Conestoga Roofing & Sheet Metal Ltd. - Perks Publications Incperkspub.com/magazines/Ont Roof Winter...

Included with this issue of OntarioRoofing News is a copy of the2008 OIRCA Membership Directory

MEMBER PROFILE

Posta

l Agr

eeme

nt #4

0038

002

UNDELIVERABLES TO: Perks Publications Inc., 3 Kennett Dr., Whitby, ON L1P 1L5

A Lightweight Solutionto a HeavyweightChallenge

IN THIS ISSUEPROJECT PROFILE

Page 6

Issue Number 33

Winter 2008

Conestoga Roofing &Sheet Metal Ltd.

Celebrating 25 Years of ExcellenceConestoga Roof-ing & Sheet MetalLtd. marked amilestone in 2007.That year markedthe company’s sil-

ver anniversary of providing ex-cellence to the roofing industry.

Established during a recessionin May 1982, reaching this auspi-cious occasion has been a testa-ment to the company’s persever-ance and determination to meetthe challenges in a competitiveindustry. By 1983, Conestogarooted in a strategic location alongthe 401 corridor that has ensuredits ability to access its market effi-ciently and effectively.

Conestoga Roofing is an indus-trial and commercial flat roofingcompany. Its main focus is on ship for the work it completes.

According to Walden, “We wantquality work all the time and westand behind our work.”

“Our employees are the com-pany because we are in a serviceindustry,” he said. “If your menaren’t doing a good job or theydon’t take pride in their work, ourcustomers suffer and, in turn, the

entire company suffers. It’s as sim-ple as that.”

Walden said that he has “fired”foremen for quality issues as“sloppy workmanship” is not tol-erated at Conestoga.

“We expect the job to be doneright because you’re only as goodas your worst job,” he said. “Any-one can sell a roof or make a

promise to a customer, but that’snot why we are here.”

The entire staff at Conestogaensures that it provides custom-ers with the solutions they re-quire. Clients can be confident inthe company’s knowledge andexperience. From the initial meet-ing to the installation of a quality

Continued On Page 4

C roof replacements, repairs andmaintenance, however new roofinstallations are also part of thecompany’s repertoire. Beingproudly Canadian, Conestoga’scompany logo and its vehicles alldisplay the ‘mighty’ maple leaf.

“In an economy where somepeople are chasing price and notlooking at quality, it can sometimesbe very challenging to be competi-tive,” said Conestoga President,Dave Walden. “However, from thesmallest service job to a recently-completed project spanning over 13acres of roofing, Conestoga Roof-ing has not been willing to com-promise on quality.”

The company bases its successon a “hands-on” managementstyle. As a service-based organiza-tion, it is critical to take owner-

2 Ontario Roofing News - WINTER 2008

PresidentJohn Mayne

MJM Roofing & Siding

First Vice PresidentDavid Devine

D.R. Devine Rfg. & Sht. Mtl. Ltd.

Second Vice PresidentJim Norman

Palmer Roofing & Insulation Ltd.

Past PresidentMarc Jamieson

All-Bond Roofing Ltd.

TreasurerManuel DaCosta

Viana Roofing & Sheet Metal Ltd.

DirectorDoug Brown

Convoy Supply Ltd.

DirectorBarry Warner

Covertite Eastern Ltd.

DirectorBlair Holmes

Flynn Canada Inc.

DirectorGraydon Hexham

Pinnacle Roofing Consultants Inc.

DirectorPat Fagan

Carlisle SynTec Canada

DirectorNelson Rites

Crawford Roofing Corporation

DirectorMike Witt

Semple-Gooder Roofing Ltd.Director

Brian BenhamYork Roofing Ltd.

OIRCABoard of Directors

Ontario ROOFING News is a“marketing and information periodical”published for the Ontario IndustrialRoofing Contractors Association byPerks Publications Inc.

Publisher - Mike NoskoEditor - Tanja NowotnySales - Cathie Fedak

Advertising in Ontario Roofing News isrestricted to the member companies ofOIRCA.

ppiPerks Publications Inc.3 Kennett DriveWhitby, Ont. L1P 1L5Tel: 905-430-7267Toll Free: 1-877-880-4877Fax: 905-430-6418E-mail: [email protected]

Ontario Industrial RoofingContractors Association940 The East Mall, Suite 301Etobicoke, Ont. M9B 6J7Tel: 416-695-4114Toll Free: 1-888-33-OIRCAFax: 416-695-9920E-mail: [email protected]

Canadian Publication MailProduct Sales Agreement 40038002

Editorial items contained herein are forinformation purposes only and do notnecessarily reflect the view of OIRCA andPerks Publications Inc.

Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. Contentsmay not be reproduced in whole or in partwithout the consent of the publisher.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

By JOHN MAYNE,President, OIRCA

Pre-Apprenticeand SafetyOrientationFor The RoofingIndustry

The Canadian RoofingContractors Association(CRCA) in collaboration withthe Construction Sector Coun-cil (CSC), Human ResourcesDevelopment Canada(HRDC), the OIRCA andother industry stakeholdershave introduced a Pre-Ap-prenticeship and Safety Ori-entation Program for theroofing industry in Canada.

materials of the trade, andone of seven roofing systems.It is delivered by ajourneyper-son or an experi-enced roofer acting as a men-tor or coach. It is deliveredover a few weeks and is esti-mated to take approximately30 hours to complete. Thereis no formal examination.Time worked and trainingcompleted are recorded in theworkers logbook and signedoff by supervisors and/orjourneypersons. The log-book serves as proof of hours

The objec-tive of the pro-gram is to pre-pare new work-ers for a careerin the roofingindustry. Newworkers willbenefit by in-creased confi-dence, im-proved safetyand motiva-tion, and en-couragementto enter the ap-prenticeshipsystem. Em-ployers will

worked andtraining.

After com-pleting theclassroom ori-entation ando n - t h e - j o b -training, aworker re-ceives a pre-ap-prenticeshiptraining certifi-cate that is rec-ognized by theindustry andapprenticeshipp r o g r a m sacross theprovince.

benefit from lower turnover,higher productivity and easierrecruiting.

The program consists oftwo parts. The first part, aclassroom orientation, pre-pares entry level workerswith basic safety and con-struction practices beforethey begin work on a con-struction site. This trainingis completed in one day. Thesecond part is on-the-job-training that introduces newworkers to the job site andteaches them general safety,familiarity with the tools and

The attractive part aboutthis program is the way it hasbeen designed so that roofingcompanies may use it to de-liver their own in-house ori-entation training. I think thateveryone would agree thatnew workers must receivesome form of formalized ori-entation training before settingfoot on a construction site.We believe that this new “in-dustry created” program pro-vides both workers and em-ployers with an effective wayto introduce new entrants to acareer in the roofing trade.

The objective of theprogram is to prepare

new workers for acareer in the roofing

industry. New workerswill benefit by

increased confidence,improved safety and

motivation, andencouragement to

enter theapprenticeship system.

ONTARIO ROOFING NEWS - WINTER 2008 3

The Canadian Construction Materi-als Centre (CCMC) has been evalu-ating construction products and sys-tems since 1988. In 2005 a number ofthings happened that resulted in sig-nificant changes to the CCMC evalu-

ation process, which are expected to be of greatbenefit to manufacturers, building officials andevaluation officers.

Responding to changes to the NBC in 2005The reorientation of the national model build-

ing code (NBC 2005) to an objective-based for-mat has had a major impact on the CCMC evalu-ation process. This code is structured around ob-jectives – the overall goals that the codes provi-sions are intended to achieve – and functionalstatements – the function a building must per-form to fulfill the objectives. Section 1.2 of Divi-sion A clarifies that compliance can be achievedeither by meeting the requirements embodied inthe code’s acceptable solutions” (essentially thetechnical provisions of the code) or by using “al-ternative solutions” that meet the minimum levelof performance of acceptable solutions.

In earlier versions of the NBC, the Equiva-lents section (the basis for CCMC evaluations)allowed for a broad interpretation of a code re-quirement. The NBC 2005 goes further than thisby linking at least one objective and a functionalstatement to each code requirement, thus pro-viding the user with more specific backgroundinformation on requirements as well as guidanceon how to evaluate the performance of innova-tive products and systems. This, in turn, provides

CCMC ProductEvaluations Evolve

a more precise tool for determining conformance,thus facilitating the uptake of innovation.

The NBC 2005 addresses the issue of whatdocumentation is required to demonstratecompliance for alternative solutions in Divi-sion C, Section 2.3. While this section providesguidance, it does not provide information onhow to determine the minimum acceptable so-lution. CCMC’s revamped evaluation processassists in the evaluation of products and sys-tems with regard to code compliance.

Responding to industry needsCCMC’s response to industry requests to re-

examine the evaluation guidelines has also had amajor impact on the evaluation process. As a re-sult of these requests, CCMC consolidated its ex-isting guidelines to align more closely with theexplicit requirements of the NBC, and also elimi-nated suitability-for-use expectations. In the newstreamlined evaluation process, the subjectivityhas been removed and the requirements areclearer, making it easier for proponents to knowup front what they will be facing, for evaluationofficers to conduct the evaluation in a more fo-cused way, and for building officials, who nolonger have to distinguish between code mini-mums and suitability-for-use performance.

For more information about CCMC visit http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ccmc/home_e.shtml.

