Codes and Standards: Dealing With Decision Makers

During the past ten years, in my role as Associate Executive Director of the EPDM Roofing Association (ERA), much of my professional focus has been on monitoring the development of building codes and standards that could impact the products of our members, and the people who use those products. This past decade has been marked by intense debate, focusing on issues such as how the design of buildings can save energy, protect the health of the people who work there, and resist the ravages of increasingly frequent intense and even cataclysmic weather events. It has been an important time for the roofing industry to be engaged.

Given the complexity of the multiple codes and standards that impact roofing, it’s important to know the difference between codes and standards. To clarify, building codes are a set of rules that are frequently adopted into law, and are designed to specify the minimum requirements to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of building occupants. Building standards are set by national organizations such as ASHRAE and determine the performance requirements of the materials used in building construction. While standards are frequently incorporated into codes, that is not always the case.

Each year, ERA has increased its commitment of time and resources to stay abreast of proposed changes in codes and standards. As part of this commitment, I have sat through, and participated in, countless hours of codes and standards meetings and hearings, as well as related meetings with individuals and groups who share ERA’s goals. When I started out, I felt that it was important for members of the roofing industry to stay involved in the code and standard-setting processes. A decade later, I am convinced that participation by the roofing industry is essential if codes and standards are to support the best possible service and products that we can give our customers.

A few insights, based on my experience:

1. Science speaks.

ERA members, because of their close relationship with contractors and consultants, want to make sure that the choice of building materials is left in the hands of the design professional, the consultant, the architect, the engineer, the contractor and, of course, ultimately the building owner or facility manager. When we have codes and standards that do not reflect science-based evidence and/or the best practices within the roofing industry, then those stakeholders may not be able to choose the best product for the job at hand. In some cases, proposed modifications to existing codes or standards are suggested by people from the industry. In those instances, our role is to provide research and evidence to support the proposed change. Either way, science-based testimony usually carries the day. Not always, but without good scientific evidence to support a specific position, the chances of winning are nil to none. It takes time and clear thought to influence the codes and standards process, but without a base of indisputable scientific evidence, it’s hard to get out of the starting gate.

2. Collaboration is essential.

We have always welcomed forging partnerships with like-minded roofing professionals. But there have also been times when we have acted as consulting partners with regulatory agencies. A recent example: when regulatory agencies across the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states were charged with improving air quality, they chose to reduce the amount of allowable volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, in adhesive sealants. This was a very good idea, and the industry was certainly supportive of the intent, but the way in which many of those states intended to enact those VOC regulations would have crippled the roofing industry. Essentially, the agencies were taking a regulation that was written for the state of California and applying it universally across the New England and Mid-Atlantic States.

So, ERA conducted studies, showing how the climate of those Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states was dissimilar from the climate of California. We also provided technical information on how product would react differently in those different climates, and then we asked for a delayed implementation period to allow the research and development divisions in our companies to develop new products. These new products are appropriate for use in the climates in question and still allow the regulatory agencies to achieve their goals, successfully reducing the amount of the VOCs. Our participation was essential to help the regulatory agencies draw up a realistic timeline that would take into account the needs of the roofing industry.

3. Monitor the decision makers.

It’s important to monitor the discussion surrounding any proposed changes in codes and standards. It’s equally as important to monitor who will be making the final decisions on these issues. Since there are various facets of the roofing industry, code-setting bodies would be wise to ask the local roofing experts for advice on whom to include in their decision-making process. I’ve seen instances where committees have incorporated someone who may technically be from the roofing industry, but that person’s breadth and depth of knowledge is not appropriate for the topic at hand.

I would say we have seen mismatch of decision makers when urban heat island and cool roof issues are being debated. An individual may know a fair amount about climate change, but that doesn’t mean the person necessarily understands the nuances of cool roofing. Additionally, they may not be aware of the breadth of research on that topic and instead rely on dated information from college or grad school without being appropriately briefed on new and emerging research.

4. Prepare for a variety of responses.

We have worked with some regulatory agencies during a collaborative process and they’ve been very grateful for our input. There have been other situations where it seems that the policymakers just want us to rubber stamp their very well-intentioned but ill-conceived draft codes. That’s not something that we are willing to give. These initiatives, these outreach campaigns, take a tremendous amount of time and effort and financial resources, and difficult as it may be, our members feel that they owe it to the industry and their customers to make sure that anything that we’re involved in is done the right way and rooted in science-based evidence. There are no shortcuts in these sometimes very difficult fights.

5. Everyone can contribute.

Every member of the roofing community can be active and engaged and make a contribution to ensuring that codes and standards reflect the true needs of the construction industry and our customers. It’s very valuable to build relationships with state legislators and attend town hall meetings. It is crucial to identify candidates that are pro-business and pro roofing, and support them financially as well as from an educational perspective by sharing information with them about the roofing industry.

This is also critically important: When you are asked to write a letter to a key decision maker, be sure to do it. Recently, as part of a campaign to preserve choice of building products for roofers, I visited a city councilmember’s office. On the wall was an enormous white board where every single constituent member’s concern was tracked, along with a reference to the response. This particular city council member had an 87 percent “close rate,” meaning that 87 percent of the concerns that they had received in a given period had been responded to. My experience has been that municipal and state legislators take constituent outreach very, very seriously. Every letter, every e-mail makes a difference.

6. Gather intelligence for your professional organization.

If there is one takeaway that I want people to get from this article, it is to keep us informed. It is darned near impossible to track everything that happens on a city, county, state and national basis because there is no software that currently tracks these issues before they are formally proposed and published for review. And that is often too late to educate the policy makers. It is critical for the readers of this article to attend their local trade association meetings and become acquainted with the policy makers and the legislators in their area. Equally as important, everyone can become a resource for legislators and policymakers when they have a question about roofing.

I’m looking forward to the next decade of victories for the roofing industry, allowing us to deliver superior roofing systems to a broad range of customers. But this will happen only if key decisions about the roof are made by roofing experts, and not mandated by politicians who are far removed from the design process.

Regular Roof Inspections Help ‘Keep the Door Open’

A roof inspector makes field observations. Photo: Kemper System America Inc.

Regular roof inspections give consultants and contractors a chance to maintain relationships with building owners and managers and create value beyond any immediate repairs.

Commercial roofs should be inspected at least twice a year, typically in the spring and fall. Roof inspections are also advised after major weather events, though contractors may already be deluged with repair requests. Of course, building managers will be more receptive to discussing regular inspections during such times, even though time is short. A service flyer and readily available letter-of-agreement can help quickly close the deal, and be used after any major job throughout the year to create recurring business. Customers should clearly understand the service offer and any special provisions for emergency repairs or exceptions such as during wider emergencies.

Common Sources of Roof Leaks

  • Cracks in or around flashings and penetrations
  • Breaks in and around gutterways and drains
  • Poor drainage or debris-clogged drainage systems
  • Storm damage, tree branches, ice dams, etc.
  • Incidental damage by other trades during construction or maintenance
  • Excessive foot traffic at rooftop access points and around HVAC units and other rooftop infrastructure
  • Old or deteriorating roofing materials

While roof leaks can be caused in several ways, many common sources of leaks can be prevented with liquid-applied coating and membrane systems that fully adhere to substrates and are both self-terminating and self-flashing. Membrane systems are fully reinforced and create a seamless surface. High-quality systems are designed to withstand ponding water, ice, snow, UV light, as well as most chemicals. Unreinforced roof coatings can be used for repairs or complete restoration of the roof surface.

