|
ASTM Task Force Updates
See the
current ASTM Standards
ASTM October 2007 Fall
Meetings
By Ralph Velasquez
|
|
Dear
Readers,
It has been some time since I last wrote an article on the activities
of the ASTM task force group (E.06.71.07), relative to green roofs.
I missed the last meetings (April) entirely, as I was out and about
taking care of customers and making a living. While the ASTM
work is important, even critical, it is done on a totally volunteered
basis and can take some serious chunks out of your schedule.
Enough whining, we all have our time constraints, you just want
to know what did we get done and how can you help me? Right.
The “big” thing on the agenda is the work that continues on the
Standard Guide for Green Roof Systems and the Standard
Practice for the Assessment of Green Roofs (The Guide).
The Guide is the first step in creating a document that covers the
“whole enchilada,” giving the designer some direction on what to
consider as they practice the art of architectural design, relative
to green (vegetative) roofs. By the way, I prefer the term
vegetative roofs (VR) versus “green,” since green in my mind is
something broader. In fact sustainable roofing is even a better
term for “green,” since again it better defines the various attributes
of what a particular roof design can contribute to the final decision,
other then just environmental impacts. Ah, but I digress,
back to The Guide.
The Guide covers the roof membrane, accessory components such as
drain boards or root barriers, growing media, plants, code issues,
etc. We have made progress on the various categories, however,
two of the most critical issues that continue to prove to be a sticking
point are the issues of fire and wind. As some of you may
recall, in a previous article I raised the issue of wind (see below:
"What's blowing in the wind?"),
as have others within the industry, and we continue the debate.
Since our discourse on this subject, various stakeholders have begun
to grapple with these two issues. The
National Roofing
Contractors Association (NRCA) has taken a position on the issue,
pressing for the fledgling green roof industry to comply with existing
fire and wind standards for conventional roof systems, even though
applicable testing methodology has yet to be built. The NRCA
recently submitted this request to the
International
Code Council (ICC) for inclusion in the mid-term meetings this
past fall and the ICC passed the submission for inclusion into the
code. The language will be inserted into the 2009 code approvals
book, at which time various public bodies will begin to adopt this
requirement. In response, folks like ANSI/SPRI (American
National Standards Institute and
Single Ply Roofing
Industry) and the
Green Roofs
for Healthy Cities (GRHC) have attempted to embrace the issue
and find a solution to the challenges this presents. I think
more help will be needed, including from our friends @ the NRCA,
who by the way have issued their new guide for VR design considerations
(see Industry News for more info about
the NRCA Green Roof Systems Manual--2007) .
The technical concerns revolve around issues such as wind scouring
of the growing media, growing media displacement, attachment of
loose-laid components and fire resistance classifications.
Challenges include how one tests for fire resistance when the roof
design is in constant fluctuation, i.e.: the various states of wetness
of growing media or the various types of planting material.
Sedums hold water within their structures, while grasses collect
biomass over time and could present a fire hazard. Constant
changes in the wetness of the growing media, or depth or composition
of the blend, coupled with plant type, irrigation, plant maturity
and the like make a test method a moving target. Some agencies
such as Factory
Mutual Global have issued (Sept. 2006) as a document to their
customers to follow (FM
1-35), with their perspective of controlling losses. Some
of us in the roofing industry have mixed feelings about FM in the
conventional roof arena and this carries over to the VR world as
well. Still, it is one way to view how to handle the twin
issues of fire and wind.
I think what this entire episode has prompted, is for the green
roof industry to get very busy finding the needed answers relative
to fire and wind, in a specific time frame, so as not to find the
industry stymied from a lack of well defined standards and the needed
test methodologies that guide us to achieve the standard.
That said, I also believe solutions will be forthcoming, since our
European brethren have already gone down this path and the industry
is thriving, thank you very much. This coupled with the self-interest
of all interested stakeholders has and will drive us to needed solutions.
Well, the work continues, as we strive to assist everyone who wants
to do the right thing and design VRs that work, and work as advertised.
Come join us in ASTM
if you dare but be ready for more work on your plate, being unpaid
for that work and a satisfaction that comes from making your industry
and the world it impacts, just a little bit better each and every
time.
Ralph P. Velasquez
Sustainable Technologies Specialist
Tremco, Inc.
ASTM Task Force Updates,
2006 Fall Meetings
– What’s blowing in the wind?
By Ralph Velasquez
Well
everyone, another meeting has come and gone with my green roof brethren,
as we completed our meetings in late October. While these
meetings can be laborious as we mull through the details, they can
also be intensively debated if an unusually important subject is
on the table. One such lively discussion took place that I
would like to bring to your attention and hopefully get some input.
