Test requirements for a standing seam...

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 160 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 - 11:35 am:    Shouldn't architectural standing seam roof systems be required to pass uplift requirements of UL 580, (or ASCE 7), weather tight requirements of ASTM E 1592, air infiltration test ASTM E 1680 and water penetration of ASTM E1646? I realize that it doesn't have to meet structural requirements, but other roof systems have to meet design requirements for wind and water. Speclink's section doesn't include any of these requirements under Architectural systems and I swear I was told years ago by other industry people not to specify these test for non-structural panels. I'm working on an office master with two basic systems, one structural, one not. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1003 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 - 01:02 pm:    MasterSpec Section 074113 Metal Roof Panels (factory formed), has all that stuff...Section 076100 Sheet Metal Roofing (custom fabricated or site formed), doesn't. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 391 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 - 05:47 pm:    The factory-formed stuff (which can have a folded standing seam) is an engineered product that can be tested. The standing seam sheet metal roof products do not and I believe are not intended to be "structural"; i. e. spanning between supports. What blurrs the line somewhat is the fact that some manufacturers (like Berridge, but there are others) sell site-formed systems (specified in MasterSpec as sheet metal roofing) which can also be delivered as factory formed (metal panel) products and can be used as "structural" panels. There are advantages to the site-formed panels (such as lenghth), but I have to wonder if they shouldn't be treated more like metal panel roofing systems. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 257 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - 02:18 am:    2009 IBC Section 1504.3 requires that the standing seam roofing resist the wind loads of Section 1609 even if there is a structural deck below. UL 580 or ASTM E 1592 testing is only required when the capacity of the roof is not calculated. The wind loads from Section 1609 are used to establish the minimum allowable test values. Compliance with UL 580 Class 90 rating does not necessarily mean that the roofing meets the loading requirements. See the statement by IMETCo at http://www.imetco.com/Resources/Building%20Codes%20and%20Metal%20Roofing.pdf. How often are roofs specified without checking with the structural engineer to verify the wind loads? Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 161 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - 09:21 am:    Thanks Mark. That clears things up for me. I suspect roofing is specified regularly without checking with the structural engineer. I've surprised engineers in the past by asking. Peter - Yes, a few companies have muddied the water by having testing done on systems that their competition hasn't done. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 423 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 04, 2010 - 06:56 am:    I'm a little confused by some of the above comments, which Peter partially clarified. From my reading of 074113 Metal Roof Panels and 076100 Sheet Metal Roofing, either section can be used to specify metal roofing configured with a standing seam. 074113 typically is used to specify panels that have been tested for wind uplift - ie., they are not job-formed or otherwise custom made, but are fabricated to be identical to UL-tested units. 074113 panels are considered structural whether or not installed over a solid substrate, and should be specified using the tests cited by Curt in his original posting. Also, 074113 roof panels may be rolled in true factory-fabricated lines or using manufacturer-certified "portable" short-bed shop rolling equipment using manufacturer-furnished materials that can then be certified as identical to manufacturer units tested to UL 580 wind uplift standards, as well as the other cited standards for water penetration, air penetration, and hydrostatic head resistance. The definitions of "manufactured" and "site- or shop- rolled" hence become a little fuzzy, especially in marketing literature and arguments at submittal time. I tend to look at it from a warranty standpoint. If a warranty is important to the client, then the "manufacturer" should be someone with some financial horsepower behind their warranty rather than a few leased facilities and good literature. If warranty is not as much of an issue, there are good portable rolled systems with adequate wind uplift ratings and good reputations out there - the challenge is avoiding the garage rollers on bid day.