If only a small area is damaged, a limited repair is best, and usually possible with compatible materials over an existing system in good condition.Check if a warranty is in place, and if possible contact the manufacturer before the repair. Perform any repairs within the guidelines of the warranty.

For wider areas, a roof recovery is often possible right over the existing roofing. If interior leaks from a field area are evident, core samples can verify the condition of the existing roof assembly down to the deck. Built-up roofs (BUR), in particular, are susceptible to sun and temperature cycling. Tiny spider cracks and micropores can develop in the surface, and the layers below can absorb moisture and deteriorate. Water always travels to its lowest point and, if left unchecked, will damage the underlying structure.

On low-slope roofs, areas of ponding water are a prime target for inspections. If the roof is covered by aggregate or overburden, it must be cleared from around the lowest point of any low-lying areas, and other areas of suspected damage. A visual inspection can locate the source of an active leak, but there may be more than one source or a larger issue that may not always be visible. Broader sampling is needed to evaluate the general condition of the roof and the scope of any deterioration.

Quality workmanship and materials help avoid callbacks and ensure long-term relationships. After completing any necessary repairs, a PMMA, polyurethane or elastomeric membrane or coatings system can be installed to extend the service life of an existing roof. Elastomeric-based coatings are generally the best value for straightforward repairs and can be ideal for recovering metal roofs. Roof restoration, in general, can enhance building performance with “Cool Roof” products, especially those with a high solar reflectance index (SRI).

At the end of the day, an ounce of prevention and a prompt response to issues can help building owners avoid expensive headaches. People remember expert advice and quality service, especially in times of need. They also may tell others — which is another way regular inspections can help keep the door open to recurring business.

Improving Disaster Mitigation Strategies

This past January, the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), a non-governmental, non-profit organization, reported that for every dollar spent on mitigation efforts to protect the built environment from the ravages of natural disasters, six dollars could be saved. These findings were part of a follow-up to the widely cited benefit-cost ratio of four to one in a comparable study by NIBS more than a decade ago. For this most recent study, NIBS reviewed the outcomes of 23 years of mitigation grants funded by FEMA, HUD, and the U.S. Economic Development Administration.

On the same day that the NIBS study was released, FEMA released its draft National Mitigation Investment Strategy to provide a “national approach to investments in mitigation activities and risk management across the United States.” According to the FEMA draft, the final investment strategy will be grounded in three fundamental principles: (1) catalyze private and non-profit sector mitigation investments and innovation; (2) improve collaboration between the federal government and state, local, tribal and territorial governments, respecting local expertise in mitigation investing; and (3) make data- and risk-informed decisions that include lifetime costs and risks. The investment strategy’s overarching goal, according to FEMA, is to improve the coordination and effectiveness of “mitigation investments,” defined as risk management actions taken to avoid, reduce, or transfer risks from natural hazards, including severe weather.

FEMA invited comment on its draft report and will publish its final strategy in November. Given the potential impact of this report on the built environment, and the industries that work to incorporate resilient strategies, the EPDM Roofing Association (ERA) submitted feedback to FEMA. ERA represents Johns Manville, Firestone Building Products, and Carlisle SynTec Inc., the three EPDM manufacturing members of the association, whose businesses span the globe. EPDM roofing membranes have been one of the leading commercial roofing materials in the country for the past 40 years, and the companies’ knowledge of the role of roof performance in achieving a building’s resilience is unparalleled.

In our response to FEMA, ERA noted that we appreciate the role that the built environment plays in a comprehensive disaster mitigation strategy. As an organization, ERA has invested time and resources to gather and provide state-of-the-art information about various approaches to creating a resilient built environment. This past year, ERA established a new microsite, EPDMtheresilientroof.com, to provide the roofing industry with a one-stop source for information about resilience. As part of information gathering for this site, ERA staff and members have visited three of the premier research facilities in the country: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS), and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. These visits were also devoted to gaining a fuller understanding of the intersection between public and private progress in research and development.

At the outset of our response to FEMA, ERA commended FEMA for its issuance of the draft strategy, and supported all the recommended goals as desirable as risk management strategies to be implemented at the private and public sector levels. However, given ERA’s experience with building performance, we also focused our comments on two of the specific recommended strategies in the published draft.

First, ERA responded to the recommendation that “Federal departments and agencies should ensure up-to-date building standards are used for federal building projects and could incentivize state, local, tribal and territorial governments receiving federal aid for building projects to adopt and enforce, at a minimum, the most current version of model building codes.”
Commenting on this recommendation, ERA pointed out that a review of hurricane and related weather catastrophic events demonstrates that the better the building quality and the better the building codes, the better the performance of the community. While there has been substantial improvement in many states across the country, adoption and compliance pose significant hurdles for overall performance in disaster events. The urgency of this cannot be overstated. Part of this effort to upgrade the building codes and consequently overall resilience must focus on the quality of materials, installation, and inspection of final construction to ensure compliance by local authorities.

The experiences of the roofing industry in its inspection of many disasters over the years have confirmed that a well-installed, inspected, and well-maintained roof is a linchpin of overall building resilience. ERA believes that federal funding to the states to allow for the kind of technical assistance that enhances code quality and state and local compliance programs necessary to achieve physical and community resilience should be provided.
Additionally, ERA responded specifically to the recommendation that “Public sector entities should focus more on rebuilding better as well as rebuilding quickly following damage caused by natural disasters.”
ERA pointed out in its response that this recommendation to achieve rebuilding better buildings quickly following damage caused by natural disasters is among the most important in the report. As FEMA Deputy Director Roy White has pointed out in several presentations focused on resilience, it makes no sense for the agency to fund rebuilding of a destroyed facility to standards that existed when the original building was constructed with the likelihood that it would not be able to withstand another weather event beyond historic norms. Consequently, ERA recommends that FEMA and HUD need to have authority and appropriations to ensure that rebuilding is done with an eye towards future — not historic — climate conditions. This is in recognition that the original basis for many buildings that then are destroyed has been dramatically changed by recently evolving weather patterns. In addition, as the FEMA and NIBS study recently demonstrated, there is a payback to the government of a 6 to 1 ratio for investing in rebuilding to a more resilient standard.

There are many, many elements of the draft strategy that ERA supports; however, we believe the two mentioned above are particularly within our expertise and with which we are very familiar. We look forward to the final mitigation strategy report from FEMA, due to be released in November, and we encourage FEMA to incorporate our recommendations to ensure that the value of investment in resilience be realized to the fullest extent possible.

Easy-to-Use Discs Enable Induction Welding of PVC and TPO Membranes Over EPS Insulations

With induction welding, the membrane is heat bonded to the top of each plate and there are no penetrations in the membrane. Photo OMG

Over the past ten years, North American roofers have begun to adopt induction welding as a fast, simple and secure way to mechanically attach TPO and PVC membranes. The method also helps create a high-performance roof assembly by eliminating fastener penetrations of the membrane.

For most of its history, induction welding was limited to installations over thermoset insulations such as polyiso or over other rigid insulations with a cover board. But now, a deceptively simple and easy-to-use disc enables roofers to use induction welding over expanded polystyrene (EPS) insulations that don’t have cover boards. The result is faster and more affordable insulation installation and lower fatigue for work crews.

The Induction Welding Method in Brief

A roof fastener manufacturer pioneered induction welding attachment as a way for roofers to streamline TPO and PVC membrane installation, while avoiding membrane penetrations, for a more watertight roof assembly.

