manufactured roof edges - code requir...

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

Author Message Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED®-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 172 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 03:45 pm:    Has anyone else heard of this? The requirement for stringent testing of ANSI/SPRI ES-1 that equates to only using manufactured roof edge for low-slope -- is NOT a code requirement, though it has been promoted as such by a couple of manufacturers. They seem to overlook which date of issue the building code uses when it refers to ES-1. The '98 version of ES-1 did not have that requirement, and although the 2003 ES-1 does, it is not the one that was used in the IBC 2003 - look at the end of the book - it says 1998 edition of ES-1. The 2006 code appears to have dropped the whole thing...? Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 159 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 04:33 pm:    We specify low-slope flashings be tested per ANSI/SPRI ES-1. There are many NRCA roof perimeter flashing systems that have been tested per ANSI/SPRI ES-1 to meet FM Approvals. Proprietary systems are not required for all conditions. The approved edge metal flashings systems are listed in FM Approval's RoofNav. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 725 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 04:54 pm:    Christopher: On the contrary, the 2006 IBC references the 2003 edition of ES-1 in Chapter 35 (See page 571). The code reference is Section 1504.5. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP RLGA Technical Services www.specsandcodes.com Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED®-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 173 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 06:03 pm:    That is correct. However, from what I was told, there was a major difference in requirements of ANSI/SPRI ES-1 2003 from what was in the ES-1 1998, that may affect whether manufactured products are or are not likely to be necessary for meeting wind loads particularly in coastal areas. I think the concept was the '98 testing was not so tough and that the code was not yet referencing the '03 testing, so these mfr's might have been stretching the truth to say they were the only ones who could do something in the code when it wasn't even in the code yet - but now it is in the code, so out with that argument... Let me restate the question - can someone with detailed knowledge of the two versions of ES-1 confirm whether manufactured components were effectively required at any point (IBC 2003/ES-1 1998, or IBC 2006/ES-1 2003), and if that has changed somehow? I am looking at both ES-1 versions, and "4 Design Options" looks about the same as "6.0 Design Options", both allowing non-manufactured products IF they meet independent testing - though I don't know all the nuts and bolts of the changes to the testing. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 944 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 06:52 am:    The local Carlisle roofing rep here in Cincinnati has not been aware of the interpretation you've noted and is having Carlisle look into it. will advise! John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1007 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 09:05 am:    I don't know what the differences are between ES-1 '98 and '03. However, I do know that it is still a pretty simple test. What the manufacturers may be saying, and they are partially correct, is that you cannot merely draw up a nice looking detail using shop fabricated sheet metal and assume it will pass ES-1. For a while, before NRCA had done testing of typical profiles, it was true that only a manufactured system could meet ES-1 because they were the only ones who tested them. I have no idea how much the test would cost, but I would venture to say that on a large project it could be worth having it done if you have a different profile you want to use. It may even be possible to have a performance-based spec for a roof edge with the contractor doing the testing. There are obvious cautions with that approach. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 728 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 11:22 am:    The standard is not limited to just manufactured items. NRCA has had the profiles in their "Roofing and Waterproofing Manual" (5th Edition) tested by ITS. The details and test results are listed on their website at http://www.nrca.net/rp/technical/details/files/itsdetails.pdf. It appears if a design conforms to one of these details--whether manufactured or shop/field fabricated--then it complies. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP RLGA Technical Services www.specsandcodes.com Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 360 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 03:56 pm:    Ron: If I understand correctly, the designer may either specify an ANSI/SPRI tested manufactured product, or NRCA member contractors installing products that comply with the cited NRCA Manual plates may utilize NRCA's ITS test certification for their shop-fabricated assemblies. Non-NRCA contractors must therefore install a tested manufactured product, or test their own assembly, even if it appears to meet NRCA. Othewise, they're not in conformance. Am I reading this correctly? The local building official does not want to have to analyze an installed assembly to determine compliance. As in many other circumstances, they want a certificate that indicates compliance. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 333 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 04:02 pm:    Phil, That's the way I read it too. Here in Seattle I have yet to have a building where we have a AHJ problem. BUT I'm going out with an FM building in 2 weeks and well see. Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED®-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 174 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 04:05 pm:    Also need clarification on which types of roofing ANSI/SPRI ES-1 applies to through IBC 2006. Seems to be anything that is a "membrane roof system" (per IBC), and with 10 degrees slope or less (per ES-1). Does that sound complete, correct, (and add any other applicable C's)? i.e. do we exclude metal roofing even if it is a very moderate slope, because it is not a "membrane roof"? Roof edges are still vulnerable and deserve special attention - just not seeing where the code would require ES-1 for metal, wanted to be sure. Thanks for all the input everyone! Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 160 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 04:30 pm:    Phil and Marc, Please provide the source that there is a requirement the flashing fabricator be a NRCA member contractor. I have not seen this requirement. Thanks Wayne Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 361 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 04:30 pm:    There's really nothing in IBC 2006 1504.5 that suggests that the ANSI/SPRI ES-1 requirement applies to metal roofing, even when it is used in low-slope configuration. I don't find anything in the ANSI/SPRI standard itself that suggests such an application. So you are tossed back ASCE-7, UL-580, and FMG approvals. I'm fond of FMG approvals for metal roof systems in high wind design areas, as they seem to be a more comprehensive test circumstance and procedure than the UL test. Only a handful of metal roof manufacturers list FMG approvals for ratings above 1-90. The fact that FMG tests assemblies on behalf of insurance companies that insure building contents gives me some confidence in their standards. They really have an interest in having roofs stay on. Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED®-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 175 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 04:41 pm:    There are several available tests, some of which we designers/specifiers like better than others, but for a VE-driven project we need to know if any particular tests are required as bare minimum to meet code, specific to metal roofing, especially for edge components. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 362 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 04:50 pm:    IBC requires "low slope membrane roof system metal edge securement ... shall be ... tested in accordance with ANSI/SPRI ES-1." The standard spells out a series of tests for roof edge termination, edge flashing pull off, fascia blow off, and coping pull off. Flashing fabricator is not required to be an NRCA member contractor - but if they cannot fabricate under NRCA members' blanket test certification from ITS, then they must obtain their own independent testing if the AHJ requires proof of compliance, which is likely prohibitively expensive. It's an interesting compliance situation. We're specifying test compliance as an Installer qualification to bring this to GC's attention and avoid project disruption. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 642 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 06:01 pm:    OK, SO I ASKED MY HICKMAN REP, WHO INTURN REFERRED IT TO THE NATIONAL OFFICE, HERE IS THEIR LEARNED OPINION, ITS LONG, BUT WORTHY OF POSTING AND AT THE END IS A CONTACT NAME AND INFO FOR FURTHER QUESTIONS: First let me briefly address the comment that ANSI/SPRI ES-1 “…equates to only using manufactured roof edge for low-slope…”. That is certainly not the case. ANSI/SPRI ES-1 equates to only using roof edge that has been tested to resist the calculated design load. That edge can be fabricated by a national manufacturer, a roofing contractor, or a local sheet metal shop as long as they have tested the product they fabricate to show that it will resist the design loads. Until recently it was primarily the national manufacturers that had taken this standard to heart; however, many contractors and local shops have now accepted the fact that this standard, which has been in IBC since 2003, is not going away, and they have also tested some of the edges they fabricate. I believe it is correct to say that the ANSI/SPRI ES-1 document that was adopted into code in 2003 was the 1998 version, since that was all that was published at the time. However, there is not “a major difference in requirements of ANSI/SPRI ES-1 2003 from what was in the ES-1 1998. “ The 1998 version of ES-1 had the same testing requirements as the 2003 version does. The primary changes in 2003 were the addition of some tables to reduce calculation requirements, and an updating of the wind speed maps based upon ASCE-7 changes. If you would like to read and compare the two versions, they are both available to download for free on SPRI’s website www.spri.org. There is a change to the wording of section 1504.5 in IBC from 2003 to 2006. Both 2003 and 2006 IBC refer to ANSI/SPRI ES-1 (I don’t believe the ES-1 year is referenced, but again the basic requirements of the standard did not change). 2003 IBC reads: 1504.5 Edge securement for low-slope roofs. Low-slope membrane roof systems metal edge securement, except gutters, installed in accordance with section 1507, shall be designed in accordance with ANSI/SPRI ES-1, except the basic wind speed shall be determined from Figure 1609. 2006 IBC reads: 1504.5 Edge securement for low-slope roofs. Low-slope membrane roof systems metal edge securement, except gutters, shall be designed and installed for wind loads in accordance with Chapter 16 and tested for resistance in accordance with ANSI/SPRI ES-1, except the basic wind speed shall be determined from Figure 1609. 2006 has not “dropped the whole thing”. Contrary to that it has attempted to clarify that ANSI/SPRI ES-1 is not only a design standard but also a test standard by adding the wording “and tested for resistance”. . Restating the answer: Using only pre-manufactured products, such as the ones we make at Hickman, has never been required. ES-1 tested edge metal, whether pre-manufactured or shop-fabricated, has been required by both the 2003 and 2006 versions of IBC. There has been very little change in ES-1 between 1998 and 2003, and nothing that affected the testing requirements. Both 2003 and 2006 reference the ES-1 standard with the only difference being that the 2006 clarifies that to meet ES-1 testing is required, but I believe that was always the intent. You are correct that both versions allow “non-manufactured” products IF they are tested. Although I would maintain that all metal roof edge products are manufactured. Some are manufactured by national companies and some are manufactured by a roofers or local sheet metal shops. IBC is simply saying that whoever manufactures or fabricates the edge metal, they need to have it tested in accordance with ES-1. Sorry for the long answer. Please feel free to call me if you have questions or would like to discuss this further. Bob LeClare VP Sales, W.P.Hickman Company PO Box 15005 / 9 Hickman Drive Asheville, NC 28813-0005 828-274-4000 x139 Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 334 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 06:22 pm:    yes but...most local manufacturers in the PNW have NOT tested to the standard (we don't have regular large wind events often and don't care) and so any building with a membrane roof (flat) and metal copings is not per code. Most local manufacturers don't have the money to test this kind of material. I also believe the code is getting to standard crazy and too political but that is a different matter. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 161 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 06:47 pm:    Jerome, Good posting. Bob said "That edge can be fabricated by a national manufacturer, a roofing contractor, or a local sheet metal shop as long as they have tested the product they fabricate to show that it will resist the design loads." Can the products a roofing contractor or a local sheet metal shop fabricate that complies with the requirements of the tested NRCA designs, negate the requirement to have them tested again if they (the product) are fabricated exactly like the NRCA tested designs. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 363 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 06:57 pm:    Wayne: I suspect that's up to your AHJ. If they're high on Seattle's Best coffee when they show up, like Marc's, it may not be an issue. We should specify to the code, and require submittal of a test report; code doesn't say "similar to," it says "tested." If they don't submit an acceptable test, they should keep their pry bars handy. Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED®-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 176 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 07:03 am:    Jerome/Bob: IBC has a listing of the year of reference for each standard, at the back of the book. My source might have have been misguided about ES-1 not being in the IBC 2006 or I might have misunderstood. So in reality the testing still applies, it is just that compliance for shop-fabricated and field-fabricated systems is more feasible than it once was, with more local fabricators now having testing done, and with NRCA plates for tested assemblies. Sounds like whether the AHJ interprets the word "tested" to mean show me a test report not an NRCA plate could become a sticking point in getting permitted. So then better to specify the submittal and not need it than the other way around. But if a true test report is required then perhaps we are again ruling out many local shops who still find independent testing cost prohibitive. If subs always bid to the spec this would not become a problem though... Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 946 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 08:16 am:    Isn't it reasonable if not true that you have a better chance of getting properly tested work out of a metal edge manufacturer [an engineered/extruded system] than from a local sheet metal fabricator's shop? And after all isn't that what is required, really, and with relatively little impact on project cost. Also we have been advised that on FM insured projects you must use the FM standard 1-90 and not ES-1. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1009 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 08:57 am:    Please, all, take a look at the actual test. It requires no apparatus more complicated than a stand and a spring scale capable of weighing 150 lb. Test size is 12 inches long. I can't imagine that such a test would be "prohibitively expensive." By the way, ES-1 is more than a test, it is a "Wind Design Standard for Edge Systems..." so it includes design criteria and methodology as well as a few test methods. R LeClare (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 08:15 pm:    Sorry for the long response that I sent to Jerome, I did not realize he wanted post it. He just informed me of this site and discussion topic. I agree that most local manufacturers have not tested to ES-1, but to technically meet code they should have. ES-1 provides a method for calculating the design load based upon local wind speed and the building height, and only requires that the edge be tested to resist that load. So an area without wind events would not require edge metals tested to resist high design loads, but again, techically per code, they still should be tested. According to discussions I have had directly with the Technical Director of the NRCA, in order to comply with their ES-1 testing program contractors are supposed to sub-list with the NRCA. Upon sub-listing contractors receive detailed fabrication information and their facilities are "audited" to verify that they can produce edge metal of the required quality per the fabrication details. Simply copying the basic designs shown in NRCA's manual does not produce an ES-1 compliant product. Phil's last post, like his previous ones, is right on target. Code says "tested" and to truely meet code the fabricator of the edge should provide certification that their product has been tested. Bob LeClare, CDT VP Sales, WP Hickman Company Chair of SPRI ES-1 task force Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED®-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 177 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 09:22 am:    John: "prohibitively expensive" - Perhaps that is what they say when it wasn't in their bid. But if it is in the spec, should be no matter, right? What if Owner & GC have VE'd it out? Can they, or does code truly require reports? Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 729 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 11:51 am:    Keep in mind that the fire-resistive requirements in the IBC (Section 703.2) also state that the rating be "determined in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E 119..." How many gypsum board installers and framing contractors have the fire-resistive wall assemblies they build tested even it complies with a tested UL assembly? I feel the NRCA tested assemblies are not unlike UL-tested fire-resistive assemblies: if you design and install the assembly as tested, then having an actual test is not necessary. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP RLGA Technical Services www.specsandcodes.com John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1011 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 02:09 pm:    Chris: IMHO It cannot be VE'd out any more than a rated partition, but that does not automatically mean that a report is required. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 365 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 02:49 pm:    Resources on this page may be useful to Forum members: http://www.nrca.net/rp/technical/details/itslisting.aspx Perhaps as we get more experience with this requirement and with how our AHJs treat it, we can revisit this discussion.