| Author |
Message |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 1290
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 07, 2020 - 09:28 am: |    |
Apparently Armstrong bought Tectum back in 2017 and has now decided against FM testing when used as a roof deck. As a result, FM has deleted all RoofNav systems with Tectum decks and no longer includes cementitious wood fiber decks in their search parameters. FM requires current testing, it does not 'grandfather' systems in RoofNav. |
Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP, AIA
Senior Member
Username: rjray
Post Number: 198
Registered: 04-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 07, 2020 - 10:54 am: | |
In addition to cementitious wood fiber roof decks, FM Approvals withdrew listings for wood panel roof decks. My understanding is the decision was based on failures, and not by any action, or inaction, by any manufacturer.
SPRI’s Directory of Roof Assemblies Listing (DORA) includes wind uplift listings for both cementitious wood fiber decks and wood panel roof decks.
However, if the project is insured through FM Global, cementitious wood fiber roof decks and wood panel wood decks will not be approved. |
anon (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 07, 2020 - 12:30 pm: | |
Thankfully, in 25+ years as a specifier, I can count on one finger the number of projects I have worked on that were FM Global insured. And even on that project discovered that there can be quite a bit of wiggle room on what FM Global actually requires for the project... and what the Owner is willing to pay for... in spite of the stated requirements |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 1134
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 07, 2020 - 06:29 pm: | |
Usually, the issue is not whether the project qualifies for FM Global coverage, rather it is the rate at which the coverage will be written.
FM Global "requirements" are basically recommendations so that the project can qualify for more favorable insurance rates. In some cases, the savings in rates would never pay for the construction cost of following the recommendation.
A case in point is the insurance industry's longstanding preference for buildings with fire sprinklers (going back more than 50 years). Fire sprinklers did not become "standard" for buildings until building codes started requiring them or making it so advantageous to have them in terms of allowing more floor area.
The FM Global people would like to think their stuff is the equivalent of "code," but it isn't. Their recommendations are, in many cases, more than a good idea, but they are sometimes much more expensive to implement than is warranted IMHO.
J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP
|
Marc Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 602
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 07, 2020 - 06:37 pm: | |
well said Peter. we had a job once....it was beautiful... the city CFO calmly told the FM "engineer" that since the city was essentially self-insured that the FM people were "excused" and we would not be requiring all the $$$ for FM fire pumps etc. The look on the young FM "engineer" who thought he had this "sale" was precious. |
|
4specs.com Home Page