A roofing technician seals the seam with hot-air welder. Photo: Insulfoam

In a typical mechanically fastened membrane system, roofers secure the membrane with 2-inch to 3-inch diameter plates on the seams held down by screws that pass through the membrane and insulation layers to the underlying deck. With the induction welding method, each plate becomes a fastening point for the membrane, and the membrane is heat bonded to the top of each plate. With this method, crews screw down the insulation layer as usual, then unroll the membrane over the insulation. They then place a stand-up or handheld induction welding tool on the membrane at each plate location. In less than five seconds, the tool heats the plate under the membrane to about 400 degrees Fahrenheit, bonding the membrane to the plate. Heating is accomplished via electromagnetic induction between the tool and the plate, rather than via direct application of heat (think of an induction cooktop compared to conventional stove heating coils). Induction welding meets the FM 4470 approval standard and is accepted by most membrane manufacturers.

Induction welding typically requires 25 percent to 50 percent fewer fasteners and plates than typical mechanically fastened installations, as well as fewer seams, resulting in both labor and material savings. As the fasteners are spread across the roof in a grid pattern, the resulting assembly enhances resistance to wind uplift and reduces membrane sheet flutter.

EPS Insulations and Induction Welding

Until now, the induction welding process could not be used with EPS insulations that lacked a cover board, as

EPS insulations can be used in both new construction and roof recovers. Photo: Insulfoam

the 400-degree heated plates caused the insulation to soften and draw back. This resulted in numerous depressions in the roof assembly (at each fastener location), where water could pond.

To enable use of the induction welding process with a broader range of rigid foam insulations, fastener manufacturers have developed a simple solution. For each fastener, crews place a thin disc between the fastener plate and insulation. This separation medium protects the EPS from the high heat of the induction welding process, without interfering with the bond between the membrane and the fastener plate. Manufacturers typically refer to these separators as “induction welding cardboard discs.” While they are paper-based products, calling them “cardboard” understates their performance, as they are densely compressed and have a moisture-resistant coating, so they work well in high-performance roof systems.

Why This Matters

For roofers who prefer using EPS insulations for the products’ thermal performance and ease of installation, the discs allow them also to achieve the benefits of the induction welding process discussed above.

Induction welding cardboard discs enable use of the induction welding attachment process for TPO and PVC membranes over EPS insulation. Photo: Insulfoam

While induction welding has always been possible using EPS insulation products that have standard cover boards, the discs make it possible to induction weld over EPS products with glass facers and fanfold EPS with polymeric facers. Glass-faced EPS products can be used in new applications and recovers while roofers typically use fanfold EPS in roof recovers.

Fanfold EPS bundles, like R-TECH FF and others, are available in standard sizes up to 200 square feet, comprised of 25 panels that are 2 feet by 4 feet each, and come in various thicknesses. A typical two-square bundle weighs less than 11 pounds, so it is easy for one person to carry. EPS fanfold bundles require fewer fasteners per square foot than most roofing insulations and are less expensive than virtually every recover board. The man-hours needed to install fanfold bundles are about 60 percent less than working with individual sheets. Material costs are also lower than wood fiber, perlite, or gypsum board. On large projects, the

Induction welding typically requires fewer fasteners and plates than mechanically fastened applications, resulting in both labor and material savings. Photo: OMG

total savings can add up to tens of thousands of dollars. As with other EPS insulations, the product’s light weight also means less crew fatigue.

As roofers look for ways to create cost-effective, high-quality roof assemblies, new methods provide the opportunity to boost the bottom line by reducing labor and material costs. A simple, affordable disc now enables you to obtain the benefits of both the induction welding method for fastening TPO and PVC membranes and the advantages of EPS insulations.

The Federal Government Is Making Energy-Efficient Roofing Attractive

Small businesses are now able to deduct the full cost of replacing a roof on an existing non-residential building in the year the project was completed instead of depreciating that cost over a 39-year period, as was previously required. Photo: SOPREMA

It is fair to say that Washington, D.C., is far from dull. From the recent Tax Cut and Jobs Act to rolling debates on passing a federal budget, there is a great deal going on at the federal level that impacts the building and roofing industries. In particular, new reforms allow qualifying building owners to expense, or deduct, up to $1 million for the cost of certain building improvements in the year the work is performed, including adding insulation during roof replacement projects to meet or go beyond modern building energy code requirements. The impact can be significant for capital improvement projects. For example, a building owner that expenses the cost of a full roof replacement can reduce the net cost of the entire project by 25 percent to 30 percent.

Commercial Building Roof Replacements

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act, signed into law by President Trump on December 22, 2017, includes a provision that reduces the overall cost associated with re-roofing and significantly improves the cost-effectiveness of commercial roof replacements that comply with building energy codes. The vast majority of state and local governments require minimum insulation levels for both new roofs and roof replacements (but not for roof repairs or recovers). These requirements apply to existing buildings because the most economical time to improve a roof’s thermal performance is when the roof membrane is pulled off and replaced. Also, roof replacements are one of the best opportunities for improving energy efficiency in existing buildings, which account for 40 percent of U.S. energy use.

Starting in 2018, the new federal tax law expands the definition of “qualified real property” under the small business expensing provisions of Internal Revenue Code section 179 to include improvements to existing nonresidential roofs. Section 179 allows businesses to fully expense (deduct) up to $1 million (indexed for inflation after 2018) in one year for qualified business expenses, such as equipment purchases and specific building improvements. With this change, small businesses are now able to deduct — in the year completed — the full cost of replacing a roof on an existing non-residential building instead of depreciating that cost over a 39-year period, as was required under prior law. As a mechanism intended to limit the deduction to small businesses, the benefit is phased out for businesses that spend more than $2.5 million (also indexed for inflation) on qualified equipment and real property. This change takes effect in 2018 and, unlike some provisions of the new law, is permanent.

A typical scenario under which a commercial building roof replacement is required to comply with a building energy code is one where an older building with a low-slope roof has R-11 or R-12 insulation in the roof prior to the roof replacement. The R-12 assumption is based on a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) study that evaluated the level of existing insulation in commercial building roofs. For most of the country, current building energy codes require roof replacements to have a minimum level of R-25 or R-30, depending on the climate zone.

The average simple payback period for meeting the energy code is 11.6 years, according to a comprehensive energy modeling study completed in 2009 (“Energy and Environmental Impact Reduction Opportunities for Existing Buildings with Low-Slope Roofs,” produced by Covestro).

The payback period is the amount of time it takes for the energy savings to equal the cost of installing the additional insulation. By allowing a building owner to deduct the full cost of the roof replacement, including the cost for installing additional insulation, the net cost of the entire project is reduced by 25 percent to 30 percent, depending on a tax payer’s tax rate. (The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act reduced the corporate tax rate to 21 percent, but the pass-through rates, which are more relevant to small businesses, are closer to 30 percent, which increases the impact of this new deduction.) More importantly, the deduction shortens the average payback period on the cost of installing additional insulation to 8.1 years, making the investment in energy efficiency even more cost effective for the building owner.

Disaster Relief Reforms and Resilient Buildings

Recent maneuvers by Congressional budget writers provided several positive reforms that will impact the resiliency of buildings in some of the most vulnerable parts of the country.

First, Congress passed improvements to the Federal Cost Share Reform Incentive that increases post-disaster federal cost-share with states from 75 percent to as high as 85 percent on a sliding scale based on whether a state has taken proactive steps to improve disaster preparedness. These steps can include the adoption and enforcement of the most recent building codes. This further incentivizes states to maintain robust and current building codes, including the energy code.