While our industry is moving rapidly forward and we continue to
learn, there are issues that need to be addressed to protect the
end user and to ensure the industry will continue to prosper.
The issue that caused such a lively debate was wind uplift of vegetative
systems.
To the best of my knowledge and to the best of our task force collective
knowledge, there are no current codes or guides specific to wind
uplift as it relates to vegetative roof design in the US.
So, if this is true, then how does one properly design and install
a vegetative roof that will not blow off or if not blow off, have
displacement of the growing media or planting material? How
are issues such as building height or building location & orientation
dealt with in vegetative design? Does the soil need to be
restrained? If so, then how is that best achieved? Is
there liability to the building owner if something blows off and
there are not codes in place to deal with this issue? What
about who installs the soil? If the roofing contractor installs
it, is he responsible? Should a landscape firm install it?
Can the landscape firm get properly insured in a roofing environment
in order to place the soil? What if some of the soil or plant
material goes airborne and hits a building, a window, and a pedestrian?
As one can see there are many questions and no firm answers currently.
The ASTM task force has and is grappling with numerous issues in
this fledgling growth industry, with wind uplift being just one
of those issues. So what is the designer or end user to do
before standards are built specifically for vegetative roof systems?
I would propose a couple of thoughts and expect many others to have
the ability to weigh in on the dialogue.
First, there are many standards already in place for roof design
relative to wind uplift and these should be followed. Don’t
throw out good roof design just because we are putting soil and
plants above it. The one area this may cause a problem is
with loose-laid roof systems that typically depend on some type
of ballast to keep them in place. Since growing media is not like
typical roof ballast in many ways, then design criteria for these
type of roofs should not follow the standards set for this type
of design. Aggregate based soils have different shape, size,
weight and wind induced behaviors of the aggregate then natural
stone ballast used in typical roof applications. I would encourage
some common sense, where we might look to guides set forth in ANSI/SPRI
for ballasted applications but not takes these as interchangeable
understandings or approaches when designing vegetative roofs.
Second, the designer should think carefully about issues relative
to wind uplift, such as wind zone, topography, building orientation,
surrounding buildings impact, edge type and detailing, building
height, etc.
Third, the designer should consider the type and typical saturation
condition of the growing media being used. Wet media is heavier
and typically less apt to be displaced, so if the roof is an area
that would be dry much of the time and not irrigated, then wind
issues might be more of a concern, then the reverse.
Fourth, the designer should consider the use of erosion control
mats and how they would impact the project. The use of a biodegradable
mat in the first two years might be sufficient to allow the plants
to create a more mature root matrix that would be less prone to
displacement or blow-off, with an increased ability to absorb moisture,
wetting the soil and making it less likely for displacement.
There are many other issues to consider and this brief column was
not meant to address all concerns or even to offer the only solutions.
All I wanted to do here is raise the issue, let you know we have
and for all parts of our industry to take this into their consideration
so as to protect the owner and the industry from any future problems
related to wind.
So go forth and change the world one vegetative roof at a time,
just check which way the wind is blowing!
Ralph P. Velasquez
Sustainable Technologies Specialist
Tremco, Inc.
ASTM Task Force Updates,
2006 Spring Meetings
By Ralph Velasquez
Greetings
to all of you who are interested in green roofs! We are
back from Toronto, Canada where the work continues on developing
and in some cases already refining existing standards for this
emerging technology.
First, if you are unaware, a new standard has been approved
by the committee, made it through review and is now available
to the public. ASTM standard E2400-06, Standard Guide
for Selection, Installation, and Maintenance of Plants for Green
Roof Systems, can be downloaded from the ASTM website for $29.00.
Nothing is free in this world and neither is this document.
That brings to five, in the stable of green roof documents,
available to assist end users, designers and other interested
parties. Click on the hyperlinks below for a Document
Summary of each standard:
E2396-05 Standard Test Method for Saturated Water Permeability
of Granular Drainage Media [Falling-Head Method] for Green Roof
Systems
E2397-05 Standard Practice for Determination of Dead
Loads and Live Loads associated with Green Roof Systems
E2398-05 Standard Test Method for Water Capture and Media
Retention of Geocomposite Drain Layers for Green Roof Systems
E2399-05 Standard Test Method for Maximum Media Density
for Dead Load Analysis of Green Roof Systems
E2400-06 Standard Guide for Selection, Installation,
and Maintenance of Plants for Green Roof Systems
This new standard E2400-06 provides guidance for the selection
criteria for plants to be used on Green Roofs. Primary considerations
of this standard include: Design Intent, Aesthetics, Climate
(both Macroclimate and Microclimate), Plant Characteristics
(including rate of establishment, longevity, disease and pest
resistance), and growing media composition. The Standard also
provides guidance for the installation of plants for
Green Roofs. Methods include: Pre-cultivation or direct plantings
such as seeds, root cuttings and plugs. Finally, the Standard
provides guidance for the maintenance of plants for Green
Roofs.