What is an evaluation?The CCMC evaluation of products or systems

is an impartial third party technical opinion on

T

Continued On Page 11

TECHNICAL NOTES

Evaluation Process

Major components of theevaluation process New activities Benefits

Application supported by technicalinformation

Scope and evaluation plan

Technical Guide

Assessment of the test results

Report

Application to define area of interest andcode-related context.

More client focused and technicallyspecific. Facilitatesa more efficient process.

Code analysis to identify what the coderequires.

Technical requirements and criteriafocused on the code requirements.

Requirements linked to code orcode-acceptable solutions in Division B.

Requirements linked more closely to NBCthrough new guidelines.

Requirements aligned with functionaland objective statements of NBC 2005.

Provides acceptable oralternative solution to code.

Where an alternative solution to thecode is sought, Division B performancesolutions will be used to set the criteria.

Additional health and safety issuesidentified by other agencies will beidentified and included as a separatesection.

No change.

The NBC opinion statement at the frontof the report is supported by submittedevidence.

Additional and optional information maybe included but will not form part of theopinion.

New format designed to facilitate decisionmaking.


CONESTOGA ROOFINGContinued From Page 1

product to the assurance that thefirm will stand behind its workand take ownership for any prob-lems encountered, Conestoga isthere to support its customers.

According to Walden,Conestoga employees have theexperience and know-how to findthe most difficult leaks. The strictadherence to quality workman-ship obliges employees to criti-cally assess their ability to providethe customer with a fair job for afair price.

Fully-mechanized and operat-ing with a full compliment ofequipment – including a roll-offdisposal system, odorless kettles,roof conveyors and power equip-ment – Conestoga has managed tostay on the forefront of technol-ogy and offer its customers supe-rior service. Additionally, compu-terized systems and familiaritywith day-to-day requirementsmake it possible to determine pro-duction, scheduling, material de-livery and co-ordination ofprojects. Conestoga also keepscomplete and detailed job histo-ries with roof CAD drawings anddigital photographs.

As the industry evolves andnew legislation comes into play,Conestoga believes that constanttraining is mandatory. First Aid,safety, transportation of danger-ous goods, WHMIS and indi-vidual product training are allcritical elements in maintainingthe level of service and expertiserequired in order to be competi-tive. As well, the popularity of“Green” roofing has also chal-lenged the company to remaincurrent and up-to-date in stafftraining programs.

Presently, many trades are suf-fering from a lack of skilled work-

ers. The roofing industry is nodifferent. Conestoga has been dili-gent in working toward a solu-tion, and has been promoting theindustry and training of good,qualified people to young people.

With the Ontario govern-ment’s recognition of the roofingindustry as a trade, school initia-tives have been gaining momen-tum. As such, the company hasbeen part of the Skills Trade Ca-reer Days for the past five years.Recently, Conestoga establishedan annual scholarship for two stu-dents who have excelled at schooland are entering a post secondaryconstruction trade.

A commitment to giving some-thing back to the industry has al-ways been a priority to Walden.He has been president of the On-tario Industrial Roofing Contrac-tors Association (OIRCA) and adirector of the association formany years. Walden is currentlythe chairman of the OIRCATechnical Committee and has saton this committee for over 30years. As well, he is in his secondyear as the Ontario representativefor the Canadian Roofing Con-tractors Association’s (CRCA)Technical Committee.

As the past president of theGrand Valley Construction Asso-ciation and a current director,Walden continues to lobby forstaff training and encourages GoldSeal Certification by the CanadianConstruction Association. He isalso a member of the Fast For-ward Program in high schoolswhich was established with thelocal board of education. Thisprogram encourages students tolook at an apprenticeship or tradeas a viable education option.

“It’s obvious that (Conestoga

Roofing) believes it is importantto make the industry better,”Walden said. “The dividends paidby this kind of thinking go farbeyond monetary.”

The company has been hon-oured with numerous awards forservice excellence and safety. It isa two-time winner of the Roof-ing Contractor Building Excel-lence Award by the Grand Val-ley Construction Association; re-cipient of the Roofing Contrac-tor of the Year Award by theOIRCA; Small Business of theYear Award from the WaterlooRegion Business Achievement andare most notably proud to havewon the Business Integrity Awardfrom the Better Business Bureauof Mid-Western Ontario.

Additionally, Conestoga has re-ceived several Performance IndexAwards by the Construction SafetyAssociation and recently com-pleted its fourth year in the Re-gional Safety Group. In workingwith other construction related in-dustries, Conestoga establishes andmaintains policies and proceduresin order to make safe work sites andsafe work practices a priority.

A driving will, and a commit-ment to quality and integrity havehelped build Conestoga Roofinginto the industry leader it is to-day. The company’s success canbe summed up in a simple quoteheard many times over the past25 years – “We don’t want to bethe biggest, we want to be thebest.”