Second, under reforms to the Stafford Act, federal disaster relief funds administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency may be used to replace or restore the function of a facility to industry standards without regard to pre-disaster condition and replace or restore components of the facility not damaged by the disaster where replacement or restoration is required to fully restore the function of a facility. This allows post-disaster funds to be more effectively used to improve the resiliency of damaged buildings and should create opportunities for higher performing roof systems to replace those damaged in disasters.

While the built environment is likely to benefit under recent Congressional action, other policy priorities for the construction and energy efficient industries have been left unresolved. For example, Congress “extended” several clean energy and energy-efficiency related tax provisions, including the Section 179D deduction for commercial building energy efficiency. However, in head-scratching fashion, this and other tax provisions were only extended through December 31, 2017. This means more work is ahead to preserve the policies for the long term and add much needed certainty to the marketplace.

Unpredictable is a polite (and likely understated) description of the policy environment in our nation’s capital. You need not look beyond the recent FY2018 budget deal for an example. Building energy efficiency advocates spent countless hours educating lawmakers on the importance of funding federal research led by the Department of Energy (DOE). Fearing a federal budget that would cripple these vital programs by slashing budgets, advocates saw an 11 percent increase to the DOE’s Office Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget, which leads research on building energy performance. And while history is a poor predictor of future success, recent action impacting buildings demonstrates that policymakers understand the need for strong policies that encourage and lead to more efficient and resilient construction.

Updated NIBS Study Proves Mitigation Is a Sound Investment

Table 1. Benefit-cost ratio by hazard and mitigation measure. Courtesy of the National Institute of Building Sciences.

More than a decade ago, the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), a nonprofit mandated by Congress to improve building process and facility performance, issued a landmark report which changed the conversation about the value of resilience. The 2005 report, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves, was authored by NIBS’ Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC), which promotes collaboration to achieve resilience objectives among a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Working from data provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the report found that every $1 of natural hazard mitigation funded by the FEMA between 1993 and 2003 saved the American people an average of $4 in future losses. That one to four ratio of investment to returns was widely quoted at the time that the report was published, and has been cited repeatedly during the past decade as interest in resilience grown. This report was among the first to demonstrate that investment in mitigation could deliver significant returns.

During the intervening years, as the frequency and severity of natural disasters has intensified, MMC leadership recognized the need to update and expand the 2005 study. Philip Schneider, AIA, Director of the MMC, explains that the “disaster landscape” has changed since 2005, necessitating a new report. “Our hazard maps, particularly, for earthquake and wind, have had several updates based on more research and better data. Our codes and standards are much improved for creating disaster resistance than they were over ten years ago. Our exposure to disasters, especially, building in disaster-prone areas, has increased substantially. We also have better methods for determining vulnerability to disasters than we had then, and more sophisticated economic analysis tools.’’ In fact, as part of the changed “disaster landscape” that Schneider references, 2017 set unwelcome records related to climate and weather events. According to a report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in early January, the U.S. experienced 16 separate billion-dollar disaster events, matching 2011 for the record number of billion-dollar disasters for an entire calendar year. Together, these events cost the country more than $300 billion dollars, a new annual record for the United States. While this data was released after the publication of the MMC report, it underscores the urgent need to lessen the financial impact of these increasingly frequent disasters.

Figure 1. Total costs and benefits of 23 years of federal mitigation grants. Courtesy of the National Institute of Building Sciences.

After a year-long effort, the MMC released its updated report in January of this year. Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2017 Interim Report examined two specific mitigation strategies and found that mitigation is of even greater value now than it was when the first report was released. First, based on updated data on the impact of FEMA grants, the report stated that society now saves $6 for every $1 spent on mitigation. Looking at a second mitigation strategy, the report found a corresponding “benefit-cost” ratio of four to one for spending that exceeded select provisions of the 2015 International Code Council building codes. In summarizing its findings for both strategies, the MMC stated that, “Mitigation represents a sound financial investment.” (For the purposes of this study mitigation and resilience have similar meanings. Schneider says, “For both terms there is no one universal definition; they both are broadly defined with considerable overlap. However, resilience tends to be more community-based, taking into account a wider range of infrastructure, economic, environmental and social issues. Mitigation tends to be more building centric, but still can pertain to a subset or even the same set of wider range issues.”)

The report points out that while mitigation strategies deliver financial rewards, they would also provide other significant benefits. Implementing the two sets of mitigation strategies detailed in the report “would prevent 600 deaths, 1 million nonfatal injuries and 4,000 new cases of post-traumatic stress disorder in the long term.” Additionally, the report projects that designing new buildings to exceed the model ICC building codes would help fuel economic growth, “resulting in 87,000 new, long-term jobs, and an approximate 1 percent increase in utilization of domestically produced construction material.”

Natural Disasters

The report specifically looked at four potentially cataclysmic natural forces: hurricane winds, earthquakes, riverine floods and hurricane surges. Then they looked at five stakeholder groups that would bear the costs and enjoy the benefits of mitigation for the four natural hazards under consideration. These stakeholder groups are:

  1. Developers: corporations that invest in and build new buildings, and usually sell those buildings once they are completed, owning them only for months or a few years
  2. Title holders: people or corporations who own existing buildings, generally buying them from developers or prior owners
  3. Lenders: people or corporations that lend a title holder the money to buy a building
  4. Tenants: people or corporations who occupy the building, whether they own it or not
  5. Community: people, corporations, local government, emergency service providers, and everyone else associated with the building or who does business with the tenant

Figure 2. Total costs and benefits of new design to exceed 2015 I-Code requirements. Courtesy of the National Institute of Building Sciences.

The study reports that when the cost each group bears to mitigate a loss is subtracted from the positive benefits it enjoys, the “net benefit” is positive in each category. In other words, the value of investing in mitigation is spread broadly across the construction business and the people it serves.

The authors of the report are careful to point out that the cited benefit-cost ratios, or BCRs, are generated from two very specific mitigation strategies: those used by FEMA, and those incorporating designs that exceed provisions of ICC codes. Noting that the results from the 2005 study represented only a single, very narrow set of strategies but were incorrectly used to justify “all types of mitigation strategies,” the authors of the study specifically say that they did not provide an aggregate number in the updated study, but elected to provide BCRs for the two strategies individually. Moving forward, providing an aggregate number is definitely one of their goals: “Once the project team has identified BCRs for a sufficient number of mitigation strategies, it will provide an aggregated number representing the overall benefit of mitigation.” To help achieve that goal, multiple studies are being conducted by the MCC to examine the value of many kinds of natural hazard mitigation at the national level, and more studies are being planned, pending the acquisition of funding.

Focusing on the Roof

What do the results of this study mean for those who focus on the integrity of a roofing system to help create a resilient structure? Schneider underscores the importance of a resilient roof as a component of an overall mitigation strategy. “If the roofing system is compromised in either a windstorm or wildfire, the building or home is subject to total loss.” He also observes that achieving resilience, either in an entire community or in an individual structure, will be a combined effort. “Resilience will be best implemented when states and communities develop and effect resilience plans. Communities, particularly, need to address zoning. Codes and standards organizations need to constantly be updating their documents to address resilience, and architects, engineers, developers and contractors should be building to resilience standards. Manufacturers have their part in providing more resilient products and systems.”

