Are you wondering if this is a misprint? Did he mean to say, "nailed improperly" instead of "unfairly." No, "getting nailed" refers to the recent negative narrative that asphalt shingles have had to endure, one that questions their resilience and longevity. This has been especially true after hurricanes. My answer to the question would be, “Yes, they are being attacked unfairly,” and I’d like to add some observations and thoughts to explain my position – with a few caveats.
Rest assured, my objective here isn’t to promote one roof covering type over others. As a contractor, I took the following part of our license definition literally: “Roofing contractor means a contractor whose services are unlimited in the roofing trade and who has the experience, knowledge and skill to install, maintain, repair, alter, extend or design, if not prohibited by law and use materials and items used in the installation, maintenance, extension and alteration of all kinds of roofing.” (Florida Statues 489.105.) Over the course of my career, I have installed and overseen the installation of steep-slope roof systems including metal, tile, asphalt shingles, slate, wood shakes and shingles as well as most types of low-slope roof systems. I can see the value and aesthetic appeal in all of these systems.
I’m often asked: "What is the best roof system?" My response is that there isn’t one perfect roof for all situations but there is a perfect roof for a particular building and the customer's circumstances. When selecting a roof type, each building presents many factors (slope, location, height, sheathing, etc.) that need to be considered. For many property owners, cost and return on investment are definitely considerations. I will admit that I have an affinity for asphalt roof systems. Many decades of experience with asphalt shingles taught me that using high-quality asphalt, reinforced with multiple layers and properly surfaced, will provide increasingly better performance than "entry level" products. Clearly, there is a cost at which the benefits of these improvements will result in a diminishing return on investment. In the broadest terms, however, additional thickness and more layers are typically better.
One statement I hear regularly is that asphalt shingles will only last 15 years in Florida. To me, this statement is almost laughable. My family started roofing in the Tampa Bay area in 1961. So, during my years in the industry, I’ve been able to continually observe many properly installed roof systems and make note of their performance. About 10 years ago, we removed some very thick organic two-tab shingles on four buildings with 14:12 mansards that my father installed. They were over 40 years old. Not so much as a tab was missing and granule loss was minimal. Back in their day, these shingles were a premium heavyweight product. At that time, we differentiated quality of shingles by weight per square (225# or 260# per 100 sq. ft.). It was a simple and effective method until someone figured out that a little sand or other cheap material could be thrown in the mix to increase weight without adding cost. The industry eventually moved away from using weight as a standard. This was about the same time that fiberglass replaced organic paper as shingle reinforcement, which substantially reduced the weight of typical shingles. Manufacturers were reluctant to market the weight of shingles that weighed less than 200# per square. Without weight as a way to distinguish better quality, the industry turned to the length of warranty to indicate good, better and best. Manufacturer warranties for 20, 30, 40 and even 50 years helped to serve that function. The length of the warranty, however, was easily manipulated and wasn’t the most accurate way to indicate expected performance. Eventually, most shingle warranties on all but the lowest cost shingles became limited lifetime warranties. This left contractors and consumers with few ways to demonstrate or understand what represents a better, more effective asphalt shingle product.
The roof on our house was installed in early 1997 (see picture on previous page taken in early 2024) with a high-quality asphalt shingle with a minimum of four layers when installed. It was very well installed with what, in my opinion, were the best materials available at the time. It is 27 years old and is – and will continue to be – in serviceable condition for many more years to come. When I tell someone how old it is they are usually quite surprised and may question my powers of recollection. When I reassure them that my memory is perfectly fine, they often follow up with a question similar to this: "How can I get a better shingle like yours?" In answering, I have two options. I can tell them about my specific product by name, even though I know there are other manufacturers that also offer similarly high-performing products. Since I represent FRSA, I don’t want to do that for obvious reasons. Or, I could tell them to just spend more money and hopefully they will get a better product. That is a suggestion that understandably is not usually very well received.
So how can we explain, without using a manufacturers trade name or literature, good, better and best? It is extremely frustrating to try to explain a product’s ability to provide better performance when there are few ways to quantify this. Most of these products (good, better or best) offer the same wind resistance rating and the same length of warranty. The need to clearly demonstrate improved material performance is a mission that should be embraced by manufacturers. Hopefully, a standard can be established that demonstrates a better level of performance. If there isn’t a way to demonstrate better expected performance, then all shingles will continue to be judged by the failures of the lowest quality products.
