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.