The NIBS report is being praised as an important tool to help in decision-making about investment in resilience, and influential stakeholders are supporting its approach. Executive Director Paul Kovacs of the Toronto-based Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction says, “Findings of the 2005 report, that resilience offers a societal payback of $4 for every $1 invested in mitigation, made an extremely important contribution to the argument that building resilience towards natural hazards is not costly in the mid- to long-term and, in fact, offers a solid Return on Investment. The 4:1 ratio became the most commonly cited metric to show that resilience works, that such things as building codes work. The updated study released yesterday puts a finer point on the metrics and continues to offer overwhelming evidence that building resilience is key to avoiding death, injuries, property damage and disruption.”

Mike DuCharme, Chairman of the EPDM Roofing Association (ERA), adds support from the manufacturers’ point of view. “We know that our EPDM products can play an essential role in helping to create more resilient roofing systems. With this new report showing the economic advantages of resilience, we can provide the construction industry with materials that can not only enhance the performance of a resilient roofing system, but also provide financial advantages as well.”

The NIBS report concludes by pointing out that, “Not everyone is willing or able to bear the up-front construction costs for more resilient buildings, even if the long-term benefits exceed the up-front costs,” and suggests that some creative incentives might be needed “to align competing interests of different groups.”

FEMA, the source of the statistics for the NIBS report, is addressing this very issue and has just released its Draft National Mitigation Investment Strategy at the request of the Department of Homeland Security. This strategy is meant to address the lack of coordination in mitigation investment and is organized to achieve these six outcomes:

  1. Coordination of risk mitigation and management improves between and among public, private, and non-profit sector entities.
  2. The private and nonprofit sectors increase their investments in and innovations related to mitigation.
  3. State, local, tribal and territorial governments are increasingly empowered to lead risk reduction activities and share responsibility and accountability with the federal government.
  4. Public, private, and nonprofit sector entities develop and share more of the data and tools needed to make risk-informed mitigation investments.
  5. Public, private, and nonprofit sector entities improve risk communication, leading to more risk-informed mitigation investments by individuals and communities.
  6. The built environment — whether grey or nature-based infrastructure, and including lifeline infrastructure, buildings, and homes — becomes more resilient

This Draft report is now available for comment and FEMA will continue to research the issue before releasing its final recommendations.

This increasing focus on the issue of resilience has moved the debate forward, beyond where it was just a year ago at this time. The question is no longer whether resilience is needed; the daunting statistics of 2017 confirm that cataclysmic weather events are on the increase and can cause staggering damage to the built environment. The NIBS report provides hard evidence that resilience is an investment in the future that will pay dividends for years to come. The debate now moves forward to the best ways to finance these mitigation efforts, so that those future dividends can be realized.

Research Centers Provide Valuable Information About Roof Performance

The Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety Research Center evaluates construction materials and systems in its state-of-the-art testing laboratories. Photos: Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety.

Until early October of this past year, Chester County, South Carolina, was home to a small, single-story house, similar to thousands of houses across the United States, but unique in almost every way.

What made this small structure one of a kind? The house sat inside the large test chamber at the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS) Research Center, dwarfed by the six-story chamber’s cavernous interior. The house was built, in fact, to be destroyed.

On Oct. 5, the staff of the IBHS Research Center focused the test chamber’s intense destructive wind power, generated by 105 super-sized fans, on the small structure. Prior to the test, the center had digitized the wind record of an actual storm, and the wind speeds produced by the fans were varied accordingly. In the case of the simulated storm in early October, wind speeds were increased in three phases, up to 120 miles an hour. The house experienced significant damage to its walls and interior, and the garage door was ripped off. But the roof, built to IBHS’ recommended standards, held firm.

The IBHS research facility, which opened in 2010 and is funded by property insurers, evaluates various residential and commercial construction materials and systems. The lab is the only lab in the world that can unleash the power of highly realistic windstorms, wind-driven rain, hailstorms and wildfire ember storms on full-scale one- and two-story residential and commercial buildings in a controlled, repeatable fashion.

The mission of IBHS is to reduce the social and economic effects of natural disasters. And much of its research, like its attack on this small house last October, has focused, at least in part, on the resilience of roofs. As IBHS President and CEO Julie Rochman has noted, “The roof is your first line of defense against anything Mother Nature inflicts … and during a bad storm your roof endures fierce pressure from wind, rain, and flying debris.”

Educating the Industry

In May of 2017, the EPDM Roofing Association (ERA) launched a microsite to help educate the construction industry about the increasing need for resilience in the built environment, and the contributions that EPDM roofing membrane can make to a

IBHS conducts hail research in the Laboratory Building for Small Tests, where hailstones of various sizes are recreated and propelled against roof samples. Photos: Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety.

resilient system. That effort came in response to the increasing number of extreme weather events. Since last May when ERA first launched its resilience microsite, the pattern of extreme weather has continued unabated, in the form of wildfires throughout the west which were exacerbated by extreme heat, and Hurricanes Harvey and Irma which left devastating floods and wind damage in their wake.

For more than a decade, ERA leadership has supported research about factors that contribute to the resilience of EPDM as a membrane, and how it best functions in various roofing systems. More recently, ERA has invested in site-visits to leading research organizations that generate science-based data about resiliency in building systems, first to Oak Ridge National Laboratories, near Knoxville, Tennessee, and then to the National Research Energy Laboratories (NREL) in Golden, Colorado. Given the complementary goals of ERA and IBHS to help support the creation of truly resilient buildings, ERA leadership welcomed the opportunity to visit the South Carolina research facility.

Analyzing Hail Damage

The hail research at IBHS was of special interest to ERA, given ERA’s research that has consistently shown that EPDM membrane offers exceptionally strong resistance against hail damage. Based on field and test data sponsored by ERA, EPDM roof membranes outperform other roof systems in terms of hail protection. In 2007, ERA conducted tests which showed that EPDM roofing membranes did not suffer membrane damage and avoided leaking problems endemic to other roofing surfaces in similar circumstances. Of the 81 targets installed for that research over different surfaces, 76 did not fail when impacted with hail ice balls up to three inches in diameter. Perhaps most importantly, the impact resistance of both field-aged and heat-aged membranes in this test also clearly demonstrated that EPDM retains the bulk of its impact resistance as it ages.

The IBHS Research Center’s super-sized fans can recreate winds to measure their effects on full-scale one- and two-story residential and commercial buildings. Photos: Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety.

Using this ERA-generated research as a starting point, ERA leadership travelled to IBHS with specific questions in mind, including: What has IBHS research revealed about the impact of hail on various types of roofing membranes and systems? Does the IBHS research reinforce or contradict ERA’s findings? What are the next questions to be asked about the damage that hail can do, and are resilient systems cost-effective?

Hail research at IBHS is conducted in the Laboratory Building for Small Tests, a compact structure with equipment appropriate to replicate large hailstones and hurl them at roof samples. As part of its research, IBHS has worked with the National Weather Service to assess the geographic locations threatened by hail. Individual storms have long been recognized as creating widespread and expensive destruction, but is hail a threat that is confined to just a few specific geographic areas of the country?

In fact, more than 75 percent of the cities in the United States experience at least one hailstorm a year, and the risk extends across the country to all areas east of the Rockies. Annually, hail losses reach more than 1 billion dollars. The IBHS has identified the factors that contribute to the extent of hailstorm damage, with the impact resistance of roofing materials being one of the most critical factors, along with hailstone size, density and hardness. Likewise, the roof is one of the components most vulnerable to hail. Analysis of property damage resulting from a hailstorm in Dallas-Fort Worth in 2011 found that roof losses accounted for 75 percent of property damage in the area, and more than 90 percent of damage payouts.