For more information, contactConestoga Roofing & Sheet MetalLtd. at (519) 623-7411, Toll Free: 1-888-518-7663, Fax: (519) 621-0139,e-mail: [email protected] visit the company’s web site atwww.conestogaroofing.com.


Faithful readers of the RoofingNews know that much has beenwritten on the subject of a skilledworkers shortage in the ICI roof-ing sector. While manpowershortages are certainly not uniqueto the roofing industry, a lack ofa training facility for our trade is.

One only has to travel to BC,Alberta and Quebec to find full-blown roofing training centres.Other provinces also offer vari-ous forms of training, though notnecessarily in a facility devoted tothe one trade. In the US, roofingfacilities for formal training canbe found offered by state and re-gional roofing associations notmention their National RoofingContractors Association.

In Ontario, most constructiontrades are able to point to a build-ing devoted to industry specificeducation. Why then is the On-tario roofing industry on the out-side looking in? Those with goodmemories may recall that roughlyeight years ago the OIRCA an-nounced the establishment of theOntario Roofing Training Insti-tute (ORTI). That dream died aslow death because of, “should Isay it”, politics.

In 2008, an opportunity hasmaterialized that may allow us toredeem ourselves. ConestogaCollege, a community collegebased out of Kitchener and whohas opened a new campus in Wa-terloo devoted to the construc-tion trades has offered OIRCAand the Ontario roofing industrya piece of land to build a roofingspecific training institute.

While it is early days and atthis point I do not want publi-cize the details of the offer, suf-fice to say, our industry must se-riously entertain this prospect.Offers such as this do not come

INSIDE THE OIRCA

A RoofingTraining Centrefor Ontario?

along every day and it reallywould behove us to exhaust allefforts to give it due considera-tion.

What Conestoga College isbuilding at their Waterloo cam-pus is really quite unique; a cam-pus devoted to constructiontrades. By bringing young peo-ple, foreign workers, whoever,to one site to be exposed to allthe trades makes a great deal ofsense. Raising awareness ofroofing issues among other col-lege students and graduates is abonus.

The roofing industry in On-tario desperately needs a focalpoint for training. More thanjust delivering apprenticeship,such a facility could provide awhole myriad of roofing relatededucation. Courses devoted tooccupational health and safety,skills upgrading, new productshowcasing and application, tomention a few. Professional de-

velopment curriculum such ascontract management, estimat-ing and construction supervi-sion would be included. Pre-ap-prentice and safety orientationprograms would be available fornew workers and those peoplere-entering the workforce.

Equally attractive isConestoga’s partnerships withelementary and secondaryschool institutions, their stronginvolvement with internationalstudent enrolment and relation-ships with business and indus-try province-wide.

It is time that the roofing in-dustry in Ontario takes controlof its destiny and plays apart insecuring the future by buildingthis “centre of excellence”. Allstakeholders in the roofing in-dustry must come together toshare in this responsibility. Thefuture of our industry demandsthat we make this opportunitya reality.

By DON B. MARKS,Executive Director, OIRCA

A RoofingTraining Centrefor Ontario?


By ALBERT DUWYN,RRC, FRCI, PresidentIRC Building Sciences Group Inc.

PROJECT PROFILE

A Lightweight Solutionto a Heavyweight Challenge

When MMC International Ar-chitects was asked to design there-development of YorkdaleShopping Centre, they proposeda barrel vaulted atrium of lami-nated glass with an overall lengthof 294 feet and a width of 56 feetas part of an effort to “create a senseof ‘being outside’ inside a building.”1

The barrel vault would have agentle arching radius of approxi-mately 65 feet. It would be thelargest under hung (steel supportarches above the glazing units)structural glazed skylight inNorth America.

The glazing units are con-

structed of 10 mm clear, fully-tem-pered, heat-soaked glass, a 16 mmair space, and a 17 mm interiorlaminate. Each panel of glass isseven-feet-long by four-foot-six-inches-wide and joined with struc-tural silicone sealant. Several sub-consultants would be called uponto lend collective experience to en-sure a successful installation.

At the first consultant’s meet-ing, IRC was presented with therequirements and challenges of theskylight manufacturer. Themanufacturer had concerns overthe presence of any loose ballastmaterials typically used in conven-tional roof assemblies in the vicin-ity of the skylight because of thechance that seagulls could pick upthe stones and drop them onto the

Interior view of the skylight.

glazing unit causing potentialchips or fractures. The other con-cern was snow and ice cascadingoff the skylight accumulating atthe base and creating additionalloading of unpredictable weight.The first concern was easily dealtwith by the specification of asmooth surfaced membrane, how-ever the second presented more ofa challenge.

