Effect of Fastener-Deck Strength on the Wind-Uplift Performance of Mechanically Attached Roofing Assemblies
Publication: Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction
Volume 15, Issue 1
Abstract
A roofing system consists of a waterproof membrane, attachments, cover board (if present), insulation, and vapor or air barrier [retarder (if present)]. A roof assembly is a roof system that includes the structural deck. Wind-uplift ratings are reported by subjecting roof assembly mockups to wind dynamics. Most of the time, technical reports clearly document the properties of membranes and attachment systems (fasteners, plates, and seams) and only briefly mention the strength of the fastener-deck interface. Research by a North American roofing consortium established at the National Research Council of Canada, the Special Interest Group for Dynamic Evaluation of Roofing Systems, has demonstrated the significant influence of fastener-deck parameters on the wind-uplift resistance of mechanically attached roofs. This paper presents data and information from this ongoing investigation. Seven different roofing assemblies using three widely used roofing membranes with different fastener-deck combinations were constructed and tested under dynamic wind conditions. Assembly responses were measured based on two design factors: pressure and force. The present study identified three parameters characterizing the fastener-deck interface strength: deck grade, deck gauge, and fastener type. The study found that assemblies tested with steel decks having thicker gauge or higher yield strength tend to have greater fastener-deck strength and therefore they sustain higher wind-uplift pressures compared to assemblies with thinner gauge or lower yield-strength decks. Similarly, assemblies where the membrane attachment is made with fasteners with larger shank diameters sustained higher wind-uplift pressures compared to assemblies installed with smaller shank diameter fasteners. This study also found that fastener pullout resistance could be used as a verification factor for estimating assembly wind resistance.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The research in this paper was undertaken by a consortium—special interest group for dynamic evaluation of roofing systems (SIGDERS). SIGDERS was formed by the following partners interested in roofing design: manufacturers: Atlas Roofing Corporation, Canadian General Tower Ltd., Carlisle Syn Tec., GAF Materials Corporation, GenFlex Roofing Systems, Firestone Building Products Co., IKO Industries Ltd., ITW Buildex, Johns Manville, Sika-Sarnafil, Soprema Canada, Stevens Roofing, Tremco, and Trufast; building owners: Canada Post Corporation, Department of National Defense, Public Works, and Government Services Canada; industry associations: Canadian Roofing Contractors' Association, Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute, National Roofing Contractors’ Association, and Roof Consultants Institute.
References
American National Standard. (2006). “Standard field test procedure for determining the withdrawal resistance of roofing fasteners.” ANSI/SPRI FX-1, Waltham, Mass.
ASCE. (2005). “Minimum design loads for building and other structures.” SEI/ASCE 7-04, New York.
ASTM. (2004). “Standard test method for compressive properties of rigid cellular plastics.” ASTM D1621-04a, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (2006). “Standard test methods for coated fabrics.” D751-06, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (2009a). “Standard specification for steel, sheet, cold-rolled, carbon, structural, high-strength low-alloy, high-strength low-alloy with improved formability, solution hardened, and bake hardenable.” A1008/A1008M-09, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (2009b). “Standard specification for steel sheet, zinc-coated (galvanized) or zinc-iron-alloy-coated (galvannealed) by the hot-dip process.” A653/A653M-09, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Baskaran, A., Chen, Y., and Vilaipornsawai, U. (1999a). “A new dynamic wind load cycle to evaluate flexible membrane roofs.” J. Test. Eval., 27(4), 249–265.
Baskaran, A., and Ko, S. K. P. (2006). “Which is the weakest link? Wind performance of mechanically attached systems.” Proc., RCI 21st Int. Convention, Institute of Roofing, Waterproofing, and Building Envelope Professionals (RCI), Phoenix, 29–39.
Baskaran, A., Ko, S. K. P., and Molleti, S. (2007). “A novel approach to estimate the wind uplift resistance of roofing systems.” International Journal of Building Science and Applications (Building and Engineering), 44(4), 723–735.
Baskaran, A., and Lei, W. (1997). “A new facility for dynamic wind performance evaluation of roofing systems.” Proc., 4th Int. Symp. on Roofing Technology, NRCA/NIST, Washington, D.C., 168–179.
Baskaran, A., Lei, W., and Richardson, C. (1999b). “Dynamic evaluation of thermoplastic roofing systems for wind performance.” J. Archit. Eng., 5(1), 16–24.
Baskaran, A., and Smith, T. L. (2005). A guide for the wind design of mechanically attached flexible membrane roofs, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa.
Canadian Standards Association. (2004). ”Standard test method for the dynamic wind uplift resistance of mechanically attached membrane-roofing systems.” CSA No. A123.21-04, Canada.
CGSB. (1985). “Membrane, modified, bituminous, prefabricated, and reinforced for roofing.” 37-GP-56M, Canadian General Standards Board, Quebec.
National Building Code of Canada. (2005). National building code of Canada user’s guide—Structural commentaries (part 4), National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2010 ASCE.
History
Received: Aug 5, 2008
Accepted: Apr 8, 2009
Published online: Apr 13, 2009
Published in print: Feb 2010
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.