In their efforts to replicate the true nature of hail, the staff at IBHS has conducted extensive fieldwork, and travelled widely around the United States to gather actual hailstones immediately after a storm. Over the last five years, the IBHS hail team has collected more than 3,500 hailstones, focusing on their dimensions, mass and compressive stress. The stones range from .04 inches in diameter to well over four inches. In addition, IBHS has conducted three-D scans of more than one hundred stones to further educate themselves about the true nature of hailstones, and how they contribute to the overall damage inflicted by hailstorms.

The research findings of IBHS reinforce or complement those of ERA. IBHS has found that unsupported roofing materials perform poorly and ballasted low-slope roofs perform especially well in hailstorms because they disperse energy. IBHS recommends that builders use systems that have impact resistance approval, including their own fortified standard. While IBHS found that newer roofing membranes perform better than older membranes, ERA studies found that new, heat-aged and field-aged EPDM membranes all offered a high degree of hail resistance, demonstrating that EPDM retains the bulk of its impact resistance as it ages.

Both organizations stress that resilient roofing systems in new and retrofitted construction can make good financial sense. According to Julie Rochman of IBHS, “We are really going to continue focusing on moving our culture from one that is focused on post-disaster response and recovery to pre-disaster investment and loss-mitigation … we’re going to be very focused on getting the roofs right in this country.”

For the members of ERA, “getting the roof right” has long been a dominant focus of their businesses. Now, in the face of increasingly frequent and extreme weather events, getting the roof right means gathering up-to-the-minute research about resilient systems, and putting that research to work to create resilient roofs.

Efficient and Effective Construction Through Building Codes

This fire station roof assembly includes thermally efficient cross-ventilated non-structural composite insulation manufactured by Atlas Roofing and installed by Utah Tile & Roofing.   Photos: Atlas Roofing Corp

This fire station roof assembly includes thermally efficient cross-ventilated non-structural composite insulation manufactured by Atlas Roofing and installed by Utah Tile & Roofing. Photos: Atlas Roofing Corp

In a world where the bottom line is a critical concern in any construction project, conscientious design and roofing professionals look at the lifetime costs of a building instead of just the short-term construction outlay. Choices made during a building’s initial design and construction have long-term influence on the lifetime of its operation and maintenance. With so many building products and options available, building codes take on a vital role in guiding decisions about building quality, safety, and energy performance. These trusted benchmarks, compiled with input from a broad range of stakeholders, are designed to ensure that the best technologies, materials, and methods are used in construction.

Building Energy Codes 101

Model building energy codes are revised every three years to incorporate the latest research and ensure that new and existing buildings benefit from the methods and products that will produce the most value and safety over time. The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and ASHRAE set standards tailored to specific climate zones and include options to provide flexibility in choosing the methods and materials best suited to each project’s needs while nevertheless meeting the requirements. Without regular, incremental improvements to these codes, new buildings would be dated even before their construction begins.

Indeed, while some building features are straightforward to replace and upgrade over time, some of the most vital elements of building performance need to be “designed in” at the outset. Codes are designed to lock in savings during initial construction or major renovations to promote cost-effective design and construction practices. For example, roof replacement projects provide an opportunity to cost-effectively improve the overall energy efficiency performance of buildings.

Energy-efficient design strategies are helpful to all building owners, including government and municipal projects built with taxpayer funding. Pictured here is Fire Station #108 in Brighton, Utah. Photos: Atlas Roofing Corp.

One of the major benefits of building code updates in recent years is the focus on energy efficiency and resiliency. The Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety writes that, “Over the centuries, building codes have evolved from regulations stemming from tragic experiences to standards designed to prevent them.” With the ongoing effects of climate change, buildings are subjected to extremes of weather and temperature that challenge the performance of their systems. Most structures built over the previous century were not designed or constructed with energy efficiency in mind and suffer from poor insulation and dramatic thermal loss. Buildings account for over 40 percent of America’s total energy consumption, 74 percent of our electricity, and cause 40 percent of our greenhouse emissions. Implementing best practices for sustainable design and utilizing highly efficient building materials like insulation could save billions of dollars a year and improve the reliability of the electrical grid systems.

Energy-Efficient Roofing

A report prepared in 2009 by Bayer MaterialScience (now Covestro), “Energy and Environmental Impact Reduction Opportunities for Existing Buildings with Low-Slope Roofs,” determined that going from an R-12 insulation level (i.e., the average R-value of roofs on older buildings) to R-30 would pay for itself in energy savings in just 12 years with an average reduction in building energy use of 7 percent. Better roof insulation also saves money on equipment, since buildings with weaker envelopes require larger and costlier HVAC systems and future upgrades to HVAC equipment that is smaller and less expensive will always be limited by this constraint.

These savings are not only confined to new construction. In renovations, the removal and replacement of a roof membrane offers the best and most cost-effective opportunity to improve a building’s thermal envelope and better position that building for energy-efficiency upgrades down the road.

Energy Efficiency in Government Buildings

While these strategies are helpful to all building owners, they are especially important for government projects built with an increasingly tight supply of taxpayer dollars. Here is another place where the building codes provide a major assist. For federal commercial and multi-family high-rise residential buildings where the design process began after Nov. 6, 2016, agencies are required to design buildings to meet ASHRAE 90.1-2013 and, if life-cycle cost-effective, achieve energy consumption levels that are at least 30 percent below the levels of the ASHRAE 90.1-2013 baseline building. These savings are calculated by looking at the building envelope and energy consuming systems normally specified by ASHRAE 90.1 (such as space heating, space cooling, ventilation, service water heating, and lighting but not receptacle and process loads not covered by 90.1).

Photos: Atlas Roofing Corp.

Changes in the 2013 edition of ASHRAE 90.1 clarify the insulation requirements of various low-slope re-roofing activities. New definitions of “roof covering” (the topmost component of the roof assembly intended for weather resistance, fire classification, or appearance) and “roof recovering” (the process of installing an additional roof covering over an existing roof covering without removing the existing roof covering) were added and the exceptions to the R-value requirement for roof replacements were clarified to include only “roof recovering” and the “removal and replacement of a roof covering where there is existing insulation integral to or below the roof deck.” In all other instances, when a roof membrane is removed and replaced, the insulation must be brought up to current R-value requirements, which range from R-20 to R-35, depending on climate zone. In addition, the prescriptive R-value requirements for low-slope roofs under 90.1-2013, as compared to previous version (90.1-2010), are higher. For instance, in populous climate zones 4 and 5 the R-values for these roofs increased from R-20 to R-30.

The Department of Energy is preparing to start a rulemaking process to update the federal building energy standard baseline to the 90.1-2016 Standard, which will provide about an 8 percent improvement in energy cost savings compared to 90.1-2013. However, no changes were made to the R-values for low-slope roofs. Managers of federal buildings are working to comply with updated directives that impact new construction and building alterations, including:

  • “Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings”
  • GSA PBS-P100 “Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service”
  • DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC).

The instructions in these publications coupled with Executive Order 13693, issued on March 15, 2015, and “Guiding Principles for Sustainable Federal Buildings,” require new and existing federal buildings to adopt improved energy efficiency and “green building” attributes. New buildings are expected to “employ strategies that minimize energy usage” and existing ones must “seek to achieve optimal energy efficiency.” These directives require:

  • Regular benchmarking and reporting of building annual energy use intensity.
  • Annual 2.5 percent improvement in energy use intensity every year through the end of 2015.
  • All new buildings be designed to achieve net-zero energy use beginning in 2020.

