Roofing Technical
Advisory Committee
MINUTES
MARCH 02, 2016
1:00P.M.
Meeting was conducted via
Teleconference/Webinar:
public point of access:
Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Northwood Centre, Suite
90A, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL
32399 (850) 487-1824
|
TAC
Members Present: Chairman;
Brian Swope, Bob Boyer, Remington Brown, Jimmy Buckner, Mark Zehnal, Alternates
Present: Robert
Whitcomb for Chuck Goldsmith Guests
Present: Kurtis
Gurley, David Prevatt, Bill Boyer, Joe
Belcher, Rob Viera, Charlie Kennedy, Mike
Eniss, Sal Delfino, RANDY NICHOLAS, William Miller, Dennis Mathis, dwight
wilkes Staff
Present: Mo
Madani, JOE BIGELOW, JIM RICHMOND, ROBERT LORENZO, Jim Hammers, Robert Benbow,
NICK DUVAL and April Hammonds via Teleconference. |
|
Ř Objective:
To review and accept the interim
reports for the research projects on the Corrosion of Roofing Fasteners and a
research project titled “Field Study and Assessment of Sealed Attics” |
|
Meeting Minutes |
|
|
Objective |
|
|
1) |
Welcome and Opening Remarks: Meeting opened at 1:00pm with meeting protocols regarding
muting of phones and personal identification when speaking. |
|
2) |
Roll Call – Roll Call was taken with a quorum present. |
|
3) |
Review and Approval of Meeting
Agenda – Motion was entered by Bob Boyer
and seconded by Mark Zehnal to accept the Agenda as
posted. Unanimous approval. |
|
4) |
Approval of Minutes of Decenber 28,
2015 – Motion was entered by Bob Boyer
and seconded by Mark Zehnal to accept the minutes as
posted. Unanimous approval. |
|
5) |
Review and accept the Interim
Report for the Research Project on the Corrosion of Roofing Fasteners. Dr. Kurtis Gurley, College of
Engineering at the University of Florida, provided a PowerPoint presentation
to give the TAC an overview of interim report for the research project. He
gave a brief background of the past work on this research project. Next, he
went over the 1-8 scoring system for the corrosion of fasteners in this
research project. He then went over the results from last years’ research
project which showed a wide disparity in the performance of electrogalvanized
(EG) fasteners from different manufacturers, a high failure rate of the TAS
114 criterion for electrogalvanized (EG) fasteners, some of the fasteners
were electrogalvanized(EG), but not marked as ASTM A641 or TAS 114 compliant,
and that the results provided a baseline against which to measure ASTM A641
and TAS 114 compliant fasteners. He went over the scope of work for this
year’s project which included working with Mark Zehnal, Florida Association
of Roofing and Sheet Metal Contractors (FRSA) to identify and procure test
specimens from suppliers located in North, Central, and South Florida
regions. His observations included ASTM A641 certified EG performance was no
better than unlabeled EG fasteners from the previous years’ study in regards
to corrosion; HVHZ compliant EG fasteners which are presumed TAS 114 Appendix
E compliant perform no better than non-HVHZ ASTM A641; hot dipped fasteners
perform much better than EG fasteners and Mechanically Galvanized screws
perform better than Electroplated (EP) screws. Another major observation of
this years’ project was that Miami-Dade approved EG fasteners did not reveal
a single EG sample that passed the TAS 114E criterion of < 5% surface
corrosion. Each of the 30 such fastener samples tested had a score of at
least 3 (partial light surface corrosion) on both the head and shaft, and
most samples displayed significant heavy corrosion. Dr. Gurley then proceeded
to provide the TAC with some additional work that needed to be completed for
next round of testing which included testing the fasteners after they had been driven into the
substrate. Mark Zehnal then entered a motion to accept the interim
report as presented. The motion was seconded by Bob Boyer. This motion
received unanimous approval. |
|
6) |
To review and
accept the interim report for the research project entitled “Field Study and
Assessment of Sealed Attics” Dr. David Prevatt, of the College of Engineering at the
University of Florida and Dr. William Miller, of the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, provided a PowerPoint presentation to give the TAC an overview of
the research project. Dr. Miller went over the project team which is
comprised of Dr. Prevatt from the University of Florida and Dr. Miller’s Team
from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He spoke on the motivation for the
research project where Oak Ridge National Laboratory noticed that they
observed peaks in the relative humidity in sealed attics and eventually
noticed visual evidence of moisture storage in open celled spray foam. Dr.