Work continues on the development of the Standard for Assessment
of Green Roofs. A lot of progress has been made on
this standard in the last year with many undeveloped sections
now having first drafts completed. Getting each section
to have initial language built out is one of the more difficult
parts of the process. It is like trying to write a new
book. When you start the process all you have is a lot
of blank pages and an idea. Soon an outline appears, the
key points hammered out, then, each and every point needs to
be fleshed out. Often along the way the outline changes,
usually expanding, as you realize there is more that needs definition.
Finally, you have the first complete
draft of the standard. This is where we are in the
process at this writing. Next, each section will
need to be reviewed, revised, rewritten, reviewed again, revised,
rewritten and so it goes on and on until we have something we
can all agree on. This is a messy and long process that
has proven successful over many generations.
There are a number of additional Standards that need to be developed
and I will report more on these in my next report to you.
You may also be interested in other related Standards and Working
Documents related to Sustainability under the E.06.71 sub-committee,
such as Environmentally Preferred Products, Terminology, Data
Collection or Sustainable Buildings. If you are interested
in work being developed in these task Force Groups check the
website for published data or better yet, come join us and be
part of the process. The next meeting is in Atlanta on
October 22nd - 25th, hope to see you there!
Ralph P. Velasquez
Effective July 2006, Ralph Velasquez
is in charge of Sustainable Technologies with
Tremco, Inc., as the Sustainable Technologies
Specialist heading up their new program for sustainable roofing,
waterproofing and building envelope solutions, including green
roofs, photovoltaics (incl. BIPV), cool roofing and bio-based
materials. Previously founding his company Integrated Building
Technologies (IBT), Ralph has been involved in the roofing industry
since 1978 with a wide range of roofing experience serving hospitals,
schools, universities, industries, major corporations, non-profit
organizations and property management companies.
Tremco Inc., located in Beachwood, OH, is a division of RPM
(Republic Powdered Metals), providing "Roofing and Waterproofing
Peace of Mind" to their customers since 1928. Tremco has long
been a leader in the concept of sustainable roofing, with a
historical focus in keeping "good roofs good", thereby improving
the life-cycle of the roof assembly, forestalling replacement
and reducing landfill burdens. Further promotion of this concept
came with the advent of asbestos free materials, low and no
VOC products, recycled content, cool roof technologies, Energy
Star, LEED, Title 24 (CA) and now increased emphasis in vegetative
roofs and Photovoltaic solutions.
As a major corporation with construction related activities
around the world, Tremco is committed to providing building
envelope solutions that will meet the customers need for value
driven sustainable solutions. We are committed to building upon
our past sustainable approaches, creating new mechanisms to
achieve improved levels of sustainability and value for our
customers. Contact Ralph at: phone 615.251.3055,
sustainableroofingeditor@greenroofs.com
or rvelasquez@tremcoinc.com.
ASTM Task Force
Updates, November 2005
By Ralph Velasquez
Dear
Readers,
The fall meetings for ASTM have been concluded and the process
continues. Since our last time together the four standards
that were passed in committee have now made their way through
the executive chain of command of the ASTM organization.
The standards have been given a formal designation and are as
follows:
E2396-05 Standard Test Method for Saturated Water Permeability
of Granular Drainage Media [Falling-Head Method] for Green Roof
Systems;
E2397-05 Standard Practice for Determination of Dead
and Live Loads associated with Green Roof Systems;
E2398-05 Standard Test Method for Water Capture and Media
Retention Geocomposite Drain Layers for Green Roof Systems;
E2499-05 Standard Test Method for Maximum Media Density
for Dead Load Analysis of Green Roof Systems.
While these four standards do not a green roof make, they are
the first important steps toward building a stable of documents
that can used by all interested parties, when specifying a green
roof system. I would suggest you purchase these documents
and become familiar with them if you are in the green roof business,
as they will likely begin to show up in more specifications.
Future work continues on documents that will deal with the practice
of the assessment of green roofs and the selection-installation-maintenance
of plants for green roof systems. The assessment document
is of particular importance, as it has over arching impact on
our fledging industry. This work is slow but each time
progress has been made.
