|
|
|
|
Letter To The Editor - SPECIAL FEATURE: Fire Testing of Roof Membranes |
Letter To The Editor
SPECIAL FEATURE: Fire Testing of Roof
Membranes
Dear Editor:
After reading the above-captioned article,
we believe a few points merit clarification:
- The October 2001 fire testing commissioned by the Midwest
Roofing Contractors Association (MRCA) included Built-Up Roofing, Modified
Bitumen with granulated cap sheet, PVC, TPO and EPDM roof systems.
Although as you have correctly noted, half the specimens tested failed,
(bld)all PVC roof systems(end bold) tested passed the spread of flame
requirements for a Class A rated system.
- On the basis of these results, the MRCA determined there was no
need to further test PVC (and Modified Bitumen) roof systems in the
subsequent phases of the test program.
- Testing new and aged roof systems to confirm they maintain
their fire resistance ratings over time is an excellent initiative.
Roofing contractors rely upon manufacturers to supply products and systems
that meet building codes throughout their service life. Fire performance
of a roof is a life and safety issue first and foremost, and secondarily,
a factor in property protection.
- The fire performance of roof systems (membranes and
insulations) may change with normal roof top exposure. Products requiring
fire retardant additives to pass initial testing may well lose some of
their fire resistance over time. Products with different types of
surfacing (e.g. coatings or mineral granules) may require maintenance to
maintain their fire rating. Some roof systems such as PVC are inherently
fire resistant and can actually improve over time.
- Maybe the fire test methodology is flawed, and if that is
indeed the case, it should be addressed quickly. However, it should also
be remembered that some systems passed consistently and while others did
not.
- As stated previously all PVC roof systems tested passed the
original testing. There is no evidence that a non-combustible cover board
is needed for mechanically attached PVC roof systems. The evidence would
suggest that a non-combustible recovery board is not required for all
mechanically-attached systems.
We believe your readers should be made
aware of these important points.
S.P. Graveline, Vice President, Sarnafil
Ltd.
|
|
|