Miller stated that the purpose for
this research project was to monitor relative humidity, temperature and
moisture content of sheathing in two residential structures having sealed
attic systems. In addition, the purpose of this research project is to
document the air tightness of the homes, duct systems and sealed attics using
blower door equipment. He went on to articulate the goals of the research
project which is to record the moisture content of the wood roof decks and
relative humidity & temperature of the indoor ambient, the outdoor
ambient and the attic for a 12 month period that includes the hot and humid
summer months. Dr. Miller went over the
objectives and scope of work for this research project. He spoke about the
field instrumentation for this project which includes Campbell Scientific
Data logger, which is used to collect data such as temperature and moisture
content and the Minneapolis Duct Blaster System which is used to determine
the air leakage in the duct system of a home. Dr. Prevatt went on to discuss the
code provisions related to this study. Dr. Miller spoke on the outcome of
this project which Go or No Go decision for future research on this topic. He
then stated that a go decision would allow the ORNL computer toolkit to
compare analytical models against empirical findings of moisture
accumulation. Mo Madani raised concern that the
scope of work for the contract requires both homes to be within Zone 1 and
Zone 2. Dr. Miller responded that house 1
is located in zone 2 and home 2 is located in zone 1 which would meet the
requirements of the contract. Mo Madani asked about a timeline
for the instrumentation setup. Dr. Miller responded that
instrumentation setup would not take very long. Mo Madani then asked if they would
be sticking with two homes. Dr. Prevatt responded that yes
they would be sticking with two homes one in zone 1 and one in zone 2. Dennis Mathis asked three
questions, first the difference in moisture content higher or lower on the
roof sheathing; does roof color or roofing material impact this stud ; Third,
will there be any duct leakage for the ducts in the attic. Dr. Miller responded that they
will be conducting duct blaster tests so they will know the leakage rate in
the duct system. In terms of roof color the more light the shingle the less
the temperature of the roof and that shingle color makes a difference during
the daytime but does not make a difference at night. He then stated that they
received data from a laboratory and using the pin sensors they can tell the
different moisture content in the wood at different times during the day. Dr. Prevatt added that during
previous testing of roof moisture content that there was no difference in
moisture content between the higher and lower portion of the roof decking.
Although during this test the moisture content was higher at the eave. Dr. Miller stated based on
previous research the moisture content was higher towards the rafter of the
roof. Mark Zehnal stated the funding and
time is limited to get data and if this works future funding can be acquired
for future research of this topic. Mo Madani made the statement that
the criterion for the home selection with regards to the age, code compliance,
and availability of information such as the energy information sheets. Dr. Miller responded that he
wanted to go with contractors that are willing to allow studies to be
conducted on homes they have built for themselves. Dr. Prevatt responded that we are
not necessarily going to find that the sprayed insulation is going to meet a
particular compliance, level however, once we receive the information about
the foam characteristics, we can input the information into the software
packages. After some further discussion, Mark Zehnal entered
a motion to accept the interim report as presented. The motion was seconded
by Bob Boyer. This motion received unanimous approval. |
|
7) |
Public Comment – No Public Comment |
|
8) |
Member Comment – No Member comment |
|
9) |
Adjournment |
|
|
|
Staff
Contacts: Robert Benbow, Robert.benbow@myfloridalicense.com,
(850) 717-1828;
Mo Madani, mo.madani@myfloridalicense.com, (850) 717-1825.
Note: This document is available to any person
requiring materials in alternate format upon request. Contact the
Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Office of Codes and
Standards, 1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 90, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0772 or
call 850-487-1824.