Good Practice in Action

At the end of the day, the success of building codes in producing the cost-savings, weather-resiliency, and energy efficiency is determined by how they are adopted and enforced locally. If the most current codes were universally adopted and enforced,

Photos: Atlas Roofing Corp.

there would be no competitive advantage to inferior building construction practices. Incremental upgrades would provide a steady stream of work that would increase competitiveness for building professionals and suppliers. Updated job skills would increase market value for construction professionals and enable innovation in the construction sector and increased market share for innovative products and processes that would improve economies of scale and lower their cost differential.

Building codes provide a comprehensive and reliable standard that contribute to local economies and improve building performance. Knowledge of code requirements help designers and contractors deliver more value to their clients. Finally, a bit more of an investment during design and construction can yield significant savings in building operation and tangible benefits to the environment and economy of areas that adopt higher building standards.

Understanding and Installing Insulated Metal Panels

IMP installation

IMP installation typically occurs once the steel frame is in place. The more common vertical installation allows for faster close-in for interior trade work. Photos: Metl-Span

Insulated metal panels, or IMPs, incorporate a composite design with foam insulation sandwiched between a metal face and liner. IMPs form an all-in-one-system, with a single component serving as the exterior rainscreen, air and moisture barrier, and thermal insulation. Panels can be installed vertically or horizontally, are ideal for all climates, and can be coated with a number of high-performance coating systems that offer minimal maintenance and dynamic aesthetic options.

The Benefits of IMPs

At the crux of the IMP system is thermal performance in the form of polyurethane insulation. Panel thicknesses generally range from 2 to 6 inches, with the widest panels often reserved for cold storage or food processing applications. IMPs provide roughly three times the insulation value of field-assembled glass fiber systems, and panel thickness and coating options can be tailored to meet most R-value requirements.

IMPs offer a sealed interior panel face to create a continuous weather barrier, and the materials used are not conducive to water retention. Metal—typically galvanized steel, stainless steel or aluminum—coupled with closed-cell insulation creates an envelope solution impervious to vapor diffusion. Closed-cell insulation has a much denser and more compact structure than most other insulation materials creating an advantage in air and vapor barrier designs.

Time, budget and design can all be looming expectations for any building project. A valuable characteristic of IMPs is their ability to keep you on time and on budget while providing design flexibility to meet even the toughest building codes. The unique single-source composition of insulated metal panels allows for a single team to accomplish quick and complete enclosure of the building so interior trades can begin. This expedites the timeline and streamlines the budget by eliminating the need for additional teams to complete the exterior envelope and insulation.

Minimizing Moisture

The seams function both as barrier and pressure-equalized joint, providing long-term protection that requires minimal maintenance. Multiple component systems often rely on the accurate and consistent placement of sealant and may also require periodic maintenance. In addition, with IMPS a vented horizontal joint is designed for pressure equalization, and, even in the presence of an imperfect air barrier, the pressure-equalized joinery maintains the system’s performance integrity. With multi component systems, imperfections can lead to moisture infiltration.

The real damage occurs when water enters through a wall and into a building becoming entrapped—which leads to corrosion, mold, rot, or delaminating. Unlike IMPs, some multi-component wall systems include a variety of different assembly materials that may hold water, like glass fiber or paper-faced gypsum. When those materials get wet, they can retain water, which can result in mold and degradation.

Installation

Typically, IMP installation is handled by crews of 2-4 people. Very little equipment is needed other than standard construction tools including hand drills, band and circular saws, sealant guns, and other materials. The panels can be installed via the ground or from a lift, and materials can be staged on interior floors or on the ground level. Panel installation typically occurs once the steel frame is in place and prior to interior fit out. The more common vertical installation allows for faster close-in for interior trade work.

Metl-Span CFR insulated metal standing seam roof panels

Metl-Span CFR insulated metal standing seam roof panels combine durable interior and exterior faces with exceptional thermal performance. Photos: Metl-Span

IMPs are often installed using concealed clips and fasteners that are attached to the structural supports (16 gauge minimum wall thickness tubes or stud framing). The panels are typically installed bottom to top and left to right, directly over the steel framing. No exterior gypsum or weather barriers are required, as these panels act as the building’s weather barriers.

The product’s high strength-to-weight ratio allows for longer installation spans and reduced structural costs. The metal skins act as the flange of a beam, resisting bending stress, while the foam core acts as the web of the beam, resisting shear stress. This important aspect also contributes to a long product life cycle.

Design Flexibility

IMPs offer a unique combination of aesthetic design options, including mitered panel edges, and a vast array of profiles, textures and reveal configurations. Flat wall profiles are ideally suited for designers seeking a monolithic architectural façade without sacrificing performance elements. The beautiful, flush panels have become a mainstay in projects in a number of high-end architectural markets.

The 35,000-square-foot AgroChem manufacturing facility in Saratoga Springs, N.Y.

The 35,000-square-foot AgroChem manufacturing facility in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., showcases vertically installed Metl-Span CF36 insulated metal panels. Photos: Metl-Span

Striated or ribbed wall profiles are more common in commercial and industrial applications. The products offer bold vertical lines for a distinctive blend of modern and utilitarian design, while continuing flawless symmetry from facade to facade, or room to room on exposed interior faces. Ribbed panels also work in tandem with natural lighting to create impactful designs. Different textures, such as embossed or simulated stucco finish, add dimensional nuance and contrast to projects of all shapes and sizes.

IMPs are offered in an unlimited palette of standard and custom colors to meet any aesthetic requirement, as well as energy-efficient solar reflectivity standards. Panels are typically painted with a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) coating with optional pearlescent and metallic effects, and can even simulate expensive wood grains and natural metals. PVDF finishes offer exceptional performance characteristics that can be tailored to meet most any project needs, including saltwater environments and extreme weather conditions.

Roof Configurations

For all the above reasons, IMPs have also become a popular building product for roofing applications. Insulated metal standing seam roof panels provide the desired aesthetic of traditional single-skin metal standing seem roofs with added thermal performance. Standing seam roof panels feature a raised lip at the panel joinery, which not only enhances overall weather resistance but provides the desired clean, sleek sightlines.

IMP installation

IMP installation typically occurs once the steel frame is in place. The more common vertical installation allows for faster close-in for interior trade work Photos: Metl-Span

The systems typically feature field-seamed, concealed fasteners that are not exposed to the elements. Just like their wall panel counterparts, insulated metal standing seam roof panels are available in a variety of thicknesses and exterior finishes.

Another popular insulated metal roof application showcases overlapping profile panels. The product’s overlapping, through-fastened joinery allows for quick installation in roof applications, resulting in reduced labor costs and faster close-in.

Finally, insulated metal roof deck panel systems combine the standard steel deck, insulation, and substrate necessary for single-ply membranes or non-structural standing seam roof coverings. The multi-faceted advantages of this system include longer spans between supports, superior deflection resistance, and a working platform during installation.

Insulated metal wall and roof panels offer an exceptional level of value when compared to traditional multi-component wall systems. The product’s unique single-component construction combines outstanding performance with simple and quick installation, a diverse array of aesthetic options, and the quality assurance of a single provider.

Definition of Resilience: Hospital Provides a Lesson in Preparing for Weather Events

Staten Island University Hospital escaped major damage during Hurricane Sandy. The city of New York allocated $28 million to fund the hospital’s resiliency plan, and the state contributed an additional $12 million.

