FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION
Roofing Technical Advisory Committee
AGENDA
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Conference Call
10:00 A.M.
Telephone Number: 1-888-808-6959 Code: 9221867
Department of Community Affairs
Sadowski Building, Room 250L
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee , Florida 32399-2100
(850)-487-1824
1 . Call to Order, review/approve agenda and minutes
Roofing TAC ...Chris Schulte, Chair
Karen Warseck, Billy Cone, Jimmy Buckner, Kenneth Everett, Lorraine Ross, Doug Murdock, Charles Goldsmith, Jon Hamrick, and Bob Boyer.
2. Review and provide recommendations to the Commission on the request for declaratory statements:
DCA09-DEC-025 submitted by Brad Weatherholtz, FRSA.
DCA09-DEC-045 submitted by Brad Weatherholtz, FRSA.
3. Public Comment
4. Member Comment
5. Adjourn.
Note: This document is available to any person requiring materials in alternate format upon request. Contact the Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard , Tallahassee , Florida , 32399-2100 or call 850-487-1824
FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION
Roofing Technical Advisory Committee
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Conference Call
2:00 P.M. 2:12PM
Telephone Number: 1-888-808-6959 Code: 9221867
Department of Community Affairs
Sadowski Building, Room 250L
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee , Florida 32399-2100
(850)-487-1824
1 . TAC reviewed/approved agenda and August 17 minutes
Attendees: Chris Schulte; Chairman, Herminio Gonzalez, Karen Warseck, Jimmy Buckner, Kenneth Everett, Jon Hamrick, and Bob Boyer were present.
2. Reviewed and provided recommendations to the Commission on the request for declaratory statements:
DCA08-DEC-357 submitted by Fred S. Cardwell, P.E.
Committee Action:
Question #1: As an engineer in the State of Florida be required to show on his plans underlayment per code / or not show underlayment as per Atlas Roofing Corporation's letter, which is enclosed.
Answer: As per Section 1507.2.8, underlayment is required. In addition to the manufacturer's recommendation, the code specific requirements of Section 1507.2.8 must be met.
3. Public Comment
• Member Comment
• Adjourned at 2:12PM
DCA09-DEC-025
Issue: Brad Weatherholtz, Director of Technical Sales, Florida Roofing Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors Association, Inc. seeks a clarification regarding Section 611.7.1 of the 2007 Florida Building Code, Existing Building with the 2009 Supplement and provides for the following questions:
Question 1: Is a 0.131 diameter nail, minimum 2.25 long, acceptable as an existing nail in lieu of the above referenced .141 diameters when re-nailing roof decks as per the 2007 FBC, Existing Building Volume, section 611.7.1 and associated sections.
Question 2: Is .141 a typographical error?
Background:
2007 FBC, Existing Building with 2009 Supplement:
611.7.1 Roof decking attachment for site-built single family residential structures. For site-built single family residential structures the fastening shall be in accordance with section 611.7.1.1 or 611.7.1.2 as appropriate for the existing construction. 8d nails shall be a minimum of 0.141 inch in diameter and shall be a minimum of 2-1/4 inch long to qualify for the provisions of this section for existing nails regardless of head shape or head diameter.
Situation:
The FRSA members have recently discovered that the 0.141 diameter nail referenced above is not readily available and research shows special ordering would be required as stated by a large majority of distributors that were contacted. The commonly stocked diameter nail is .131 when using ring shank, 2.25 length, round head fasteners. Additionally it was stated that .0141 diameter nails would not work in a majority of pneumatic guns as well.
The Florida Roofing Sheet metal and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, Inc is requesting clarification on behalf of Advanced Roofing Service of Ft Myers regarding existing nail diameter requirements as listed above in section 611.7.1 Advanced Roofing Services is in the process of undertaking a roof covering replacement project in Ft Myers involving a single family home.
2007 Florida Building Code, Building
Chapter 35 Referenced Standards - National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction- with 2005 Supplement
CHAPTER 23
WOOD
2306.1 Allowable stress design. The structural analysis and construction of wood elements in structures using allowable stress design shall be in accordance with the following applicable standards:
American Forest & Paper Association.
NDS National Design Specification for Wood Construction
2306.3 Wood diaphragms.
2306.3.1 Wood structural panel diaphragms. Wood structural panel diaphragms are permitted to resist horizontal forces using the allowable shear capacities set forth in Table 2306.3.1 or 2306.3.2. The allowable shear capacities are permitted to be calculated by principles of mechanics without limitations by using values for fastener strength in the AF&PA NDS, structural design properties for wood structural panels based on DOC PS-1 and DOC PS-2 or wood structural panel design properties given in the APA Panel Design Specification (PDS).
Referenced standard
2005 AF&PA National Design Specification for Wood Construction
Table L4 p. 167
Staff recommendation:
Question 1: Is a 0.131 diameter nail, minimum 2.25 long, acceptable as an existing nail in lieu of the above referenced .141 diameters when re-nailing roof decks as per the 2007 FBC, Existing Building Volume, section 611.7.1 and associated sections.
Answer: Yes. It appears that there is an internal conflict within Section 611.7.1 with regard to the specifications for an 8d nails. According to the National Design Specification for Wood Construction NDS, which is adopted by reference in the FBC, Building Volume See Table L4 above, the minimum diameter for an 8d common nail is (.131). There are no technical bases or justification available from the national standard of practice for the (.141) specification. Therefore, it is evident that the diameter for a standard 8d Common nail is .131 inch and not .141 inch.
Question 2: Is .141 a typographical error?