Right now there in not much else that I can report but I would
like to take this opportunity to encourage you to join us the
next time in Toronto, CA. We meet April 23-26, 2006 and
would welcome your voice.
Best regards,
Ralph P. Velasquez
President, Integrated Building Technologies, LLC
ASTM Task Force
Updates, May 2005
By Ralph Velasquez
Dear
Readers,
We are back from the “spring” meeting
of the ASTM E.06 Committee on the Performance of Buildings.
While the calendar said spring, the weather in Reno, NV was
cold and snowing. This was great for meetings that lasted all
day, since I was not tempted to go exploring anywhere. Also,
since I choose to keep my hard earned money safely in my pocket
and not “feed the machines,” this also bodes well for keeping
one’s nose to the grindstone. Perhaps this was why we made so
much progress this time and passed four new standards for green
roofs.
The new standards that have been passed through the task force,
sub-committee and main committee, will now make their way through
the ASTM executive process and should be published for general
use in 3-6 months. The four that have passed are as follows:
1) Standard Practice for Determination
of Dead Loads and Live Loads Associated with Green Roof Systems.
2) Standard Test Method for Water
Capture and Media Retention of Geocomposite Drain Layers for
Green Roofs.
3) Standard Test Method for Maximum
Density for Dead Load Analysis of Green Roofs.
4) Standard Test Method for Saturated
Water Permeability of Granular Drainage Media [Falling-Head
Method] for Green Roofs.
A fifth standard, The Standard Guide
for Selection, Installation, and Maintenance of Plants for Green
Roofs, didn’t make it through balloting and has been taken back
to the task force for more revisions. In addition to these five,
we are also working on: A) Standard Guide for Use of Expanded
Shale, Clay or Slate (ESCS) as a mineral Component in Growing
Media for Green Roof Systems and B) Standard Practice for the
Assessment of Green Roofs.
Let’s take a look at one of the standards that passed. Let’s
take the first one, associated with Dead and Live Loads Relative
to Green Roofs. The scope of this practice is to address the
weight of Green Roof Systems under two conditions. First, it
will address weight under drained conditions after new water
additions by rainfall or irrigation have ceased and 2) weight
when rainfall or irrigation is actively occurring and the drainage
layer is completely filled with water. The first condition is
considered the dead load of the green roof system. The difference
in weight between the first and second conditions, approximated
by the weight of transient water in the drainage layer, is considered
a live load. The practice does not address architectural elements
that are not essential components of a particular green roof
system and will require calculations by the design professional.
Terminology is defined within the document for those unfamiliar
with green roof system components and a procedure to quantify
these weights is outlined within the standard. The significance
of this standard will provide information to facilitate the
assessment of the performance of one green roof system relative
to another, as it pertains to weight factors
While the various documents have passed, there is room for improvements
and no doubt once these hit the market, we will begin to work
on various tweaks and enhancements. If you have any suggestions
on future improvements, we are all ears; let’s just get these
into every day use and measure their results and impact. Better
yet, join the process, ante up a membership and come join the
fray. Your participation in the process will only make the end
results better and that is our objective.
The work continues on a regular basis in between each April
and October meeting. In between meetings the “donkey” work is
done and at the joint meetings we cobble together to review,
debate, dismantle and rebuild the work done between meetings.
This valuable process keeps the refining pot boiling until the
impurities have been drawn off, with the hope that the remaining
document is truly the “precious metal” we all desire. An example
of this is my next assignment to build into several sections
of the Standard Practice for the Assessment of Green Roofs.
I will lay the foundation for my assigned sections, as others
have already in other parts of the document and submit my feeble
attempts for peer review. This will invite the inevitable changes
and enhancements, all the time working to keep one humble from
the give and take of consensus building, know as the ASTM process.
Until next time, your humble servant,
Ralph P. Velasquez, President
Integrated Building Technologies, LLC
Inaugural ASTM Task
Force Updates Column, March 2005
By Ralph Velasquez
As
a member of the
American Society for the Testing
of Materials
(ASTM) green roof task force,
I often get asked, What is ASTM working on relative to this
emerging technology? In addition, the market-place is
asking for guidance and assistance in dealing with a multitude
of issues in the design and installation of green roofs.
In discussing this with Linda Velazquez (no relation, I spell
my last name with a “s,” not a “z”), the publisher of Greenroofs.com
one day, she suggested that perhaps a more effective way of
“telling the story” would be through the Greenroofs.com website.
I thought this was a great idea, so this is the first of a
quarterly update on the ASTM greenroof task force.
