SPRI Updates and Improves Roof Edge Standards

Low-slope metal perimeter edge details, including fascia, coping and gutters, are critical systems that can strongly impact the long-term performance of single-ply roofs. Photo: Johns Manville

The effect of high winds on roofs is a complex phenomenon, and inadequate wind uplift design is a common factor in roofing failures. Damage from wind events has historically been dramatic, and wind-induced roof failure is one of the major contributors to insurance claims.

Roofing professionals have long recognized the importance of proper low-slope roof edge and gutter designs, particularly in high-wind conditions. For this reason, SPRI, the association representing sheet membrane and component suppliers to the commercial roofing industry, has spent more than a decade enhancing testing and design standards for these roofing details.

SPRI introduced the first version of its landmark standard, ANSI/SPRI/ES-1 “Wind Design Standard for Edge Systems Used with Low Slope Roofing Systems” in 1998. Since then, the association has continually revised, re-designated and re-approved the document as an ANSI (American National Standards Institute) standard.

Testing of edge securement per ANSI/SPRI ES-1 is required per the International Building Code (IBC), which has been adopted by every state in the country.

This standard provides the basic requirements for wind-load resistance design and testing for roof-edge securement, perimeter edge systems, and nailers. It also provides minimum edge system material thicknesses that lead to satisfactory flatness, and designs to minimize corrosion.

Construction professionals have been successfully using the standard, along with the specifications and requirements of roofing membrane and edge system manufacturers to strengthen their wind designs.

Until recently, the biggest news on the wind design front was the approval of ANSI/SPRI/FM 4435/ES-1, “Wind Design Standard for Edge Systems Used with Low-slope Roofing Systems.” Let’s call it “4435/ES-1” for short. SPRI knew recent post-hurricane investigations by the Roofing Industry Committee on Weather Issues (RICOWI) and investigations of losses by FM Global consistently showed that, in many cases, damage to a low-slope roof system during high-wind events begins when the edge of the assembly becomes disengaged from the building. Once this occurs, the components of the roof system (membrane, insulation, etc.) are exposed. Damage then propagates across the entire roof system by peeling of the roof membrane, insulation, or a combination of the two.

Recognizing that edge metal is a leading cause of roof failures, SPRI has redoubled its efforts to create a series of new and revised documents for ANSI approval. As has always been the case, ANSI endorsement is a critical step toward the ultimate goal of getting these design criteria included in the IBC.

A Systems Approach to Enhancing Roof Edge Design

Roofing professionals understand that successful roof design requires the proper integration of a wide variety of roofing materials and components. For years, leading roofing manufacturers have taken a “systems” approach to their product lines. Recently, SPRI has zeroed in on the roof edge. Low-slope, metal perimeter edge details include fascia, coping and gutters, are critical systems that can strongly impact the long-term performance of single-ply roofs.

As part of the ES-1 testing protocol, RE-3 tests upward and outward simultaneous pull of a horizontal and vertical flanges of a parapet coping cap. Photo: OMG Edge Systems

SPRI first addressed roof gutters in 2010 with the development of ANSI/SPRI GD-1. The testing component of this document was recently separated out to create a test standard and a design standard. The test standard, GT-1, “Test Standard for Gutter Systems,” which was approved as an American National Standard on May 25, 2016.

Similarly, SPRI has revised 4435/ES-1 to only be a test standard.

Making both edge standards (4435/ES-1 and GT-1) into standalone testing documents makes it easier for designers, contractors and building code officials to reference the testing requirements needed for metal roof edge systems.

IBC requires that perimeter edge metal fascia and coping (excluding gutters), be tested per the three test methods, referred to as RE-1, RE-2 and RE-3 in the ES-1 standard. The design elements of ES-1 were never referenced in code, which caused some confusion as to how ES-1 was to be applied. The latest version of 4435/ES-1 (2017) only includes the tests referenced in code to eliminate that confusion.

Test methods in 4435/ES-1 2017 have the same names (RE-1, RE-2, and RE-3), and use the same test method as 4435/ES-1 2011. Because there are no changes to the test methods, any edge system tested to the 2011 version would not need to be retested using the 2017 version.

FM Global’s input was instrumental in the changes in 2011 when ANSI/SPRI ES-1 incorporated components of FM 4435 to become 4435/ES-1. However, there are no additional FM related changes in the latest 4435/ES-1 standard.