A major area of concern reported after all recent hurricanes continues to be hip and ridge failures. These failures are observed on all steep-slope roof types. When FEMA makes wind mitigation observations and there is any amount of visible damage, then it is considered a failure. Most of these failures seldom lead to water intrusion but they often lead to an insurance claim made by a concerned homeowner. Even though the roof damage could easily be repaired, the insurer will approve the installation of tarps. On a shingle roof these tarps are most often held in place by screws or nails driven through furring strips often over the entire roof. This creates hundreds of holes that makes properly repairing the roof unfeasible, leading to the unnecessary cost of a full roof replacement.
Hip and ridge shingles do not currently have a test method to demonstrate wind resistance, thereby leaving a gap in how to address these failures. The FEMA Mitigation Assessment Team (MAT) report on Hurricane Ian – parts of which are included below – specifically suggests in Recommendation FL-10-a “that a test standard specifically for hip and ridge should be developed and that as an alternative to testing, a prescriptive solution that includes the use of an appropriate adhesive should be developed and included in the IBC, IRC and FBC.” FRSA’s Codes Subcommittee will look for ways to address this issue during the 2026 code development cycle. Our approach may include testing or other research and proposing specific code changes based on what we discover.
Included below are excerpts from both the FEMA and Roofing Industry Council on Weather Issues (RICOWI) reports. I was a member of both observation teams and feel strongly that there is a lot to be learned from these reports. I have added bold typeface in many places for emphasis. A review of these reports will help demonstrate the depth of the problem. The negative narrative concerning asphalt shingle performance will continue until the industry addresses varying levels of performance, the availability of better-
performing products and, in particular, improves hip and ridge shingles.
Hurricane Ian in Florida Building Performance Observations, Recommendations and Technical Guidance FEMA P-2342/December 2023
Note: Excerpts Only
Executive Summary – Wind
Wind-related structural damage to pre-FBC buildings was isolated to a few areas. However, failure of building envelope components was observed to some degree at all sites visited. The most common building envelope damage observed was roof covering failure, although the extent of damage varied significantly across all structures in the areas visited by the MAT.
4. Wind-Related Observations
This chapter describes the MAT wind-related observations of the performance of building envelope and structural systems of newer residential buildings. The performance of recent roof replacements on older residential buildings was also analyzed. Buildings that were built after March 2012 (effective date of the 2010 FBC) and roof replacements that were done after June 2015 (effective date of the 5th Edition, 2014 FBC) were given priority for observation. The MAT did not observe structural damage of the main wind force resisting systems (MWFRSs) due to wind for any post-FBC buildings in the areas visited. However, failures of building envelope components were observed to some degree at all sites visited. Roof covering failure was the most common building envelope damage observed by the MAT. However, the degree of damage to each structure varied significantly.
4.2.4. Roof Coverings
This section highlights the performance of roof coverings and underlayment methods on post-FBC houses observed by the MAT in addition to the performance of recent roof replacements on older houses. Common Roof Coverings provides a general description of the performance of the common roof covering types in the areas where Hurricane Ian’s estimated wind speeds were the highest. Data Analysis of the Performance of Newer Roof Coverings provides an analysis of damage frequency of roof coverings installed in accordance with the 5th Edition, 2014 FBC and later editions compared to those installed prior to the 5th Edition, 2014 FBC.
Asphalt shingles and metal panels were, by far, the most common types of roof coverings encountered in the areas assessed by the MAT. Although roof covering damage was widespread at all sites visited by the MAT, the degree of roof covering damage varied across the sites. The most common damage observed by the MAT for all roof coverings was displacement of hip and ridge roof coverings.
Asphalt Shingle Roof Coverings
The MAT observed widespread damage to asphalt shingle roofs on both newer and older construction for all sites visited. However, the degree of damage varied considerably. Generally, newer asphalt shingle roofs significantly outperformed older asphalt shingle roof coverings (see Data Analysis of the Performance of Newer Roof Coverings). Figure 4-12 shows a house with an asphalt shingle roof in Placida, Fla. Permit data extracted using a desktop analysis indicated an asphalt shingle roof replacement was performed in December 2020. As observed at the site visit and corroborated by the homeowner, the roof covering did not sustain any damage. However, the homeowner did report interior water damage due to water intrusion through the soffits. Figure 4-13 shows considerable asphalt shingle damage to older roof coverings on adjacent houses. The houses on this street with metal panel roofs did not have any damage that could be observed by the MAT during the site visits or from NOAA imagery.