First, a little background on who
and what is the green roof task force in ASTM. The Green
Roof task force (E.06.71.07) is part of the sub-committee for
Sustainability (E.06.71), which in turn is part of the committee
for Performance of Buildings (E.06). The group is comprised
of numerous industry related individuals with a general or specific
interest in green roof technology. We have been meeting
for a couple of years, continuing to increase the number and
depth of stake holders involved in the industry. As is
true with all ASTM committees, the group has manufacturers,
designers, related association representatives, governmental
individuals and a varied assortment of hard working people trying
to reach a consensus on a host of topical issues. This
process can be long, difficult, frustrating, challenging, exhilarating
and rewarding, often all in one single session. Sometimes
the process is one step forward, two steps back, then forward
again. Ultimately, the process is completed and a document
is agreed upon by voting members and becomes part of the ASTM
stable of documents to be used by the general public.
With that brief background, what
are we up to in the green roof task force? There are a
number of documents in various stages of development. Some
of those currently being worked on include: 1) The Standard
Practice for the Assessment of Green Roofs. 2) The Standard
Guide for Use of Lightweight Expanded Shale, Clay or Slate as
a Mineral Component implanting Media for Green Roofs. 3)
Standard Guide for Selection, Installation, and Maintenance
of Plants for Green Roofs. 4) Standard Practice for Determination
of Dead Load(s) and Live Loads for Green Roof Systems.
There are others that address drainage boards, retention components,
terminology, green roof membranes, root barriers and similarly
related issues. The list seems to grow and becomes more
finitely specific as the industry continues to expand, change
and respond to the marketplace.
One challenge for the committee
is to get an initial stable of documents built, through the
peer review process, modified and voted on to become published
without waiting for everything to be built at one time.
A concern of the committee is that if only one piece of the
assembly is passed, that the design community or general public
would perceive that this is the only way to build a green roof,
when in fact this may be the furthest from the truth.
An example of this would be the issue of water retention.
There are numerous ways to achieve this, yet the ASTM committee
may soon pass a document that deals only with cup type receptacles.
What this document will address is: If you choose to use
this approach to address your need for retention, then you have
a document that will give you guidance in how to objectively
achieve your needs. What it doesn’t address is the other
perfectly acceptable alternatives available in the marketplace.
This approach was worked on early on in the group and has had
more time to get through the aforementioned process and reach
publication. Nothing more, nothing
less!
As the green roof industry starts
to really heat up, the pressure is building for some type of
standards to be built to help all interested parties.
I hope this brief overview will give you, the reader, the first
glimpse into what is coming from the ASTM committee that will
help address this need in the marketplace. What I did
not want to do in this introduction piece was to get into the
technical aspects of the various documents and bore you to death,
otherwise you might never come back to our little news corner.
To the “tech heads” among the readers, hang with me until the
next time, when I promise to give you something more to chew
on.
If you have something particular
you would like to know about the committee’s work drop me a
line and I will try to answer that question in my next quarterly
update. The ASTM committee next meets in late April, then
again in October. I hope to have an update on our work
shortly after the April session.
I would love to answer all inquires
individually, so if you are the only that one that reads this
and emails me I will respond in like kind. However, if
there are a lot of you making inquires, don’t forget I need
to make a living and I don’t make that living writing free articles
for Greenroofs.com, thus the need to address it in the next
quarterly posting! Hope you all understand.
Sincerely,
Ralph P. Velasquez, President
Integrated Building Technologies, LLC.
Ralph Velasquez is the founder
and president of Integrated Building Technologies (IBT) and
has been involved in the roofing industry since 1978 with a
wide range of roofing experience serving hospitals, schools,
universities, industries, major corporations, non-profit organizations
and property management companies.
IBT is an 8(a)/MBE consulting company dedicated to the advancement
of the latest roofing and waterproofing technology through correct
analysis, proper design, system innovation, and project management
excellence. A firm specialty is the promotion of sustainable
roof designs, including greenroofs, that deliver an economically
sound, environmentally friendly and common sense approach to
the rigorous demands of industrial, educational, institutional
and commercial roofing. Contact Ralph at:
sustainableroofingeditor@greenroofs.com.
Past Sustainable Roofing Technologies Articles Past ASTM Task Force Updates The opinions expressed by our Guest Feature writers and editors may not necessarily reflect the beliefs of Greenroofs.com, and are offered to our readers to simply present individual views and experiences and open a dialogue of further discussion, debate and research. Enjoy, and if you have a particular comment, please contact the author or send us an email to: comments@greenroofs.com.
Back to Top
|
