FM - ROOFNAV spec

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

Author Message G. Wade Bevier, CCS, LEED-AP BD+C, CSI, SCIPa, USGBC Senior Member Username: wbevier Post Number: 36 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 03:29 pm:    Has any one on this board specified a roof system using the FM-ROOFNAV tool to describe and designate the roof system on a project? I have a project that will be FM insured and we are trying to figure out how to select the roof system and revise our division 07 single ply roofing section to keep the project competetive and describe the specific systems and installation requirements. Any input or your experience with this will be appreciated. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 543 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 04:06 pm:    Wade, It is simple. Work with your roofing system manufacturer to provide the RoofNav number and resultant spec for FMG insured projects. Also contact your areas FMG engineer. Wayne J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 498 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 11:02 am:    You can use the RoofNAV site to determine the wind uplift requirements and to get FMG ratings. These should be specified. Also specify that submittals must incude current RoofNAV numbers for systems proposed for use. I have found the RoofNAV site relatively easy to use in getting the uplift requirements, but when FMG risk management people get involved, they often recommend (require) higher ratings that those from the RoofNAV website. You then have to consult with your owner to determine which to follow. G. Wade Bevier, FCSI, CCS, LEED-AP BD+C, SCIPa, USGBC Senior Member Username: wbevier Post Number: 37 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 12:56 pm:    Thanks... I can use this to revise our office master section to reflect the system being used as the BOD for the project. I will see if I get any additional feedback and include all of the revisions as needed to direct the contractor. The good news is the project is just going into DD so this is not a last minute item... Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 518 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Saturday, September 29, 2012 - 04:56 pm:    FM will also have very specific submittal requirements, so ditto what Wayne says about having a chat with the FMG engineer who will be reviewing the submittal. Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: melissaaguiar Post Number: 168 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Saturday, September 29, 2012 - 05:19 pm:    I would like to post a couple questions here regarding this issue please. 1. Why in the last couple of years have we started adding these FM RoofNav to our roofing? Isn't this falling to close to means and methods we have all had drilled into our skulls DAILY to stay away from? 2. I have had 2 designers actually use this system over the last couple years, specify it, and something during VE changes ($$$) and roof is changed. Ok...how many of you out there use this regularly? 3. I was recently told by a couple of roofing reps that they are trying to steer us away from RoofNav use. Have any of you talked to your roofing reps about using this in specs? What do they say? I'm really curious. Thank you for your constructive input. Melissa Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 499 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 09:07 am:    Some of this goes back to understanding the difference between product selection and specification. A RoofNav number s a product selection (and essentially a closed, proprietary specification). Using FMG's RoofNav website to determine performance criteria can be a very useful first step in determining design criteria for roof performance. Although I would not include a RoofNav number in the specification (unless instructed otherwise), I would make the RoofNav number a required submittal. All of this is predicated on having to do a roof that complies with FMG "requirements." Still, I find the RoofNav website useful for determining uplift criteria. G. Wade Bevier, FCSI, CCS, LEED-AP BD+C, SCIPa, USGBC Senior Member Username: wbevier Post Number: 38 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Monday, October 01, 2012 - 09:51 am:    All of this is very helpful and it looks like the next step is to contact the local FMG reviewer (in Michigan) and see if the roof system type has been determined so I can also contact the potential roofing system representatives and see if we can describe this effectively. I have access to the ROOFNAV site and will coordinate once we get a few more pieces in place. The FM requirement system option has been required by the client so we will have to see if that holds up once we start getting estimates and whether we will have to consider VE alternatives which may modify this requirement in some way. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1446 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, October 01, 2012 - 05:43 pm:    I have opined this before when the issue of FM Global roof systems has come up: FM uses these in their risk assessment of the firm's facilities, and so aren't necessarily "required." However, a insurance company in the FM family may adjust their rates adversely to the owner if they don't meet FM's requirements. Further, and most importantly, there is room for variation. Since every building and site is a bit different, there may not be an out-of-the-box solution (i.e, ROOFNAV number) for every project. The FM engineers that I have met have been reasonable, knowledgeable, and helpful. Most of the roof systems in these cases have not had an actual ROOFNAV number. Access to the engineers is generally only through the owner (they are the ones who pay the bills). I don't know how easy it is for a typical owner to do that; in my cases they tended to be larger institutional owners, and the buildings were often complicated in other ways (like a data center) where there were many other FM issues besides the roof. Which reminds me: if you need an FM roof, you may very well need a bunch of other FM architectural systems on the inside. One smaller case comes to mind. An institutional kitchen was to have Kemlite-type paneling, but they needed to have the FM rating for flame/smoke - UL alone was not sufficient. This was not an automatic thing from the panel manufacturer. So be forewarned. Ryan James (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 22, 2013 - 02:48 pm:    From a contractors point of view. The only issue I have had, is when designers, specify for a RoofNav assembly number to be submitted. The issue is that there is usually specified products, acceptable manf's listed, a warranty period and a roof assembly, ie* membrane, insulation, vapor retarder, thermal barrier, all specified. I'm in an area where very high R-values are regulary specified, and in conjunction with a required manf. warranty period, and the insulation specified, have fun trying to find a system that is listed and also meets the specifications and the Manf's warranty requirements. If a system is specified to be listed on RoofNav, I would like to see specifications without any material spec's or leave them very vauge. ie* When EPS insulation is specified to be mechanically attached, and a RoofNav listing? NOT THERE! There are many variables when it comes to roof systems, and when the specifications require specific products, warranty periods, High R-values (R-80), and then adds that the contractor needs to provide a RoofNav Listing, to meet them all, usually this is an impossibility. Usually what happens is the specified assembly is met, and the system is submitted to FM for approval w/o a RoofNav Listing. As long as the contractor does his due diligence prior to BID, and has exhausted all options through the manf's. and RoofNav it usually works itself out. BUT! It's nuntheless frustrating and time consuming because you usually can not find a system that meets all the requirements. Either RoofNav all the way, and leave the products out and let them depend on the listing. The design requirements, quality assurance, warranty period can all be left in, but do not specify the products. Or specify the system you want and leave the RoofNav Listing out. It can still be specified to be a system installed per FM's guidlines, but LEAVE RoofNav Listing OUT! If you as designers have already found a listing number you want to use, write the spec around that listing GREAT, just put the listing number it in the spec, but make sure that a manf. will warrant that system for the desired period. All in all I have found the system usefull, but not when it comes to submitting a system listing. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 473 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, March 22, 2013 - 04:13 pm:    Mechanically fastened EPS? R-80? Please say it ain't so! The FM insured projects I've worked on have required that I include a RoofNav assembly in the spec. I then base my spec on the RoofNav assembly and encourage Bidders to offer alternative systems meeting similar criteria. Personally, I hate using RoofNav. It forces me to get into weeds I don't really care about. I would never ever begin to select a RoofNav assembly without input from my 'golden reps'. I still include certain salient features in my spec because I fully expect not to get the system I am specifying. I want to make sure I get certain minimal criteria such as membrane, coverboard, insulation, flashing systems, and method of application. That way when the Contractor submits another RoofNav assembly, the folks doing CA can tell right away if this is a go/no go option and even whether or not they should bring it to me for further consideration. FM is an insurance company. If my client is using FM, I am going to provide my client with what they are asking for. If my client does not insure with FM, they will not see a RoofNav assembly number in my spec.