The architect designed anapron around the entire skylightthat would be used to collect thefrozen precipitation, melt it andallow it to enter the storm sewer.The apron would need to be du-rable enough to withstand peri-odic foot traffic in the event ofglass cleaning and/or mainte-nance. One of the consultants pro-


posed a pour-in-place concreteslab, with heating tubes within, in-stalled over the roof membranearound the entire skylight. Largediameter drains would be placedat regular intervals to collect themelted precipitation and carry itto the storm sewers. The concernwith that was the weight and sizeof the slab, as well as its tendencyto crack and spall, which wouldcause continual problems with theheating lines, drains and water-proofing.

IRC proposed a roof assemblythat would provide thermal insu-lation, a durable medium to carry

the heating lines and a smoothsurface membrane that wouldconduct the heat from the cablesbelow and provide an easilycleaned, reflective surface for easymaintenance. The assembly, com-monly known as NVS2 (non-vented substrate) consisted of avapour retarder, lightweight con-crete, expanded polystyrene insu-lation, top pour of lightweightconcrete (with the heating linesembedded 1-1/2-inches below thesurface), venting sheet and two-ply modified bituminous mem-brane.

The lightweight concrete is an

engineered mixture of water, Port-land cement and vermiculite ag-

At the end of itsservice life, only themembrane needs tobe repaired or re-placed leaving the bal-ance of the assemblyin place. This, cou-pled with a 25 yearwarranty, providessecurity and low lifecycle costing. TheNVS assembly is suit-able for single-ply,conventional built-up

Finished roof prior to sheet metal installation.

Placement of heating tubes after initial pour and insulation.

gregate which is mixed, pumpedand placed. Slotted EPS insulationis then placed into the primarypour in varying thicknesses toachieve a stair-step slope. A toppour of lightweight concrete ispoured in place over the steppedinsulation and floated to achievea constant smooth slope.

After several days of curing, amechanically-fastened ventingsheet and two-ply modified bitu-men membrane with analuminum foil faced cap sheet, isinstalled. The R=20 assembly,weighing less than eight poundsper square foot, has excellentcompressive and pull-outstrength, and remains in place forthe life of the structure.

and non-conventional built-uproofing. Owner preference dic-tated the membrane selection onthis project.

The phased application assem-bly on this project was an addedbonus to the general contractor.With the vapour barrier installedover the concrete apron acting asa temporary roof, the structurewas immediately made watertightand allowed work of other tradesto commence above and belowthe roof. Workers installed theskylight, mechanical work,welded, hammered and droppedtools and accessories on the tem-porary roof with little or no dam-age, and without loss of water-proofing. The remainder of the as-

sembly was not installed until al-most all other work was com-pleted in order to protect it fromunnecessary traffic and abuse, andto ensure adequate curing times.

The project was completed inthe Spring of 2005, on time,within budget and to the satisfac-tion of all parties. Monitoringover the past two winters hasyielded positive reports on allcounts. As a result of the successof this project, a similar design ona skylight twice the size is beingimplemented by the same archi-tect and IRC on a project inCalgary, Alta.

For more information on thisproject, contact the writer [email protected].

Albert Duwyn is the president and ownerof IRC Building Sciences Group Inc. Hehas been in the roofing industry for 30years, is a Registered Roof Consultant(RRC), past president and fellow of theRoof Consultants Institute and chairs sev-eral committees related to the buildingenvelope on a national and internationallevel. IRC provides building envelope andstructural engineering services fromseven offices in Canada and one officein central Florida.

1 Excerpt of quote by Chris Brown, MMC International Architects.

2 NVS is a trademark of Siplast.


Nature isn’t very forgiving. And no matter how

exquisite the architecture is, if the roofing drainage

system isn’t designed effectively, it can cause

serious problems. That’s why you should call in the

experts from ACCU-PLANE. Sure, we offer the latest

tapered roofing insulation solutions, to make certain

your roofing system drains. But we also bring

decades of know-how to bear during the design

phase, to ensure you get the best pre-engineered

system available, at the best possible price.

Because what starts out well in the beginning

turns out well in the end. And we’re on call

during construction to assure effortless

installation. So avoid the problems water

ponding can cause, and at the same time

enhance your thermal resistance. Call in the

expertise of ACCU-PLANE on your next project.

Because we’ve been tested by the best.

MOTHER NATURE

AROUND THE PROVINCE

OIRCA Regional Profile:

907920 Ontario Inc.French Brothers (Belleville)109 – A Parks DriveBelleville, ON K8N 4Z5Nathan FrenchTel: 613-968-4991, Fax: [email protected]

Amherst Roofing & Sheet Metal Ltd.P.O. Box 176Kingston, ON K7L 4V8Peter HardingTel: 613-542-0779, Fax: [email protected]

Covertite Eastern Ltd.192 Hagerman Ave.Kingston, ON K7K 5B8Barry WarnerTel: 613-536-2223, Fax: [email protected]

Semple-Gooder Roofing Ltd.5 Maitland Dr.Belleville, ON K8N 4Z5Joe SniderTel: 613-966-7854, Fax: [email protected]

Belleville & KingstonRegion


cover. When the cover is appliedto an insulation, curling, lifting,delamination or fracture of the in-sulation is also considered a failure.

FM reports pressures from 60to 999 psf (2.87 to 47.8 kPa) as-signing designations of FM1-60 toFM1-999. It should be noted thatthe numerical designation has norelation to wind speed. An assem-bly that has received a 1-60 ratingwould have resisted a sustainedpressure of 60 psf (2.87 kPa) for60 seconds. Because FM applies asafety factor of two to the testedassembly, this assembly would be

Changes toFM Global LossPrevention

FROM THE CRCA

The following article isan Advisory Bulletinreleased in June 2007by the Canadian Roof-ing Contractors Asso-ciation (CRCA).

There are few organizationsthat have attained as much promi-nence and influence in the roof-ing industry as FM Glo-bal. From its humble beginningsin the early 1800s, FM Global hasgrown to become one of theworld’s largest property insuranceand loss prevention engineeringfirms providing service in over

an inter-laboratory agreement, alltheir testing, inspection and cer-tification is done in-house. Theydo not accept testing data fromother organizations. In otherwords, only an FM engineer cancertify that a roof assembly com-plies with FM requirements whenthose requirements have beenspecified.

Sufficient wind resistance isparticularly important in roofconstruction as a roof that blowsoff exposes the building interiorand its contents to the elements.Interior damage, loss of building

Data Sheets

T

Continued On Page 10

contents and subsequent businessinterruptions can lead to cata-strophic losses for the buildingowner and the insurer. FM evalu-ates and predicts the wind per-formance of roofing systems onsteel decks by testing them on aspecially designed test apparatus.Positive air pressure is applied tothe bottom (interior) side in incre-ments of 15 psf (700 Pa). Each in-crement is held for one minute. Toqualify for a rating, the roof deckassembly must withstand the speci-fied pressure for one minute with-out showing any evidence of fail-ure. In a totally-adhered system,any separation, includingdelamination of field seams isdeemed to be a failure of the roof

It should be emphasized that only FMcan determine whether a roof has been

installed in accordance with theirtechnical requirements. Although they doaccept some limited test data from otherlaboratories if there is an inter-laboratory

agreement, all their testing, inspectionand certification is done in-house.

100 countries.A key con-

tributor to FM’ssuccess has beenits research divi-sion. In itsn e w l y - b u i l t ,1600 acre (648ha) ResearchCampus, theperformance ofmany construc-tion materialsand systems isevaluated. FMApprovals tests,certifies and ap-proves productsand services, including roof mate-rials, systems and installations forthe purpose of assisting FM’s un-derwriters in adjusting rates for itsinsured. Roof systems are evalu-ated for a variety of performancecharacteristics, including their fireresistance, both from the exteriorand interior, hail resistance, wa-ter leakage, resistance to foot traf-fic, UV degradation, corrosion ofmetal components, and wind up-lift resistance.

It should also be emphasizedthat only FM can determinewhether a roof has been installedin accordance with their techni-cal requirements. Although theydo accept some limited test datafrom other laboratories if there is

recommendedfor use on build-ings with a de-sign wind loadpressure of 30 psf(1.44 kPa).

FM Globalnot only evalu-ates roofingproducts and sys-tems, but it alsoprovides designguidance to thebuilding indus-try and designc o m m u n i t ythrough its Prop-erty Loss Preven-

tion Data Sheets. These are engi-neering guidelines written to helpreduce the chance of property lossdue to fire, weather conditions andfailure of electrical or mechanicalequipment. They incorporate lossexperience, research results, inputfrom consensus standards commit-tees, equipment manufacturers andothers. Included in these is the ap-propriate FM Global Researchminimum roof system wind up-lift rating.

Two Property Loss PreventionData Sheets – 1-28, Design WindLoads and 1-29, Roof DeckSecurement and Above-Deck RoofComponents provide guidancewith respect to designing for wind


CHANGES TO FM GLOBAL LOSSPREVENTION DATA SHEETSContinued From Page 9

loads. The first gives informationon how to determine wind loadrequirements for building compo-nents and cladding, and their im-mediate supports (e.g., siding, roofassemblies, etc.). The second isintended to be used in conjunc-tion with Data Sheet 1-28 and pro-vides recommendations for theproper securement of various roofdecks to supporting members, andfor the proper design and installa-tion of above-deck roof compo-nents including roof covers, insu-lation, vapour retarders, fastenersand recover assemblies.

FM now provides design profes-sionals an on-line calculator to de-termine the proper roof classifica-tions for wind uplift resistance, fireand hail at www.roofnav.com. Inaddition, both FM roofing materi-als and assemblies approvals andLoss Prevention Data Sheets canbe accessed and downloaded freeof charge.

In the requirements and recom-mendations contained in the DataSheets, FM differentiates between“adhered systems” and “mechani-cally attached” systems. An ad-hered system consists of a layerof roof insulation that is mechani-cally attached with screw andplate fasteners to the structuralroof deck with additional insula-tion and/or a roof cover attachedto the mechanically-fastened insu-lation with some type of adhesive.The roof cover can be asphalt-based or a single-ply syntheticmembrane. A mechanically at-tached system relies on mechani-cally fastening the roof compo-nents, including the roof cover, tothe deck with screw and plate fas-teners to achieve its wind upliftresistance.

In the wake of the major windevent that occurred worldwide in2004 and 2005, FM Global issueda revised Loss Prevention DataSheet 1-29 in early 2006 and againin 2007. The changes contained inthis data sheet were substantialand caused considerable contro-versy within the industry. Due tothe nature of wind dynamics, thehighest uplift loads occur at theroof corners, somewhat less atperimeters and significantly lessin the field of the roof. FM hastypically addressed this wind be-haviour by requiring more fas-teners in the roof corners andperimeters. The most significantrevisions to the Data Sheet areenhanced requirements for winduplift resistance in the perimeterand corner of the roof in ad-hered systems. Currently, veryfew systems can meet these very

stringent perimeter and cornerrequirements virtually eliminat-ing the use of adhered systemsrequiring a 1-90 rating or aboveon standard steel decks. In mostcases, if the uplift requirementsfor a roof are 90 psf (4.3 kPa) orgreater in the field of the roof,a mechanically attached systemwill most likely have to be usedin the perimeter and corner ar-eas of the roof.

FM approvals apply to FM in-sured buildings and the stringentrequirements are intended to miti-gate the risk of loss from wind,fire, hail and other perils. How-ever, due to the dearth of infor-mation on wind effect on roof as-semblies, until recently, FM 1-90wind resistance requirements be-came the benchmark for the roof-ing industry, due in large measure

Wind Design of Mechanically At-tached Flexible Membrane Roofs,”available from the National Re-search Council.1 This Guide alsocontains detailed information onother sources of information onWind Uplift, including SPRI,RCI, UL and SIGDERS, whosetest method for evaluating thewind resistance of roofing systemsis now the accepted standard fordetermining a roof’s uplift resist-ance when subjected to dynamicwind loads.2

The optimal roof design, withrespect to wind resistance, will beone where the wind uplift resist-ance is sufficient to resist the loadsto which it will be subjected whilein service. Under designing theroof may expose the building toserious danger and losses fromblow-off. Over designing the roof

References1 Baskaran, A. and Smith. T.L. A Guide

for the Wind Design of Mechanically-At-tached Flexible Membrane Roofs. Institutefor Research in Construction, NationalResearch Council of Canada, Ottawa,2005.

2 SIGDERS, the Special Interest Groupfor Dynamic Evaluation of Roofing Sys-tems was formed under the direction ofthe National Research Council of Cana-da’s Institute for Research in Constructionin 1994 for the purpose of developing amethod for evaluating mechanically at-tached roof membrane systems. The testmethod developed by the SIGDERS Con-sortium is now the CSA National Stand-ard – A123.21-04, Standard test method forthe dynamic wind uplift resistance of me-chanically attached membrane roofing sys-tems.

to its promotion by roofing sys-tems manufacturers as it was, atone time, the highest ratingachievable. In light of the recentchanges to Property Loss Preven-tion Data Sheets – 1-28 and 1-29,manufacturers and many otherindustry organizations are ques-tioning this practice. Unfortu-nately, many designers have andcontinue to insert the phrase:“must meet the requirements ofFM 1-90 even though the build-ing is not insured by FM.” Moreimportantly, such requirementsare often erroneously specifiedeven though the building may notrequire such a high wind resist-ance rating, imposing needlesscosts on the building owner withlittle benefit.

How to calculate the requiredwind load for a particular build-ing in Canada is set out in Section4.1.7 of the 2005 edition of theNational Building Code ofCanada. One should be aware thatalthough a system may meet FMrequirements, it may not conformto the Code, which may havemore stringent requirements. Anexcellent discussion relating towind loads and resistance on roofscan be found in “A Guide for the

may incur substantial costswithout any corresponding ben-efit. The wind loads on a roofand its required resistance willvary depending on several fac-tors including the building’s lo-cation, size and height, geom-etry, surrounding topography,number of openings, slope andother architectural features. Cal-culating a roof’s required windresistance is a complicated pro-cedure that should be under-taken only by a qualified designprofessional.

In the wake of the major wind event thatoccurred worldwide in 2004 and 2005,FM Global issued a revised Loss PreventionData Sheet 1-29 in early 2006 and againin 2007. The changes contained in this datasheet were substantial and causedconsiderable controversy within the industry.


CCMC PRODUCT EVALUATIONS EVOLVE

The Council of Ontario Construc-tion Associations (COCA) an-nounced at their January AnnualGeneral Meeting that a major prior-ity for the Association in 2008 wouldbe to secure the Attorney General’s

support for amendments to the ConstructionLien Act.

At the meeting, COCA President David Framesaid that COCA has been “struggling with the is-sue of lien act revisions for the last six years or so.”Its lien act committee has been charged with devel-oping a consensus on needed amendments and sub-mitting proposals to the government.

The legislation came into effect in 1990. Therehave been no substantive revisions since then.

Late last year the Ontario Court of Appealshanded down a unanimous decision in a case in-volving the interpretation of the ConstructionLien Act (the Act). The now famous Kennedycase revolved around the definition of “construc-tion” in the Act.

A construction company was hired to buildan assembly line inside a building whose sole pur-pose was to house that assembly line. When thecompany tried to file a lien against the assemblyline, it was rebuffed. In its decision, the appealscourt, and a lower court before it, made clear thatsuch work could not be subject to a lien. Thisfinding could seriously affect construction com-panies who enter into similar projects withoutproper legal advice.

COCA’s research shows that a simple amend-ment to the Act could clarify cases like thesegreatly. British Columbia’s lien legislation, forexample, covers work such as the assembly linein question because its definitions include con-struction work “attached to” an improvement.Adding those two words to Ontario’s Act would

make a significant difference. COCA will askthe Attorney General to review this proposedamendment at the earliest opportunity.

In addition to this proposed change, COCAhas also sought an amendment requiring the 10per cent holdback on construction contracts bepaid out on a specified date (assuming all con-tractual obligations have been met). This is aburning issue for many trades and it goes to theheart of the lien legislation. As a governmentlawyer once observed, “if you have finished allthe work you are contracted to do, why doesanybody have your money?” It is clearly a mat-ter of fairness.

Simply put, COCA believes that there shouldbe an automatic dispersal of holdback funds uponthe expiry of lien rights. They also are suggest-ing that holdback funds on all projects with acontract value greater than $200,000 be held in atrust account in the joint names of the ownerand primary contractor.

COCA has also made a proposal regarding thesimplification of the legislation for early contrac-tors – excavation contractors, for example –whose work is completed in the very early stagesof a project. As the Act is written, any sub-con-tractor must file a lien within 45 days of substan-tial performance of the contract. In some cases,however, this date is months or even years be-fore substantial performance of the main contract.To avoid the necessity of filing a lien in such cir-cumstances, COCA proposes that the lien rightsof sub-contractors who are on the site early beprotected through to substantial performance ofthe main contract.

Clearly, COCA believes that all parties’ lienrights should continue through to substantial per-formance of the main contract, unless there hasbeen early release of the holdback.

COCA Priorities IncludeAmendments to the

Construction Lien Act

Continued From Page 3

the compliance of a product orsystem to the NBC 2005 (or pro-vincial code). Innovative productsare evaluated as an alternative to(a) code-identified solution(s) inNBC Division B. Each CCMCevaluation is a proponent-specificundertaking to establish compli-ance with the regulatory require-ments in force in the jurisdictionwhere the approval is beingsought.

A successful evaluation resultsin a report that states CCMC’sopinion with regard to the prod-uct/system’s performance and itscompliance with the minimumacceptable solution stated in theNBC. This opinion is based on

the test evidence submitted in ac-cordance with these requirements.Limitations are set based on thescope of the evaluation, the codeand the evidence submitted.

As part of the evaluation proc-ess, a technical guide, which is pre-pared for an innovative productfor which no standard exists, con-veys CCMC’s criteria and require-ments to facilitate the assessment.A technical guide, when issuedunder contract, is proponent- andproduct-specific, and is valued forone year (i.e. CCMC will accepttest results for a period of one yearfrom the date of issue). In orderfor CCMC to issue a report andan evaluation number, the propo-

nent not only has to meet thetechnical requirements but alsoother requirements, such as thoserelated to sample selection, ISO9000 registration or evidence of aquality assurance program, as out-lined in the technical guide

The issuance of a CCMC re-port and evaluation number doesnot constitute an approval or acertification of the product or sys-tem. Regulators, specificationswriters, builders or general userscan use the information to deter-mine approval or acceptability.

- Reprinted from the December2007 issue of NRC’s Institute forResearch in Construction, Con-struction Innovation magazine.

T

IN THE NEWS

Conestoga Roofing & Sheet Metal Ltd. - Perks Publications Incperkspub.com/magazines/Ont Roof Winter...

Documents

Transcript of Conestoga Roofing & Sheet Metal Ltd. - Perks Publications Incperkspub.com/magazines/Ont Roof Winter...