Answer: See above.
STAFF ANAYSIS
DCA09-DEC-045
Issue : DCA09-DEC-045 the petitioner Brad Weatherholtz, Director of Technical Sales for the Florida Roofing Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors Association, Inc. (FRSA) is requesting clarification on behalf of State Pride Roofing, Inc. of West Palm Beach regarding code requirements of roof to wall connections as listed in the 2007 FBC Existing Volume.
Specifically they provide the following questions:
Question 1: Does a home requiring roof to wall improvements as per 611.8, with both gable and hip configurations, and a confirmed cost to improve both gable ends and hip corners that would exceed 15% of the re-roof cost be required to improve only the portion that would apply as per 611.8.1.7?
Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is yes, then it would seem that 611.8.1.7 enforces partial improvements (up to 15% of the cost of the re-roof) in lieu of all improvements that was previously listed in 611.8© that was stricken at the time of the glitch review and approve process and is not consistent with the approved language submitted by the wind mitigation workgroup. Question: Does section 611.8.1, exception 2 supersede section 611.8(b) and void 611.8.1.7 when a home has both gable ends and hip corners that require improvements?
Question 3: If the answer to question 2 is no On a home that has both gable and hips, and as per section 611.8.1.7, and the gables are priority (or vice-versa) and can be improved with in budget of 15% of the re-roof cost, but all of the hip corners cannot be improved with in the same budget (15% of the reroof cost) does all the hip corners still need to be improved?
Background:
State Pride Roofing is in the process of estimating a future project that is located within the wind borne debris region of the state. The project involves a single family dwelling and has an insured value of over $300,000 and needs roof to wall improvements as per FBC, Existing Volume, Section 611.8 and need to determine if the home needs the roof to wall improvements. The home has both gable and hip roof areas. The cost to perform all necessary roofs to wall connection improvements will exceed 15% of the re-roof cost.
Florida Building Code 2007, 2009 Supplement, Existing Building Volume
611.8 When a roof covering on an existing site-built-single-family residential structure is removed and replaced on a building that is located in the wind-borne debris region as defined in the Florida Building Code, Building and that has an insured value of $300,000 or more or, if the building is uninsured or for which documentation of insured value is not presented, has a just valuation for the structure for purposes of ad valorem taxation of $300,000 or more:
(a) Roof to wall connections shall be improved as required by Section 611.8.1
(b) Mandated retrofits of the roof-to-wall connection shall not be required beyond a 15 percent increase in the cost of re-roofing.
Exception: Single family residential structures permitted subject to the Florida Building Code are not required to comply with this section.
(c) Where complete retrofits of all the roof-to-wall connections as prescribed in Section 611.8.1 would exceed 15 percent of the cost of the re-roofing project, the priorities outlined in Section 611.8.1.7 shall be used to limit the scope of work to the 15 percent limit.
[Mod 3050 revised and Mod 3118 ]
611.8.1 Roof-to-wall connections for site-built single family residential structures . Where required by Section 611.8, the intersection of roof framing with the wall below shall provide sufficient resistance to meet the uplift loads specified in Table 611.8.1 either because of existing conditions or through retrofit measures. As an alternative to an engineered design, the prescriptive retrofit solutions provided in Sections 611.8.1.1 through 611.8.1.7 6 shall be accepted as meeting the mandated roof-to-wall retrofit requirements.
Exceptions:
1. Where it can be demonstrated (by code adoption date documentation and permit issuance date) that roof-to-wall connections and/or roof-to-foundation continuous load path requirements were required at the time of original construction.
2. Roof- to- wall connections shall not be required unless evaluation and installation of connections at gable ends or all corners can be completed for 15% of the cost of roof replacement.
611.8.1.7 Priorities for mandated roof-to-wall retrofit expenditures. Priority shall be given to connecting the exterior corners of roofs to walls where the spans of the roofing members are greatest. For houses with both hip and gable roof ends, the priority shall be to retrofit the gable end roof-to-wall connections unless the width of the hip end is more than 1.5 times greater than the width of the gable end.
Staff Recommendation:
Question 1: Does a home requiring roof to wall improvements as per 611.8, with both gable and hip configurations, and a confirmed cost to improve both gable ends and hip corners that would exceed 15% of the re-roof cost be required to improve only the portion that would apply as per 611.8.1.7?
Answer: Assuming that one of the improvements gable ends or hip corners can be improved at a cost not to exceed 15% of the re-roof cost, the answer is as follows:
Yes. Improvement is subject to the criteria of Section 611.8.1.7.
Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is yes, then it would seem that 611.8.1.7 enforces partial improvements (up to 15% of the cost of the re-roof) in lieu of all improvements that was previously listed in 611.8© that was stricken at the time of the glitch review and approve process and is not consistent with the approved language submitted by the wind mitigation workgroup. Question: Does section 611.8.1, exception 2 supersede section 611.8(b) and void 611.8.1.7 when a home has both gable ends and hip corners that require improvements?
Answer: No. With regard to the project in question all sections 611.8.1, Exception 2, 611.8(b) and 611.8.1.7 would apply.
Question 3: If the answer to question 2 is no On a home that has both gable and hips, and as per section 611.8.1.7, and the gables are priority (or vice-versa) and can be improved with in budget of 15% of the re-roof cost, but all of the hip corners cannot be improved with in the same budget (15% of the reroof cost) does all the hip corners still need to be improved?
Answer: No. Improvements is only required to the level that it can be done at a cost not exceed 15% of the re-roof cost and within the criteria of Section 611.8.1.7.