This gravel stop is being tested according to the ANSI/SPRI ES-1 standard using the RE-2 test for fascia systems. Photo: OMG Edge Systems

Per ANSI requirements, 4435/ES-1 2011 needed to be re-balloted, which is required by ANSI every five years. SPRI took this opportunity to have it approved as a test standard only to eliminate the confusion referenced above. FM Global was consulted and indicated it wanted to keep “FM” in the title. (FM was on the canvas list for the test standard and actually uses it as its own test standard.)

With 4435/ES-1 becoming a test standard for coping and fascia only, and GT-1 being a test standard for gutters, SPRI determined that a separate edge design standard was needed. Meet ED-1, a design standard for metal perimeter edge systems.

The design portions of the ES-1 edge and the GD-1 gutter standards have been combined and are now referenced by SPRI as ED-1. It has been developed and is currently being canvassed as an ANSI standard that will provide guidance for designing all perimeter edge metal including fascia, coping, and gutters.

ED-1 will be canvassed per the ANSI process later this year. However, SPRI is not planning to submit ED-1 for code approval.

SPRI ED-1 will include:

Material Design

  • Nailer attachment
  • Proper coverage
  • Recommended material thicknesses
  • Galvanic compatibility
  • Thermal movement
  • Testing requirements
  • “Appliance” attachment to edge systems

Limited Wind Design

  • Load to be required by the Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).
  • Tables similar to those included in 4435/ES-1 will be included for reference.

If this sounds a tad complex, imagine the design work required by the dedicated members of SPRI’s various subcommittees.

The Test Methods in Detail

The GT-1 standard is the newest, so let’s tackle this one first. As noted above, the ANSI/SPRI GT-1 test standard was developed by SPRI and received ANSI Approval in May of 2016. Testing of roof gutters is not currently required by IBC; however, field observations of numerous gutter failures in moderate to high winds, along with investigations by RICOWI following hurricanes have shown that improperly designed or installed gutters frequently fail in high wind events. GT-1 provides a test method that can be used by manufacturers of gutters, including contractors that brake or roll-form gutters, to determine if the gutter will resist wind design loads. Installing gutters tested to resist anticipated wind forces can give contractors peace of mind, and may provide a competitive advantage when presented to the building owner.

This gutter is being tested using the test method specified in ANSI/SPRI GD-1, “Design Standard for Gutter Systems Used with Low-Slope Roofs.” Photo: OMG Edge Systems

GT-1 tests full size and length samples (maximum 12 feet 0 inches) of gutter with brackets, straps, and fasteners installed per the gutter design. It is critical that the gutter be installed with the same brackets, straps, and fasteners, at the same spacing and locations as per the tested design to assure the gutter will perform in the field as tested. The fabricator should also label the gutter and/or provide documentation that the gutter system has been tested per GT-1 to resist the design loads required.

GT-1 consists primarily of three test methods (G-1, G-2, and G-3). Test method G-1 tests the resistance to wind loads acting outwardly on the face of the gutter, and G-2 tests the resistance to wind loads acting upwardly on the bottom of the gutter. G-3 tests resistance to the loads of ice and water acting downwardly on the bottom of the gutter.

Tests G-1 and G-2 are cycled (load, relax, increase load) tests to failure in both the original GD-1 standard and the new GT-1. The only change being that in GD-1 the loads are increased in increments of 10 lbf/ft2 (pound force per square foot) from 0 to failure, and in GT-1 they are increased in increments of 15 lbs/lf (pounds per linear foot) from 0 to 60 lbs/lf, then in 5 lbs/lf increments from above 60 lbs/lf to failure.

Note also that the units changed from lbf/ft2 (pound force per square foot) to lbs/lf (pounds per linear foot), which was done so that the tests could be run using the test apparatus loads without having to convert to pressures.

The GT-1 standard specifies a laboratory method for static testing external gutters. However, testing of gutters with a circular cross-section is not addressed in the standard, nor does the standard address water removal or the water-carrying capability of the gutter. In addition, downspouts and leaders are not included in the scope of the standard.

SPRI intends to submit ANSI/SPRI GT-1 for adoption in the next IBC code cycle.

As referenced above, IBC requires that perimeter edge metal (fascia and coping), excluding gutters, be tested per three test methods, referred to as RE-1, RE-2 and RE-3 in the ES-1 standard.

RE-1 tests the ability of the edge to secure a billowing membrane, and is only required for mechanically attached or ballasted membrane roof systems when there is no peel stop (seam plate or fasteners within 12 inches of the roof edge). RE-2 tests the outward pull for the horizontal face of an edge device. RE-3 tests upward and outward simultaneous pull on the horizontal and vertical sides of a parapet coping cap.

Calculating Roof Edge Design Pressures

All versions of ANSI/SPRI ES-1 and ANSI/SPRI GD-1, the 2011 version of ANSI/SPRI 4435/ES-1, and the new ED-1 standard all provide design information for calculating roof edge design pressures. These design calculations are based on ASCE7 (2005 and earlier), and consider the wind speed, building height, building exposure (terrain), and building use.

A gravel stop failure observed during roof inspections after Hurricane Ike in Sept. 2008. Photo: OMG Edge Systems

However, as stated above, IBC requires that the load calculation be per Chapter 16 of code, so the SPRI design standards are intended only as a reference for designers, fabricators, and installers of metal roof edge systems.

ES-1-tested edge metal is currently available from pre-manufactured suppliers, membrane manufacturers and metal fabricators that have tested their products at an approved laboratory.

The roofing contractor can also shop-fabricate edge metal, as long as the final product is tested by an approved testing service. The National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) has performed lab testing and maintains a certification listing for specific edge metal flashings using Intertek Testing Services, N.A. Visit www. nrca.net/rp/technical/details/files/its details.pdf for further details.

A list of shop fabricators that have obtained a sub-listing from NRCA to fabricate the tested edge metal products are also available at www. nrca.net/rp/technical/details/files/its details/authfab.aspx.

SPRI Continues to Take Lead Role in Wind Testing

As far back as 1998, SPRI broke ground with its ANSI/SPRI/ES-1 document addressing design and testing of low-slope perimeter edge metal. Today, the trade association has a variety of design documents at the roofing professional’s disposal, and is working to get ED-1 approved as an Edge Design Standard to be used for low-slope metal perimeter edge components that include fascia, coping and gutters.

All current and previously approved ANSI/SPRI standards can be accessed directly by visiting https://www.spri.org/publications/policy.htm.

For more information about SPRI and its activities, visit www.spri.org or contact the association at info@spri.org.

AIA Issues 2016 Election Results Statement

The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has issued the following statement on the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, as well as the incoming 115th Congress.

“The AIA and its 89,000 members are committed to working with President-elect Trump to address the issues our country faces, particularly strengthening the nation’s aging infrastructure. During the campaign, President-elect Trump called for committing at least $500 billion to infrastructure spending over five years. We stand ready to work with him and with the incoming 115th Congress to ensure that investments in schools, hospitals and other public infrastructure continue to be a priority,” states AIA Chief Executive Officer Robert Ivy, FAIA.

“We also congratulate members of the new 115th Congress on their election. We urge both the incoming Trump administration and the new congress to work toward enhancing the design and construction sector’s role as a catalyst for job creation throughout the American economy.”

Robert Ivy concludes, “This has been a contentious election process. It is now time for all of us to work together to advance policies that help our country move forward.”

Survey Reports Health Impacts of Buildings Influence Design Decisions

Nearly three quarters of U.S. architects say the health impacts of buildings are influencing their design decisions. That finding parallels the market demand by building owners, with a solid two-thirds surveyed also reporting that health considerations affect how they design and construct buildings.

These findings and others were released in a ground-breaking report The Drive Toward Healthier Buildings 2016 by Dodge Data & Analytics, in partnership with Delos and the Canada Green Building Council, and with the participation of the American Institute of Architects as a critical research advisor and partner.

The report documents the value and need for more of the research, education, collaboration and outreach efforts that are hallmarks of the AIA’s Design and Health initiative. Since 2013, AIA has invested in expanding the body of knowledge on the connection between design and health, including professional continuing education and the 17-university Design & Health Research Consortium.

“As a society, we spend nearly 87 percent of our time indoors,” said AIA chief executive officer Robert Ivy, FAIA. “Designing and constructing ‘healthy buildings’ is important to our own well-being.”

“Working with architects, we can accelerate this need for healthier buildings and improve quality of life across the country,” Ivy said. “This report documents how architects can help clients have a positive effect on human health – through the built environment.”

That positive result includes increasing employee participation and fulfillment, the report found. Sixty-nine percent of owners who measure employee satisfaction and engagement reported improvement in both attributes due to their healthier building investments.

According to the report, the top five healthier building features implemented by architects are:

  • Better lighting/daylighting exposure.
  • Products that enhance thermal comfort.
  • Spaces that enhance social interaction.
  • Enhanced air quality.
  • Products that enhance acoustical comfort.

Use of nearly all of these is expected to grow considerably along with further pioneering approaches like the use of biophilic design features, spaces that enhance tenant mood and opportunities for physical activity, the report found.

“The increased attention to building health impacts is just beginning,” says Stephen A. Jones, senior director of industry insights at Dodge Data & Analytics. “In a similar way several years ago, companies engaged in green construction because of the demonstrable business and financial benefits they were able to achieve. The findings of this report demonstrate that the focus on buildings that enhance the health and well-being of their occupants is likely to follow a similar trajectory, boosted by those who have committed to sustainability in their organizations.”

Additional highlights from the report:

  • Most owners are not aware how healthy building investments result in business benefits like leasing rates (52 percent) and asset values (58 percent). However, among those that report an effect, 73 percent report faster rates and 62 percent report higher values.
  • According to architects and interior designers, the top driver for greater investment in healthier buildings is improved public awareness of the health impacts of buildings.
  • Public health professionals report that the most common policies currently in place to support healthier building practices are requirements to avoid the use of hazardous materials in buildings (65 percent). The key policy areas that are currently being considered include incentives that encourage physical activity (47 percent) and requirements for ongoing building air quality measurement (46 percent).
  • Ninety-two percent of public health professionals also report that their institutions are actively conducting research on the influence buildings have on occupant health and well-being.
  • Architects are most aligned with their clients (owners) when it comes to understanding the goals of healthy building investments, as compared to other industry players, recognizing that improved tenant/employee satisfaction and happier and healthier occupants is the primary focus for owners related to their investments.
  • The largest percentage of owners, at 42 percent, identify that they are very interested in partnering with architects to help increase their ability to implement healthy building practices. While low, it is notably more than the next two highest potential partners – facility managers and educational institutions, both at 31 percent.

Download the full study The Drive Toward Healthier Buildings 2016: Tactical Intelligence to Transform Building Design and Construction SmartMarket Report.

The report also received support from CBRE, Dewberry and the U.S. Green Building Council, with additional support from Armstrong Ceiling Solutions and the Regenerative Network. Other organizations that participated in the research process include the American Society of Interior Designers, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Managers and the World Green Building Council.

Code-mandated Thermal Insulation Thicknesses Require Raising Roof Access Door and Clerestory Sill Details

PHOTO 1: The new roof has been installed at SD 73 Middle School North and it can clearly be seen that the door and louver need to be raised. On this project, there were four such conditions.

PHOTO 1: The new roof has been installed at SD 73 Middle School North and it can clearly be seen that the door and louver need to be raised. On this project, there were four such conditions.

The most common concern I hear related to increasing insulation thickness (a result of increased thermal values of tapered insulation), especially in regard to roofing removal and replacement, is, “OMG! What about the roof access door and/or clerestory?” You can also include, for those knowledgeable enough to consider it, existing through-wall flashing systems and weeps.

I’m a bit taken aback by this concern; I have been dealing with roof access doors and clerestory sills for the past 30 years and, for the most part, have had no problems. My first thought is that roof system designers are now being forced to take these conditions seriously. This is a big deal! They just have no clue.

In the next few pages, I’ll review several possible solutions to these dilemmas, provide some detailing suggestions and give you, the designer, some confidence to make these design and detailing solutions. For the purpose of this article, I will assume reroofing scenarios where the challenge is the greatest because the conditions requiring modification are existing.

THE ACCESS DOOR

For many and perhaps most contractors who sell and, dare I say, design roofs, it is the perceived “large” expense of modifying existing conditions that is most daunting. Often, these conditions are not recognized until the door sill is several inches below the new roof sur- face. Not a good predicament. Planning for and incorporating such details into the roof system design will go a long way to minimizing costs, easing coordination and bringing less tension to a project.

PHOTO 2: The sill has been raised and new hollow metal door, frame and louver have been installed at SD 73 Middle School North. Door sill and louver sill flashing are yet to be installed, as are protective rubber roof pavers.

PHOTO 2: The sill has been raised and new hollow metal door, frame and louver have been installed at SD 73 Middle School North. Door sill and louver sill flashing are yet to be installed, as are protective rubber roof pavers.

Door access to the roof is the easiest method to access a roof. These doors are typically off a stair tower or mechanical penthouse and most often less than 12 inches above the existing roof as foresight was not often provided (see photos 1, 2 and 6 through 9). With tapered insulation thickness easily exceeding 12 inches, one can see that door sills can be issues with new roof systems and need to be considered.

Designers should first assess the condition of the door and frame, typically hollow metal. Doors and frames that are heavily rusted should not be modified and reused, but discarded, and new ones should be specified. The hardware too needs to be assessed: Are the hinges free of corrosion and distortion? Is the closure still in use or detached and hanging off the door frame? The condition of door sweeps, knobs, lockset and weather stripping should also be determined. Ninety-nine percent of the time it is prudent to replace these parts.

As the roof system design develops, the designer should start to get a feel for the thickness of insulation at the door. It is very important the designer also consider the thicknesses that vapor retarders, bead and spray-foam adhesives, cover and board and protective pavers will add. These can easily be an additional 4 inches.

PHOTO 3A: The new roofing at SD 73 Elementary North was encroaching on this clerestory sill and required that it be raised. As part of this project, the steel lintel was exposed. It was prepped, primed and painted and new through-wall flashing was installed.

PHOTO 3A: The new roofing at SD 73 Elementary North was encroaching on this clerestory sill and required that it be raised. As part of this project, the steel lintel was exposed. It was prepped, primed and painted and new through-wall flashing was installed.

Once the sill height is determined, the design of the sill, door and frame can commence. If the sill height to be raised is small—1 1/2 to 3 inches—it can often be raised with wood blocking cut to fit the hollow metal frame, flashed with the roofing membrane, metal sill flashing and a new door threshold installed, and the door and frame painted. This will, of course, require the removal of the existing threshold and door which will need to be cut down to fit and then bottom-sealed with a new metal closure (see details A and B, page 3).

When the door sill needs to be raised above 3 inches, the design and door considerations increase. Let’s consider that the door and frame is set into a masonry wall of face brick with CMU backup. Although most hollow metal doors are 7 feet 2 inches to match masonry coursing, after the modification the door may be shorter. For example, if a door is 7 feet 2 inches and you must raise the sill 5 inches, the new door and frame will need to be 6 foot 9 inches.
PHOTOS & ILLUSTRATIONS: Hutchinson Design Group Ltd.

Pages: 1 2 3

ASTM International Committee E60 on Sustainability is Seeking Participants to Submit Preliminary Abstracts

ASTM International Committee E60 on Sustainability is seeking participation through presentations and papers for the Symposium on Balancing Resiliency, Safety, and Sustainability in New Orleans, Louisiana, in conjunction with the committee’s standard development meetings.
 
The committee is soliciting participation on topics related to resiliency, safety, sustainability, and built environments including:
 
• Natural Disasters (Hurricane, Earthquake, Flood, Fire Resistance, etc.)
• Material and System Contributions to Resiliency
• Design Considerations and Challenges Related to Resiliency, Safety, and Sustainability
• Building in the Sustainability Era
• Life Cycle Considerations
• Public Policy Considerations Related to Building for Resiliency and More
 
Potential participants must submit an online 250 – 300 word Preliminary Abstract Form by January 13, 2017. Please email Hannah Sparks (hsparks@astm.org) to confirm your submission. For more information on the symposium, contact chairmen Emily Lorenz (elorenz@pci.org) and Walter Rossiter, Jr. (wjrossiter@verizon.net).
 
To submit a preliminary abstract form visit http://www.astm.org/E60CFP2017.

Interactive Tablet App Provides Information to Strengthen Structures Against Natural Disasters

FORTIFIED Home On the Go interactive tablet app gives information to strengthen homes against natural disasters.

FORTIFIED Home On the Go interactive tablet app gives information to strengthen homes against natural disasters.

The Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) and Munich Re, US launches an interactive tablet app to help builders, contractors, architects and homeowners design and build structures in the face of increasing severe weather events.

FORTIFIED Home On the Go interactive tablet app is available for free download from the iTunes Store.  It walks homeowners, contractors and architects through the steps for strengthening homes. The information includes videos, animations and technical specifications for retrofitting or building single family homes.

Information in the app is taken from IBHS’ FORTIFIED Home program, which provides a set of building standards for homes in high-risk areas, such as in the plains and coastal states.

NIBS States Proposed ABA Resolution to Make Codes and Standards Free Could Reduce Safety

The National Institute of Building Sciences issued an open letter to delegates attending the American Bar Association (ABA) Annual Meeting in August informing of the potential impacts if they vote to support a proposed resolution. The resolution—which advocates that copyrighted codes and standards incorporated by reference in legislation and regulation be made available for free—would alter the way codes and standards are developed in the United States.

In the U.S. construction industry alone, there are hundreds of copyrighted codes and standards that impact everything from seismic requirements and wind loads to water use and life safety. The standards developing organizations (SDOs) that develop these codes and standards have thousands of members, employees and volunteers that participate in the process to incorporate best practices and lessons learned to improve the standards. Each industry, from aeronautics and agricultural to electronics and telecommunications, has a similar structure and industry participation to address their specific needs. Such standards improve safety, drive innovation and improve commerce, both domestically and around the world.

The U.S. Government recognizes the benefit of private industry standards development, as directed by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA, P.L. 104-113) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119.

If the ABA’s suggested resolution and related advocacy campaign is successful, private-sector-developed standards would be subject to new requirements due to their incorporation by reference in legislation and regulation, and the ability for SDOs to recoup development costs would change considerably.

The development of codes and standards is expensive. Today, the cost is born by those who are ultimately impacted by the standards (whether by participating in the process or purchasing the resulting document). By making such information free online, the ABA resolution would hamper cost recovery through such mechanisms. The result would be that private-sector organizations may no longer be able to invest in the development process, leaving existing standards to remain stagnant (and thus inhibiting innovation) and shifting the responsibility (and expense) of developing future standards to the government.

ABA’s proposed resolution attempts to mitigate any copyright concerns by encouraging government agencies to negotiate licenses with SDOs. However, this change would require agencies to hire staff and implement contracting mechanisms, making it necessary for tax payers to cover the cost of standards development.

The National Institute of Building Sciences—which was established by the U.S. Congress to work with both the public and private sectors to advance building science and the design, construction and operations of buildings to meet national goals of health, safety and welfare—is extremely concerned that the ABA is advocating a one-size-fits-all legislative vehicle that will alter the long-standing tradition of private-sector-developed standards in the United States. The result could reduce safety, increase costs and add a burden to the government and tax-paying citizens.

In lieu of moving forward with the resolution, the Institute suggests the ABA focus on engaging in a meaningful dialogue with the SDO community to help address the changing nature of access to copyrighted materials through the internet and other electronic sources, and, after taking the long-term goals and impacts into consideration, identify a mutually acceptable path forward.

Read the letter.

K’NEXpert Search Challenges Young Builders to Design and Submit Original Models

K’NEX, a construction toy company focused on Building Worlds Kids Love, announces its 16th annual K’NEXpert Search. The nationwide K’NEXpert Search challenges young builders to design and submit a creative, original model made entirely from K’NEX parts that will be judged on criteria, such as originality, creativity and complexity of the model, given the age category of the entrant.

The contest will have four grand prize winners, one from each of the four different age group categories. Age groups include: 5 to 6 years old, 7 to 8 years old, 9 to 11 years old, and 12 to 14 years old. The four imaginative grand prize winners will each receive a prize package valued at approximately $1000.

This year, grand prize winners will receive a K’NEXpert prize package, which includes: $1,000 K’NEX credit code good toward a shopping spree at knex.com, K’NEX T-shirt, $50 birthday surprise, a personal photo gallery on knex.com, 25 percent discount on all K’NEX sets and parts valid throughout 2016, and an invitation to tour the K’NEX corporate headquarters to meet the designers and learn how K’NEX is made. An additional eight finalists will each receive a $250 K’NEX credit code good toward a shopping spree at knex.com and a K’NEX t-shirt.

The K’NEXpert Search runs through Aug. 28, 2015, with winners announced in October. Children can enter using the online registration form found on the K’NEX website. Submissions must include up to three photos of the creation, and a short video or one-page summary describing how the child came up with the idea, how long the design took to build, and how many K’NEX pieces were used. For more information, view the official rules.

A panel of judges comprised of K’NEX employees will select the semi-finalists from each age category; and then the annual K’NEXpert winners will be determined by an online vote. The online voting will begin on Oct. 19, 2015 and continue through Oct. 26, 2015.

The K’NEXpert Search is open to: residents of the U.S. and Canada—except those of Puerto Rico, U.S. territories or possessions, the Province of Quebec, and where prohibited—those who are 5 through 14 years of age as of June 8, 2015, and no purchase is necessary.