as new and innovative roofing products and assemblies. The SPRI Bulletin zeroes in on some practical options available to the building official or Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).

In Bulletin No. 1-15, SPRI points out that Research Reports are not mandatory for single-ply roofing membranes that comply with standards referenced in the codes. Research Reports from approved sources are intended to assist in the approval of materials or assemblies not specifically provided for in the code. Therefore, the AHJ should not insist on a Research Report for a membrane roof system if the manufacturer has data available for the AHJ to review.

“Code officials are increasingly asking for a Research Report from single-ply roofing manufacturers to demonstrate code compliance,” says SPRI member Michael Beaton of Intertek, a global provider of product certification and performance-testing services. “While a research report should not be mandated since these products and systems are described in the code with specific requirements and referenced standards, a Research Report is an easy way for the manufacturer to provide the necessary information to the code official.

“SPRI’s ultimate goal in publishing Bulletin 1-15 is two-fold,” Beaton continues. “First, that code officials understand that a Research Report is a ‘convenience’ for single-ply roofing and should not be required if other relevant data is available. Second, that when the roofing manufacturer does choose to document compliance in a Research Report, code officials should be willing to accept a Research Report from an agency other than ICC Evaluation Service, provided the agency is accredited for this activity.”

SPRI Bulletin No. 1-15 is two-pages long and available for free viewing and download.

SPRI Revises Wind Design Standard Practice for Roofing Assemblies for Inclusion in the International Building Code

SPRI has revised ANSI/SPRI WD-1, Wind Design Standard Practice for Roofing Assemblies, to prepare the document for submission to and inclusion into the International Building Code (IBC). SPRI represents sheet membrane and component suppliers to the commercial roofing industry.

This Wind Design Standard Practice provides general building design considerations, as well as a methodology for selecting an appropriate roofing system assembly to meet the rooftop design wind uplift pressures calculated in accordance with ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.

“Revisions to ANSI/SPRI WD-1 include additional insulation fastening patterns, along with more detailed practical examples,” says Task Force Chairman Joe Malpezzi. “This Standard Practice is appropriate for non-ballasted Built-Up, Modified Bitumen, and Single-Ply roofing system assemblies installed over any type of roof deck.”

In addition, SPRI has revised and reaffirmed ANSI/SPRI RD-1, Performance Standard for Retrofit Drains, in compliance with ANSI’s five-year cycle requirements. This standard is a reference for those that design, specify or install retrofit roof drains designed for installation in existing drain plumbing on existing roofs.

“It is important to note that the RD-1 Standard addresses the design of retrofit primary drains,” says SPRI President Stan Choiniere. “Local codes may also require secondary or overflow drains. SPRI will also be revisiting this standard after upcoming code changes are released.”

For more information about these standards and to download a copy, visit SPRI’s Web site or contact the association.

Are You ‘PV Ready’?

Commercial rooftops are an attractive platform for the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity-producing systems. These low-slope roofs offer an economical and sustainable structural foundation for renewable solar energy. As an example, one of the largest roof-mounted PV systems in North Carolina has been online for several months at the Old Dominion Freight Line Inc. vault logistics facility in Thomasville. Almost 7,700 solar panels completely cover the warehouse’s 160,000-square-foot roof and produce enough power (1.8 megawatts) to offset more than 90 percent of the building’s annual energy costs.

Success stories like Old Dominion’s are becoming increasingly common in the sunny Carolinas. However, it is important to remember a roof’s function is, first and foremost, to protect the building’s contents and people from the elements. In this regard, roofing professionals need to anticipate the potential risks associated with the installation of a roof-mounted PV system (array). This sort of due diligence is particularly important when installing PV systems on existing warranted roofs.

A broad selection of membranes and thicknesses are available for consideration when a PV installation is planned. Photo courtesy of GAF, Wayne, N.J., and Protech Roofing Service, San Diego

A broad selection of membranes and thicknesses are available for consideration when a PV installation is planned. Photo courtesy of GAF, Wayne, N.J., and Protech Roofing Service, San Diego

To help in these industry efforts, members of Waltham, Mass.-based SPRI—the trade association that represents sheet membrane and component suppliers to the commercial roofing industry—have developed “PV Ready” roof assemblies and guidelines designed to provide maximum protection for the roof (and maintain its warranty coverage).

In September, SPRI’s technical committee and board of directors also approved and distributed to its members Technical Bulletin 1-13A, “Summary of SPRI Membrane Manufacturer Photovoltaic (PV) Ready Roof Systems and Services”. The bulletin contains general guidelines from SPRI related to “PV Ready” roof assemblies. This article goes into more depth about issues related to PV installations, particularly on existing warranted roofs.

Ask the Right Questions

The installation of a PV system on an existing warranted roof raises many important questions for the roofing professional and building owner. For example, will the roof accommodate the added weight of the PV array? Logistically speaking, before property owners decide on a solar-power system, they will need to determine whether their roofs are sturdy enough to support
the additional loads put on the existing roof structure by the solar array.

An average solar panel and support system typically add a minimum of 3 to 4 pounds per square foot to the existing roof. It is the responsibility of the roofing professional to ensure this additional weight does not exceed the load limits determined by the building’s designer.

From an economic (life-cycle-cost) point of view, it makes sense the service life of the existing roof membrane will come close to matching the projected service life of the PV system. If not, a complex and costly reroofing project may be required long before the solar panels need to be replaced. In general, the underlying roofing system must provide the same minimum investment horizon—generally at least 25 years—to realize the full potential of the rooftop PV system.

Most PV arrays require penetrating the roof membrane. Even non-rack-type systems may include electrical conduits, wiring and other components that may need to be flashed in a professional manner. It is essential the responsibility for this flashing work rests with the roofing contractor.

Pages: 1 2 3

SPRI Distributes ‘PV Ready’ Technical Bulletin

Waltham, Mass.-based SPRI’s Technical Committee and board of directors have approved and distributed to the organization’s members Technical Bulletin 1-13A, “Summary of SPRI Membrane Manufacturer Photovoltaic (PV) Ready Roof Systems and Services”. The bulletin contains general guidelines from SPRI related to “PV Ready” roof assemblies and services designed to provide maximum protection for the roof (and maintain its warranty coverage). SPRI represents sheet membrane and component suppliers to the commercial roofing industry.

“Commercial rooftops are a convenient platform for installing solar photovoltaic systems,” says SPRI Technical Director Mike Ennis. “However, it’s important to remember that the roof’s primary function is to protect the building’s contents and its people from the elements.”

Technical Bulletin 1-13 raises important considerations for the building owner, such as the added weight of a PV array and the impact of wind and fire approvals. The bulletin also lists potential PV system-specific requirements from manufacturers to maintain existing warranties; project documentation forms frequently required to install the PV system over an existing warranted roof; and general issues and additional services offered by manufacturers, such as single-source warranties for the roof system and solar integration.

SPRI gathered the information included in Technical Bulletin 1-13 from a survey of information available on websites and literature of SPRI member membrane manufacturers. As such, the bulletin serves as a summary of the PV-ready products, requirements and services currently offered by SPRI members and is available for distribution to customers.

“Each SPRI member may have its own PV ready program, and no SPRI member may necessarily be considered to have all program elements,” Ennis adds. “The building owner should always consult the manufacturer of the roof system specified for the new construction or reroofing project prior to the installation of a PV system on a warranted roof.”

In addition, Ennis writes about PV Ready rooftop considerations in “Tech Point”.