4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

FiberTite and Siplast Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum » Archive - Product Discussions #2 » FiberTite and Siplast « Previous Next »

Author Message
Lynn Javoroski
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski

Post Number: 193
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 02:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I've got a contractor who wants to substitute (1) Siplast PA 1125 asphalt primer, (2) Siplast P-20TS torch applied, (3) Siplast P-20TG torch applied over densdeck, (4) EPS, (5) polyio over that, (6) FiberTite (a Seaman product) loosely laid, heat welded seams,and (7) stone ballast. The originally specified roof was modified bitumen. And he's claiming he can give a manufacturer's standard 15 year NDL warranty.

I'd appreciate hearing any thoughts on the system or products...or contractor.

Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 03:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Maybe I need an education here, but why get so complicated?
Ralph Liebing
Senior Member
Username: rliebing

Post Number: 153
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 04:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Not sure what an NDL warranty is, or if it is better than the roofing manufacturer's warranty-- can't see roofing folks warranting a mixtue of products, unless they agree.
I'd "stick" with a complete Siplast or Siplast approved system and require their warranty.
Just one opinion!
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: specman

Post Number: 110
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 04:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

NDL = No Dollar Limit

And, I agree with Ralph; keep it simple and don't mix systems. It prevents the multiple finger pointing if (or when) something goes wrong.
Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 04:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

When was the last time a Contractor did anyone a favor? Beware of strangers, I mean Contractors bearing gifts!
Jo Drummond, FCSI
Senior Member
Username: jo_drummond

Post Number: 7
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 06:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

If the contractor wants to put stone ballast on a roof which was designed for modified bitumen, be sure that the roof structure will take the additional weight.
Also I agree, why not just use the Siplast system, without all the extras. Keep it simple.
Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 08:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

This sounds like a roofer that has materials leftover from six different jobs and wants to get rid of them all in one place. Where did this system come from? Is it in Seaman or Siplast literature? Who is giving the warranty? Siplast? Seaman? The Contractor (don't think so)?
Robert E. Woodburn
Senior Member
Username: bwoodburn

Post Number: 14
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 09:46 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I had the same thought. Looks like this could be an effort to get rid of all those disparate leftover materials from different jobs (or worse, materials that weren't really "leftover"...)
Rafael C Nelson
Senior Member
Username: rc_nelson

Post Number: 9
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 02:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

The contractor should be required to provide a structural analysis for review along with substitution submittal. The contractor should also pay the additional time required for the review. If one tells this to a contractor, he usually drops his request.
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza

Post Number: 98
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 02:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Lynn - I would want a roof assembly that matches one appearing in the Factory Mutual Global Approval Guide - that means that the manufacturer has experience with the system, has tested it, and has trained tech reps and installers who know it when they see it. I don't know if what's being proposed is approved. In fact, I'm confused about it. I take it this is going over a concrete deck (hence the primer and the venting base sheet). The Dens Deck material would be a cover board on top of the insulation sandwich (cheaper EPS topped for some reason with polyiso) over which the PVC membrane is placed? Is the intention to provide redundancy through the use of 2 separate membrane systems?

Given the folks you usually find on BU roofing crews, I'm not wild about putting a torch and a tank of propane in their hands on top of one of our client's buildings, either; I prefer either hot or cold-applied plies. The Seamens Fibertite PVC membrane is a good product, but I don't like to put down loose-laid single plies; get a leak and the water will run all over the place underneath it, making spotting the leak (after you've removed the ballast) very difficult. I'm also not sure about what could go on between the PVC membrane and the chemical constituents of the underlying plies and application materials.
Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 06:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Stick with all products from one sourse. By the way, if your project is in a coastal location with a Seagull population, the birds are intelligent enough to mistake light colored gravel (or rock ballast) for clams and drop them from high onto glass canopies to break the clams open. Only thing that broke was the top ply of the laminated glass panels.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration