IBC and FM—What's the Difference When it Comes to Wind Design?

Liquid-applied roof membranes (LAM) and roof coatings (aka, maintenance coatings) are not only here to stay, their use is on the rise. This blog takes a look at how the building code and the roofing industry generally differentiate between liquid-applied roof membranes and roof coatings. There is confusion because the intended use of each is different, yet many of the materials are the same for both applications. Here's what you need to know to help understand and differentiate between the two.IntroductionCoatings have been used in the construction and roofing industries for a very long time! They have been made from many different materials--from beeswax and pitch some 5000 years ago, to lacquers and varnishes just a couple thousand years ago, to our current polymer-based materials. According to the Roof Coating Manufacturers Association, "the most dramatic advance in coating properties has come in the past 40 years, with the development of polymers1." Polymer-based coatings are used on plaza decks, parking garages, balconies, playgrounds, and roofs, for example, to provide a level of water-resistance and an aesthetically pleasing surface. Polymer-based liquid-applied membranes are used as the water-proofing layer for new roofs, replacement roofs, and roof re-cover systems. The common polymer-based materials include acrylics, silicones, and urethanes. More information about these materials can be found here.The spotlight is on these types of polymers because the materials we use for coatings are quite often also being used as liquid-applied membranes. How do we categorize and define these different installations that have different intended uses when both applications use essentially the same set of materials? This blog takes a close look at each of these product categories—coatings and liquid-applied membranes—to find their similarities and differences. And hopefully to provide clarity around the use of terms and definitions of use.Market ShareIn 2017, The Freedonia Group published a research study titled, "Liquid-Applied Roof Coatings in the US by Product and Subregion." According to that report, 11.85 million squares (1.185 billion square feet) of liquid-applied roof coating were installed in 2016. Approximately 40% was installed in the South, with the remainder essentially evenly split between the Northeast, Midwest, and West regions.The Freedonia Group reported a number of key findings that help explain the increased use of coatings."The South will be the leading US regional market for roof coatings in 2021, boosted by a high level of interest in cool roofing products and in protecting roofs against storm damage.The West will see solid growth as communities amend building codes to mandate the use of cool roofing.Liquid-applied roof coating demand in the Midwest and Northeast will be supported by rising use of roof coatings to rejuvenate older roofs instead of engaging in more costly reroofing projects."Note: The Freedonia Group's report does not separate market share based on liquid-applied materials used as roof coatings versus liquid-applied materials used as roof membranes.The use of coatings and liquid-applied membranes is increasing for a number of additional reasons as well.The use of materials that can be applied at ambient temperature is welcomed by an installer. There are no super-heated materials or open flames therefore reducing specific safety concerns.Materials are typically provided in containers sized for easy transport to and from rooftops.Common low-cost installation tools are used—brooms, brushes, squeegees; and simple, low-cost spray equipment.Using liquid-applied membranes can reduce waste created by a tear off.These materials are commonly light colored so they are reflective to help improve energy efficiency.Depending on the design (intent) and application of polymer-based materials, they can be used to extend the life of an existing roof when used as a coating, or to provide a warranted or guaranteed, waterproofing roof covering when used as a liquid-applied membrane.Defining the TermsOne way to help sort out the difference between coatings and liquid-applied membranes is to understand current definitions used in the industry. The International Building Code (IBC) is a good place to start since it is considered to be consensus-based.International Building CodeThe International Building Code does include a definition for coating, but does not include a definition for liquid-applied membrane."ROOF COATING. A fluid-applied, adhered coating used for roof maintenance or roof repair, or as a component of a roof covering system or roof assembly."IBC's definition of Roof Coating tells us three things.Coatings are fluid-applied and adhered (to a substrate)Coatings are used for maintenance or repair "Roof Repair" is defined as "Reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing roof for the purposes of correcting damage or restoring pre-damage condition." Coatings can be a component of a roof system or roof assembly (which are the same according to ICC's definitions) "Roof Assembly" is defined as "A system designed to provide weather protection and resistance to design loads. The system consists of a roof covering and roof deck or a single component serving as both the roof covering and the roof deck. A roof assembly can include an underlayment, a thermal barrier, insulation or a vapor retarder." "Roof Covering" is defined as "The covering applied to the roof deck for weather resistance, fire classification or appearance." "Roof Covering System" is a "Roof Assembly" per IBC. Realistically, IBC's definition of Roof Coating doesn't get us that much closer to differentiating coatings and liquid-applied membranes, except that coatings are intended for maintenance and repair. And per IBC's definition, coatings can be used for Roof Repairs to "correct damage or restore pre-damage condition," but that is not how coatings are generally intended to be used.Taking a look at how Chapter 15 of IBC is arranged gives a bit of insight into IBC's perspective on coatings and liquid-applied membranes. Section 1507, Requirements for Roof Coverings, has and continues to include all low-slope and steep-slope materials used as roof coverings that are recognized by the code. This includes materials such as asphalt, wood, and slate shingles, as well as modified bitumen and single-ply roofing (and myriad others). The ICC has always included a section specifically for Liquid-applied Roofing within Section 1507, but there has never been a section for Coatings (until this year—more on that in a bit). To that end, the IBC is essentially saying Liquid-applied Membranes are categorized similarly to all other membranes that are used as roof coverings and their intended use is for "weather resistance, fire classification or appearance" (from IBC's definition as shown above). Because liquid-applied membranes are considered to be roof coverings, roof systems that use a liquid-applied membrane need to be tested for fire, wind, and impact… like any traditional membrane roof system.The liquid-applied membrane subsection within Section 1507 includes ASTM standards for materials not only used as liquid-applied membranes, but it includes the polymer-based materials (e.g., acrylics, polyurethanes, silicones) that are also intended to be used as coatings. This led to confusion within the code requirements, specifically how code officials would enforce the application of a coating product on an existing roof--as a new roof or as a maintenance item.To help with clarification and code enforcement, new language was added to the 2018 IBC in the Reroofing Section that stated a roof coating can be applied to (essentially) any existing roof without triggering reroofing requirements. The 2015 IBC and earlier versions only stated that coatings could be applied over an existing Spray Polyurethane Foam without removing any existing roofs. The IBC 2018 code language is as follows:"Section 1511.3, Roof Replacement. Exception 4: The application of a new protective roof coating over an existing protective roof coating, metal roof panel, built-up roof, spray polyurethane foam roofing system, metal roof shingles, mineral-surfaced roll roofing, modified bitumen roofing or thermoset and thermoplastic single-ply roofing shall be permitted without tear off of existing roof coverings."The additional language in the 2018 IBC was a very important step in distinguishing between coatings and liquid-applied membranes.The I-Codes were further revised regarding coatings and liquid-applied membranes in the 2021 IBC; a new section was added--Section 1509, Roof Coatings. This was an entirely new section, and importantly, Roof Coatings are not a subsection within Section 1507, Roof Coverings. This strengthens the differentiation from a code perspective that coatings are not considered to be a new roof covering. However, the IBC 2021 remains without a definition for liquid-applied roofing or liquid-applied membrane. The code ultimately relies on manufacturers' intentions for their products as the differentiating factor between coatings and liquid-applied membranes.ASTMUnfortunately, ASTM D1079, "Standard Terminology Relating to Roofing and Waterproofing" does not define either term.Industry PerspectiveWhat does GAF, a leading supplier of both systems, say about each? From GAF's page, Liquid-Applied Coating Solutions, the following descriptions are provided."What is a Liquid Membrane Roofing System?A liquid-applied roofing system consists of multiple components that come together to form a fully adhered, seamless, and self-flashing membrane. Components include liquid applied coatings and mesh membranes to create a true liquid membrane system that preserves and protects the integrity of the building." Examples of some of the leading products can be found here."What is a Roof Coating System?Roof Coatings are designed for extending the life of existing structurally sound roofs. GAF Roof Coatings are specially formulated to extend the life of roofs while protecting them from damaging effects of weather and the environment such as UV light, water and wind. GAF offers roof coatings in a variety of different technologies such as acrylic, silicone and polyurethanes to meet many different building needs and budgets."According to GAF, a liquid-applied roofing membrane protects the integrity of the building (like any traditional membrane-type roof system) and coatings are designed for extending the life of structurally sound roofs.The Roof Coating Manufacturers Association (RCMA) has a thorough description of a roof coating. RCMA is appropriately focused on the makeup of a coating (i.e., higher solids content, high quality resins) to differentiate roof coatings from what is commonly called "paint." One concept from RCMA in particular stands out—because roof coatings are "elastomeric and durable films," they provide "an additional measure of waterproofing" and can "bridge small cracks and membrane seams." The roofing industry recognizes a coating's ability to provide an amount of weather resistance / restorative properties, but this characteristic (i.e., crack bridging) is difficult to test for and quantify. And it is worth repeating, a roof coating is primarily intended to extend the service life of structurally sound roofs, not necessarily be the waterproofing layer. That is the intent of a liquid-applied membrane.FM ApprovalsLiquid-applied membranes are considered to be roof coverings by the IBC, and therefore they must be tested and have approval listings. Approval listings are used to show that systems have been tested and comply with the code requirements for roof system properties like fire-, wind-, and impact-resistance.RoofNav—New ConstructionTo that end, performing a search using the Assembly Search function within FM's RoofNav software results in a number of Approval Listings for "Liquid Applied Systems" used for New Roofs. With no manufacturer selected, the RoofNav search resulted in more than 10,000 Approval Listings for liquid-applied roofs used for new construction!Performing a second search using GAF as the manufacturer results in nearly 250 Approval Listings for "Liquid Applied Systems" used as new roofs. The nearly 250 Approval Listings include applications primarily over DensDeck™ and spray foam. When a liquid-applied membrane is used over a substrate board, such as a DensDeck™ board, a reinforcing fabric embedded between two foundation coats is used. The use of the substrate board is more common for new construction or roof replacement projects and is not common when re-covering an existing roof.An example RoofNav listing is shown here. It includes a finish coat and foundation coat with fabric over DensDeck that is adhered to polyiso, and the polyiso is adhered to a concrete deck.Wind-uplift capacity of liquid-applied membrane roof systems can be quite high. The example above has a wind uplift rating of 270 psf! Where would such a high-capacity roof system even be needed? Here's a blog that discusses design wind pressures.RoofNav—Re-coverIn addition to their use as new roofing, one of the primary attributes of liquid-applied membranes is their use over an existing roof. Searching RoofNav using GAF and "Re-Cover" as the Application results in nearly 200 Approval Listings.If a liquid-applied roof system is used in a re-cover application, the use of the reinforcing fabric seems to be tied to the specific substrate. Looking through GAF's RoofNav Approval Listings for Re-cover Liquid-Applied Systems, reinforcing fabric is used when re-covering traditional multi-ply asphaltic membrane roof systems, or TPO and PVC membranes. However, when the substrate is a standing-seam type metal roof panel, a metal-faced composite panel, or spray foam, the fabric is not listed as a necessary component of an Approval Listing.It's important to recognize that an FM Approval Listing also provides information about the internal fire rating, exterior fire rating, and hail ratings. Many liquid-applied roof systems achieve Class A Exterior Fire ratings as well as Moderate or Severe Hail ratings. For a short tutorial on using RoofNav's Assembly Search feature, watch this video.In SummaryThe following chart is intended to provide examples of similarities and differences between coatings and liquid-applied membranes.ConclusionSimply put, coatings are used to provide protection from the elements and help extend service life. Coatings are not installed as 'membranes' so they are not intended to seal leaks or be considered "waterproof". Liquid-applied membranes are considered to be just that—membranes—and are used as the covering in new and re-cover roof systems. Liquid-applied membranes are tested as systems and have approval listings just like traditional asphaltic, modified bitumen, and single-ply roof systems.References:1RCMA.org/history-of-roof-coatings

A common question being asked in the roofing industry is whether or not the 2016 version of ASCE 7 is going to increase the design wind pressures acting on a building. The answer is "yes" in many cases. So, the follow up question is "by how much?" And, that leads to the next question, "how much more capacity will roof systems be required to have when wind design follows ASCE 7-16?"This blog looks at 2 buildings of different sizes and heights in two cities in the U.S., one centrally located and one along the Gulf coast, and compares design wind pressures based on ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16. By assessing the required roof-system capacity for all roof zones in conjunction with the increases in the size of roof zones, we can begin to put some real numbers to the question "by how much will ASCE 7-16 affect the low-slope roofing industry?"While analysis of two building types in two cities doesn't represent a significant study, this study offers an example of how the 2016 version of ASCE 7 is going to affect installed roofing systems over the next decade.Case StudiesDesign wind pressures (DWP) were determined for two building types in two cities. DWPs were based on varying the Risk Category and Exposure. The following table shows the building types, cities, variables, and constants.The big box store is 290' long x 169' wide x 24' tall, and the apartment building is 100' long x 40' wide x 55' tall. Wind speeds were determined using an online tool.DWPs can be determined by using proprietary third party methods (e.g., RoofNav), simplified calculation tools (e.g., RoofWindDesigner), or hand calculations following the methods within the ASCE 7 standard.For this case study, DWPs were determined using hand calculations via an Excel spreadsheet. The DWPs are slightly more refined since there was no rounding of wind speeds for ASCE 7-16. Both RoofNav and Roof Wind Designer round to the nearest 5 or 10 mph. The maps in ASCE 7-16 have been revised, not only from a wind speed perspective but from the number of wind isobars on the maps. The ASCE 7-16 maps are more refined which allows for more exact wind speed values.ASCE 7-10 Map, Risk Category II, showing a limited number of wind-speed isobars.ASCE 7-16 Map, Risk Category II, showing many additional wind-speed isobars relative to the ASCE 7-10 wind map shown in the above figure.In total, 72 different sets of DWPs were calculated. Buildings over 60' tall are designed the same in ASCE 7-16 as in ASCE 7-10; therefore, this article focuses on buildings less than 60' tall.Design Wind Pressure ResultsThe following charts provide the DWPs for each of the scenarios that were analyzed for this article.Design wind pressures based on ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16 for a big box store in Kansas City, MO that is 24' tall.Design wind pressures based on ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16 for a big box store in Mobile, AL that is 24' tall.Design wind pressures based on ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16 for a 5-story apartment building in Kansas City, MO that is 55' tall.Design wind pressures based on ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16 for a 5-story apartment building in Mobile, AL that is 55' tall.Comparing the 2010 and 2016 versionsThe primary intent of this article is to start generating data to help answer the question "how much did the DWP increase from the 2010 version to the 2016 version of ASCE 7?" Using the DWP calculated for each roof zone within each of the four scenarios, we calculated the percent increase in DWP per zone. The percent increases in DWP were calculated by dividing the ASCE 7-16 value with the corresponding ASCE 7-10 value for each roof zone. However, because there are 4 roof zones in ASCE 7-16 (and 3 roof zones in ASCE 7-10), both Roof Zones 1' and 1 were divided by the value for ASCE 7-10 Roof Zone 1 to determine the percent increase. Values in the following charts that are below 100% (shaded gray) indicate a reduction in DWP from ASCE 7-10 to 7-16.Percent increases in DWP per roof zone for a big box store in Kansas City, MO that is 24' tall, focusing on Exposure C values.Percent increases in DWP per roof zone for a big box store in Mobile, AL that is 24' tall, focusing on Exposure C values.Percent increases in DWP per roof zone for a 5-story apartment building in Kansas City, MO that is 55' tall, focusing on Exposure C values.Percent increases in DWP per roof zone for a 5-story apartment building in Mobile, AL that is 55' tall, focusing on Exposure C values.For the big box store scenarios, the percent increases in DWP per roof zone varies from 84% to 178%. The percent reductions (values less than 100%) are all in Roof Zone 1' while Roof Zones 1, 2, and 3 have increased DWP. As seen in the Figures, Roof Zone 1 percent increases are greatest while Roof Zone 3 increases are smallest.For the 5-story apartment building scenarios, the percent increases in DWP per roof zone varies from 84% to 177%. The percent increases in Roof Zone 1 are the largest. The percent reductions are all Roof Zone 1'.It is worth noting that the increases in Pressure Coefficients from ASCE 7-10 to 7-16 are, in fact, relatively indicative of the increases in DWP. For more on Pressure Coefficients and the wind design process.The case studies in this blog also show that the 2016 version of ASCE 7 imposes higher DWPs in Roof Zones 1, 2, and 3. However, given some of the substantial reductions in Roof Zone 1', it could be expected that installed roof system capacity may be lower. While that is hopeful, the roofing industry has a minimum-capacity backstop of 60 psf. This means that any calculated DWP at or below 60.0 psf (even for DWP values as low as 23 psf) will have a 60-psf-capacity roof assembly installed to meet building code requirements. The reality is many buildings are required to use a 60-psf-capacity roof system when in fact '60 psf' is more capacity than needed based on calculated DWPs.Let's take a closer look at one subset for each of the 4 scenarios.Example 1: Big Box; Central USThe big box store in KC, MO (Risk Category II, Exposure C) saw the DWP increase from 38 psf to 56 psf in Roof Zone 1 per ASCE 7-10 vs ASCE 7-16; and reduce to 32 psf in Roof Zone 1'. Regardless of the increases or decreases, a 60-psf-capacity roof should be installed in both Roof Zone 1 and Roof Zone 1' per 7-16, which is unchanged relative to ASCE 7-10.Roof zones and pressures for a 24' tall big box store in Kansas City, MO based on ASCE 7-10 using Risk Category II and Exposure C.Roof zones and pressures for a 24' tall big box store in Kansas City, MO based on ASCE 7-16 using Risk Category II and Exposure C.For Roof Zones 2 and 3, the DWPs are not only increased, but the sizes of the roof zones that require higher capacity are also increased. Roof Zone 2 per ASCE 7-10 required a 75-psf-capacity roof, and a 75-psf-capacity roof will be needed per ASCE 7-16. However, approximately 9% of the roof area will need a higher capacity because of the increase in roof zone size. The following chart shows roof area percentages based on the required roof system capacity for this scenario.Chart showing required roof capacity and the roof area (%) where each is required.Example 2: Big Box; Gulf CoastA big box store in Mobile, AL (Risk Category II, Exposure C) saw the DWP increase from 69 psf to 109 psf in Roof Zone 1 per ASCE 7-10 vs ASCE 7-16; and reduce to 63 psf in Roof Zone 1'. A 75-psf-capacity roof should be installed in Roof Zone 1', and higher-capacity roofs will be required in Roof Zones 1, 2, and 3 relative to ASCE 7-10.Roof zones and pressures for a 24' tall big box store in Mobile, AL based on ASCE 7-10 using Risk Category II and Exposure C.Roof zones and pressures for a 24' tall big box store in Mobile, AL based on ASCE 7-16 using Risk Category II and Exposure C.For Roof Zones 1, 2, and 3, the DWPs are not only increased, but the size of the roof zones that require higher capacity are also increased. A larger perimeter roof zone (combining Roof Zones 1 and 2) with higher required capacity is created (relative to 7-10). Approximately 30+% of the roof area will need a higher capacity. The following chart shows roof area percentages based on the required roof system capacity for this scenario.Chart showing required roof capacity and the roof area (%) where each is required.Example 3: 5-story; Central USThe 5-story apartment building in KC, MO (Risk Category II, Exposure C) saw the DWP increase from 45 psf to 66 psf in Roof Zone 1 per ASCE 7-10 vs ASCE 7-16; and reduce to 38 psf in Roof Zone 1'.However, because the method used to determine the sizes of roof zones in ASCE 7-16 is changed, Roof Zones 1' and 1 do not exist on this building! Decreases of DWP in Roof Zone 1' are rendered meaningless, and the lack of a Roof Zones 1' and 1 means the entire roof consists of only Roof Zones 2 and 3, the perimeter and corner roof zones.Roof zones and pressures for a 55' tall apartment building in Kansas City, MO based on ASCE 7-16 (top) and ASCE 7-10 (bottom) using Risk Cat II and Exposure C.The increases in DWPs for the roof zones significantly increase the roof system capacity requirements for this scenario. Almost the entire roof area will need a higher capacity roof. The following chart shows roof area percentages based on the required roof system capacity for this scenario.Chart showing required roof capacity and the roof area (%) where each is required.Example 4: 5-story; Gulf CoastThe 5-story apartment building in Mobile, AL (Risk Category II, Exposure C) saw the DWP increase from 81 psf to 129 psf in Roof Zone 1 per ASCE 7-10 vs ASCE 7-16; and reduce to 74 psf in Roof Zone 1'. Similar to Example 3, due to the size of the roof zones relative to the size of the roof, Roof Zones 1' and 1 do not exist in this scenario.Roof zones and pressures for a 55' tall apartment building in Mobile, AL based on ASCE 7-16 (top) and ASCE 7-10 (bottom) using Risk Cat II and Exposure C.The increases in DWP for the roof zones significantly increase the roof system capacity requirements for this scenario. The entire roof area will need a higher capacity. The following chart shows roof area percentages based on the required roof system capacity for this scenario.Performance versus PrescriptiveThe case studies in this analysis are presented using a performance method for wind design. That is, a specific DWP is determined for each roof zone and a roof system with appropriate capacity is selected for use in the associated roof zone. Another method that is often used in the roofing industry is a prescriptive method for wind design. The DWP for Roof Zone 1 (or Roof Zone 1' in certain localities) is used to select a roof system with an appropriate capacity for Roof Zone 1 (similar to a performance method), and then Roof Zones 2 and 3 use an installation method/layout that is prescriptively increased relative to Roof Zone 1 installation methods. Prescriptive installation methods for Roof Zones 2 and 3 are regularly used with mechanically attached (MA) roof systems, and for MA roofs, Roof Zone 2 increases are commonly 50% and Roof Zone 3 increases are commonly 100%.ConclusionASCE 7-16 DWPs are generally increasing relative to ASCE 7-10, but this impact is better understood by comparing the required roof system capacity for different building types and dimensions in different cities. Looking only at DWPs does not provide enough information; a comparison of required roof system capacities is needed. Not only did the DWPs change, but the methodology for determining the size of the perimeter and corner roof zones changed significantly in the new ASCE 7-16 version; the amount of roof area contained by the perimeter and corner roof zones increased. The case studies—of two buildings less than 60 ft tall in two cities—and corresponding analysis in this blog are just one additional small step to understanding how the ASCE 7-16 will affect wind design over the next decade.

In part 1, Retrofit Single Ply Roof Systems: An Assessment of Wind Resistance, we provided information about the following: Four (4) methods to re-cover a metal panel roof The many options for attaching a single-ply system to a metal panel roof An example calculation for wind uplift design pressures and appropriate fastener patterns that provide the necessary resistance capacity Industry concerns about wind uplift when not attaching the retrofit single-ply system into every purlin In this blog, we will discuss and analyze the four full-scale physical tests that were performed to determine their wind-uplift capacity. Physical Testing There have been no publically available validation studies or data supporting any particular approach to the installation of retrofit single-ply roof systems (RSPRS). Non-validated attachment methods could result in failures during wind events. Therefore, the objective of GAF's physical testing program was to determine the wind-uplift resistance of RSPRS fastened directly into purlins. A variety of fastening patterns and fastener densities were tested in order to provide a better understanding of the effect of wind loads on these systems. The physical testing was performed at the Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering Department of the Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla, MO (MS&T). Test Roof Construction Four full-scale test roofs were constructed and tested in a 10 ft. wide x 20 ft. long chamber. The test roofs were installed by Missouri Builder Services, Jefferson City, MO, with oversight by GAF. After the test roofs were constructed, the MS&T research team instrumented the assemblies for data collection. The four test roofs consisted of 24 in. wide, 24-gauge structural metal roof panels attached to 16-gauge Z-purlins with concealed expansion clips and purlin screws. The purlins were connected to and supported by horizontal steel channels; the purlin/channel construction was supported by four vertical steel columns. To complete the test specimen, flute fill polyisocyanurate insulation, flat stock polyisocyanurate insulation, and a mechanically attached 60 mil TPO membrane were installed. Prior to membrane installation, the insulation was mechanically attached with minimal fasteners to prevent shifting during the testing. The cross-section shows a graphical representation of the completed RSPRS over the structural metal panel roof system. For Tests #1, #2, and #3, purlin fasteners and 2 3/8 in. barbed fastener plates were used to secure the membrane, simulating a "strapped" installation. The fasteners and plates were not stripped in. For Test #4, purlin fasteners and 3 in. specially-coated induction weld fastener plates were used. The purlins in all tests were attached to C-channels. This did not allow for data collection at a purlin-to-mainframe connection. When an RSPRS is mechanically attached to every other purlin, the load path is altered significantly. This raises a question about the effect on the wind-uplift capacity of the existing metal building when the load path is altered. More information on that topic can be found here. Therefore, it is recommended to engage a structural engineer when altering the load path of an existing structure. Results and Discussion The table shows the ultimate loads achieved, tributary area and load per fastener, as well as fastening method. The term "ultimate load" refers to the point of failure of the roof system during physical testing. Test #1 The fastening pattern for Test #1 was 5 ft. o.c. fastener rows and 12 in. fastener spacing within the row. Test #1 failed when the membrane ruptured simultaneously at seven fastener locations in the center purlin. The system successfully completed 160.1 psf and then failed as the pressure was being increased to 174.5 psf. The membrane pulled over the five center fastener plate locations in an essentially circular pattern along the outer edges of the fastener plates. The outer two failure locations resulted in L-shaped tearing of the membrane, which was attributed to the boundary conditions of the test chamber. The fastener plates were deformed upward. There were many locations of permanent upward membrane deformation. Photo of the outcome of Test #1. The permanent upward membrane deformation was evident along the edges of the rows of fasteners, as can be seen in the upper row of fasteners in the photo. There was very little permanent upward membrane deformation at the centerline between fasteners within a row. This pattern of deformation leads to the belief that the load within the membrane is being transferred from fastener row to fastener row, and not significantly from fastener to fastener within a row. Test #2 The fastening pattern for Test #2 was 5 ft. o.c. fastener rows and 24 in. fastener spacing within the row. Test #2 failed when the membrane ruptured simultaneously at the three central fastener locations in the northern quarter-point row of fasteners. The system successfully completed 116.9 psf and then failed as the pressure was being increased to 124.1 psf. The membrane pulled over the three center fastener plate locations within the row. The center rupture was circular at the fastener plate. The outer two ruptures were "D" shaped; the straight-line edges were attributed to the boundary conditions of the test chamber. Photo of the membrane rupture at the center fastener plate location for Test #2. The tributary area for each fastener for Test #2 was double that of Test #1. This led to the hypothesis that the ultimate load for Test #2 would be one-half of that from Test #1, or 81.4 psf. However, the ultimate load was 119.5 psf, which is approximately 73% of that from Test #1. This is believed to indicate that the membrane transitioned from one-way loading to a more efficient two-way loading. The load was not only distributed across the 5 ft. purlin-to-purlin span (as was the case in Test #1), but was also distributed between fasteners within a row. The uplift loads were pulling on the fastener and fastener plates from all sides (two-way loading) instead of just two sides (one-way loading). During the test, the membrane deflected up approximately 4 in. between fasteners within a row. The loads were more equally distributed within the membrane and around the fastener plate, and therefore, the load per fastener increased from 813.5 lbs. (Test #1) to 1195 lbs. (Test #2). The membrane resisted the uplift loads in two generalized directions: between fastener rows and between fasteners within a row, which aligns with the machine direction (MD) and cross-machine direction (XMD) reinforcement yarns within the membrane, respectively. The membrane had permanent upward deformation between rows and between fasteners within a row because of this two-directional loading. The permanent upward membrane deformation was circular around fasteners. Test #3 The fastening pattern for Test #3 was 5 ft. o.c. fastener rows and 36 in. fastener spacing within the row; fasteners were staggered row to row. Test #3 failed when the membrane ruptured at a single fastener location in the southern quarter-point row of fasteners. The system successfully completed 59.3 psf and then failed as the pressure was being increased to 66.5 psf. The membrane pulled over the center-most fastener plate within the row (at the red circle). The photo shows a close up of the failure location for Test #3. The failure was "D" shaped, similar to failure locations in Test #2. The flat edge was on the boundary edge of the test roofs; the rounded edge is towards the center of the test roof. Similar to Test #2, there was circular upward permanent membrane deformation at fastener locations for Test #3 as shown in Figure 10. This shows that the membrane is being loaded in the MD and XMD. This is due to the relatively wide spacing of the fasteners (2 ft. and 3 ft.) relative to Test #1, which had 1 ft. spacing of fasteners within a row. The tributary area for each fastener for Test #3 was 50% greater than Test #2. This led to the hypothesis that the ultimate load would be 2/3 of Test #2, or about 79.7 psf. However, the ultimate load was 61.9 psf which is approximately 52% of that from Test #2. Comparing Test #3 to Test #1, traditional assumptions based on tributary area would lead to an expected ultimate