Staten Island University Hospital escaped major damage during Hurricane Sandy. The city of New York allocated $28 million to fund the hospital’s resiliency plan, and the state contributed an additional $12 million.

Almost five years ago, Hurricane Sandy bore down on New York City with winds that reached gusts of 100 miles an hour and a storm surge 16 feet above normal that flooded huge parts of the city. Entire neighborhoods lost electricity for several days, the Stock Exchange closed during and immediately after the storm, and scuba divers were called in to assess damage in parts of the city’s submerged subway system.

Staten Island, one of New York’s five boroughs, was heavily damaged. Its position in New York Harbor, at the intersection of the coastlines of Long Island and New Jersey, leaves the island particularly exposed to storm surge during extreme weather events. A geologist from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts described Staten Island as being, “at the end of, basically, a big funnel between New Jersey and New York.”

Staten Island University Hospital almost miraculously escaped major damage, despite flood waters coming within inches of it doors. The hospital stayed open during and after Hurricane Sandy, continuing to provide vital services despite the storm. The hospital is home to the largest emergency room on Staten Island, and houses more than one third of the borough’s in-patient beds. New York Mayor DeBlasio has called the hospital, “a truly decisive healthcare facility—even more so in times of crisis.”

While both hospital and city officials were relieved that the facility had escaped Sandy largely unharmed, the lesson that Sandy delivered was taken to heart: major mitigation efforts were needed if the hospital expected to survive similar storms in the future. With this in mind, the city of New York allocated $28 million to fund the hospital’s resiliency plan, with the state kicking in an additional $12 million.

The money is being spent on three major projects to better prepare the hospital for future storms: the elevation of critical building power and mechanical systems, the installation of sanitary holding tanks and backflow prevention, and the installation of major wind resiliency and roofing improvements. 

Resilient Design

The Staten Island experience, and the plan to upgrade its ability to withstand major weather events, is hardly unique. Nationwide, resilient design has become a major focus of the construction community.

Hurricane Sandy certainly intensified the sense of urgency surrounding the need for resilience. But well before that, Hurricane Katrina, in 2005, provided a tragic case study on the fragility of seemingly stable structures, as the storm brought a small, poor southern city to the brink of chaos and devastated entire neighborhoods. While these two hurricanes drew national and international attention, communities throughout the country have also been dealing with frequent, erratic and intense weather events that disrupted daily life, resulting in economic losses and, all too often, the loss of human life. These emergencies may include catastrophic natural disasters, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, sinkholes, fires, floods, tornadoes, hailstorms, and volcanic activity. They also refer to man-made events such as acts of terrorism, release of radioactive materials or other toxic waste, wildfires and hazardous material spills.

The focus, to a certain degree, is on upgrading structures that have been damaged in natural disasters. But even more, architects and building owners are focusing on building resilience into the fabric of a structure to mitigate the impact of future devastating weather events. And, as with the Staten Island Hospital, the roof is getting new attention as an important component of a truly resilient structure.

The resilience of the roofing system is a critical component in helping a building withstand a storm and rebound quickly. In addition, a robust roofing system can help maintain a habitable temperature in a building in case of loss of power. Photo: Hutchinson Design Group.

The resilience of the roofing system is a critical component in helping a building withstand a storm and rebound quickly. In addition, a robust roofing system can help maintain a habitable temperature in a building in case of loss of power. Photo: Hutchinson Design Group.

So, what is resilience, how is it defined, and why is it important to buildings in differing climates facing unique weather events? The Department of Homeland Security defines resilience as “the ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand and rapidly recover from disruption due to emergencies.” The key words here are “adapt” and “rapidly recover.” In other words, resilience is measured in a structure’s ability to quickly return to normal after a damaging event. And the resilience of the roofing system, an essential element in protecting the integrity of a building, is a critical component in rebounding quickly. In addition, a robust roofing system can provide a critical evacuation path in an emergency, and can help maintain a habitable temperature in a building in case of loss of power.

According to a Resilience Task Force convened by the EPDM Roofing Association (ERA), two factors determine the resiliency of a roofing system: durable components and a robust design. Durable components are characterized by:
Outstanding weathering characteristics in all climates (UV resistance, and the ability to withstand extreme heat and cold).

  • Ease of maintenance and repair.
  • Excellent impact resistance.
  • Ability to withstand moderate movement cycles without fatigue.
  • Good fire resistance (low combustibility) and basic chemical resistance.
  • A robust design that will enhance the resiliency of a roofing system should incorporate:

  • Redundancy in the form of a backup system and/or waterproofing layer.
  • The ability to resist extreme weather events, climate change or change in building use.
  • Excellent wind uplift resistance, but most importantly multiple cycling to the limits of its adhesion.
  • Easily repaired with common tools and readily accessible materials.
  • More Information on Resilient Roofing

    The Resilience Task Force, working with the ERA staff, is also responding to the heightened interest in and concern over the resilience of the built environment by launching EpdmTheResilientRoof.org. The new website adds context to the information about EPDM products by providing a clearinghouse of sources about resilience, as well as an up-to-date roster of recent articles, blog posts, statements of professional organizations and other pertinent information about resilience.

    “This new website takes our commitment to the construction industry and to our customers to a new level. Our mission is to provide up-to-date science-based information about our products. Resilience is an emerging need, and we want to be the go-to source for architects, specifiers, building owners and contractors who want to ensure that their construction can withstand extreme events,” said Mike DuCharme, Chairman of ERA.

    EPDM roofs can be easily repaired and restored without the use of sophisticated, complicated equipment. Photo: Hutchinson Design Group.

    EPDM roofs can be easily repaired and restored without the use of sophisticated, complicated equipment. Photo: Hutchinson Design Group.

    EPDM and Resiliency

    The Resilience Task Force also conducted extensive fact finding to itemize the specific attributes of EPDM membrane that make it a uniquely valuable component of a resilient of a roofing system:

  • EPDM is a thermoset material with an inherit ability to recover and return to its original shape and performance after a severe weather event.
  • EPDM has been used in numerous projects in various geographic areas from the hottest climate in the Middle East to the freezing temperatures in Antarctica and Siberia.
  • After decades of exposures to extreme environmental conditions, EPDM membrane continues to exhibit a great ability to retain the physical properties and performances of ASTM specification standards.
  • EPDM is the only commercially available membrane that performs in an unreinforced state, making it very forgiving to large amounts of movement without damage and potentially more cycles before fatiguing.
  • EPDM offers excellent impact resistance to hail, particularly when aged.
  • EPDM is resistant to extreme UV exposure and heat.
  • EPDM far exceeded the test protocol ASTM D573 which requires materials to pass four weeks at 240 degrees Fahrenheit. EPDM black or white membranes passed 68 weeks at these high temperatures.
  • Exposed EPDM roof systems have been in service now for 50-plus years with little or no surface degradation.
  • EPDM is versatile.
  • EPDM can be configured in many roofing assemblies, including below-grade and between-slab applications.
  • EPDM is compatible with a broad range of construction materials/interfaces/conditions, making it a good choice for areas that may encounter unique challenges.
  • EPDM can be exposed to moisture and intense sunlight or totally immersed in salty water.
  • EPDM can easily be installed, repaired and restored following simple procedures without the use of sophisticated, complicated equipment.
  • EPDM can be repaired during power outages.
  • For further information about the need for resilience, and the appropriate use of EPDM in resilient structures, visit EPDMTheResilientRoof.com.