load for Test #3 to be 1/3 of Test #1. The ultimate load from Test #1 was 162.7 psf, so the expected ultimate load for Test #3 was 54.2 psf. The actual ultimate load for Test #3 was 61.9 psf which is approximately 38% of that from Test #1. While two-direction membrane loading appears to increase the expected ultimate load of a roof system relative to the traditional linear expectation of failure load, it appears there is a limit to this increase. For this series of tests, the limit seems to be 5 ft. o.c. for fastener rows with 24 in. fastener spacing within each row. Test #4 The fastening pattern for Test #4 was 5 ft. o.c. fastener rows and 24 in. fastener spacing within the row; fasteners were staggered row to row and induction welded. Test #4 failed in two locations—a fastener plate pulled over the fastener head and the membrane separated at the reinforcement layer at the adjacent welded fastener plate. The system successfully completed 59.3 psf and then failed as the pressure was being increased to 66.5 psf. The failures occurred in the southern quarter-point row of fasteners. The photo shows the 2 failure locations for Test #4. Test #4 used induction welded fasteners, which means the fastener plates were under the membrane. Therefore, the membrane was cut in order to evaluate each failure. Based on audible observation at the time of failure, the two failures occurred "simultaneously." It was difficult to determine from visual examination which occurred first: the fastener plate pulling over the fastener head or the delamination of the membrane at the fastener plate. Test #4 and Test #2 have the same tributary area per fastener location—10 square feet. However, Test #2 achieved a 119.5 psf ultimate load and Test #4 achieved a 64.8 psf ultimate load. All components were identical for both test roofs except for the fastener/plate combination and that Test #4's fasteners were staggered row-to-row. The above-membrane fastener (e.g., an in-seam fastener) is 2 3/8 in. in diameter. An induction welded fastener plate is 3 in. in diameter and is constructed such that a raised 'ring' surface adheres to the membrane, not the entire fastener plate. The area of a standard 2 3/8 in. above-membrane fastener plate is approximately 4.4 square inches. The area of the attachment surface for an induction welded fastener plate is approximately 3.3 square inches. Therefore, an induction welded fastener plate has approximately 75% of the surface area of a traditional mechanically attached fastener plate to restrain the membrane. Individual fastener load for Test #2 (with the same tributary area as Test # 4) was 1195 lbs. Direct extrapolation to the induction welded fastener plate (at 75%) leads to the predicted value of the fastener load for Test #4 to be 896 lbs. This prediction assumes the reinforcement is the weak link, but the test clearly shows the cap-to-core connection to be the weak link, and therefore, it makes sense that the failure load per fastener for Test #4 was less than 896 lbs. In fact, it was 648 lbs per fastener. The analysis of these two different types of fastening methods and failure modes supports the result that Test #4 has lower wind uplift resistance than Test #2 even though the tributary area for each fastener is the same for Tests #2 and #4. Conclusions and Recommendations Review and analysis of the four full-scale physical tests of retrofit single-ply roof systems installed over structural metal panel roof systems resulted in a number of conclusions. They are as follows: Uplift resistance of RSPRS and individual fastener loads in an RSPRS are based on the membrane's reinforcement strength and one-directional versus two-directional loading of reinforcement. Reducing the overall fastener density increases the tributary area for each fastener. As expected, the ultimate load is reduced with larger tributary areas. Two-directional membrane loading increases the expected ultimate load of a roof system relative to linear extrapolation based on fastener tributary area. However, it appears there is a limit to this expected increase. For this series of tests, the ultimate load exceeded expectations for the Test #2 fastening pattern, but the ultimate load was more in line with traditional linearly extrapolated expectations for the Test #3 fastening pattern. This work emphasizes the limitations of extrapolation and validates the use of physical testing to determine uplift resistance of roof systems. Permanent deformation of the membrane was observed in all four physical tests at the end of testing and was not seen to be a water-tightness issue. The test procedure performed did not determine what pressure during the test cycling the membrane deformation began. This observation may provide an explanation for "wrinkles" observed in mechanically attached membranes that have experienced high wind events. For additional information about this topic, here is the GAF paper that was presented at the 2020 IIBEC Convention and Trade Show, and here is a webinar presented in early 2020.