Data Analysis of the Performance of Newer
Roof Coverings
In addition to evaluating the overall performance of new construction in the path of Hurricane Ian, the MAT performed a data analysis of the performance of newer roof coverings on older buildings as well as new buildings. Given the availability of online permit data, the MAT used a desktop analysis to identify specific locations where roofs had recently been replaced. With the parcel data, reroofing permit data and NOAA post-Hurricane Ian storm imagery (www.floridaroof.com/noaa-post-ian-satellite), the MAT targeted locations within the impacted area where there were clusters of new construction, recent reroofs and older roofs. The clusters included buildings on the same street or adjacent streets. The wind speeds the buildings were exposed to and the exposure categories were similar within each cluster. The goal was to evaluate the performance of newer roof coverings compared to older roof coverings and determine, to the extent possible, the level of water intrusion that occurred through failed or damaged roof coverings. As previously indicated, based on initial damage surveys and other reports, there was less evidence of water intrusion damage from wind-driven rain than was observed in previous storms. However, as previously stated, Hurricane Ian was a far less than a design-level wind speed event.
Summary of All Clusters Table 4-3 (page 20) summarizes the roof covering performance for all targeted clusters visited by the MAT. Damage percentages for asphalt shingle and metal panel roofs are also indicated in the table.
As previously stated, the MAT observed widespread roof covering damage throughout the sites visited. The predominant types of roof coverings observed in the impacted area were asphalt shingles and metal panels. Although roof covering damage was widespread, based on the desktop analysis using NOAA imagery and site visits, roof covering damage did not appear as extensive on each building as has been observed in recent major storms, such as Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Michael. However, considering the required design wind speeds for new roof coverings in the areas impacted by Hurricane Ian compared to the estimated wind speeds in Hurricane Ian, there was more wind damage to roof coverings observed than anticipated. While the data and observations show newer roof coverings generally performed better than older roof coverings, several relevant points should also be considered in this analysis. Changes to both material and installation requirements have been improved in recent FBC code development cycles that have led to and will lead to better wind uplift performance. Additionally, through innovation and market forces, some manufacturers have made improvements to their products in this regard in ways that may not be readily apparent using current testing methods. Lastly, these observations do not take into account likely significant differences in the quality of installation methods. The most prevalent type of damage observed after Hurricane Ian, was damage to hips and ridges, which was observed on both newer and older roofs. While some homeowners indicated their homes had experienced water intrusion through the roof, the majority stated that water intrusion was more typically through soffits and sliding glass doors. Discussions with homeowners and a desktop analysis performed after the site visits also revealed that many roof coverings were being replaced on roofs with minor to no discernible damage. Although the MAT visited a house with the tile roof, the MAT could not identify any damage to the roof on the NOAA imagery or from the site visit. However, a permit was pulled in March 2023 for a tile replacement for “storm-related repair/replacement.” Another example of this is the house shown in Figure 4-45 (page 21), which was built in 2002 and replaced with asphalt shingles in February 2019. Using NOAA imagery and observations during the site visit, the MAT only saw minor hip shingle damage. However, a permit was issued in November 2022 for a complete asphalt shingle roof replacement.
6.1. Overview of Conclusions and Recommendations
The conclusions in the sections that follow are drawn from the MAT observations discussed in previous chapters. Each conclusion sets up a list of specific recommendations. The recommendations are presented as guidance to the many stakeholders listed in the introduction to this chapter and those who are involved with the design, construction and maintenance of the built environment in the state, as well as other regions impacted by hurricanes. The entities involved in the reconstruction and mitigation efforts should consider these recommendations in conjunction with their existing priorities and resources when determining how they can or will be implemented.
6.3. Wind-Related Building Codes, Standard and Regulations Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusion FL-10
Hip and ridge roof coverings for many residential buildings appeared to have inadequate resistance to wind loads. Failure of hip and ridge roof coverings on asphalt shingle and metal panel roof coverings was widespread and the most common roof covering failure observed by the MAT. While some asphalt shingle manufacturers test hip and ridge shingles to a modified version of ASTM D3161, the IBC, IRC and FBC do not specifically require testing of hip and ridge asphalt shingles or metal panel roof coverings.
Recommendation FL-10a
FEMA should consider submitting code change proposals or supporting code change proposals from other stakeholders such as IBHS, Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA), National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) and other groups aligned to the IBC, IRC and the FBC to require testing of hip and ridge roof coverings for asphalt shingle roof coverings. The IBC, IRC and the FBC require asphalt shingles to be tested for wind loads in accordance with ASTM D7158 or ASTM D3161. Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 2375, Outline of Investigation for Hip and Ridge Shingles (2016), provides a methodology to use a modified version of ASTM D3161 to test hip and ridge shingles for wind resistance.
As an alternative to testing, a prescriptive solution that includes the use of an appropriate adhesive should be developed and included in the IBC, IRC and FBC.
Recommendation FL-10b
FEMA should consider submitting code change proposals or supporting code change proposals from other stakeholders such as IBHS, Metal Construction Association (MCA), NRCA and other aligned groups to the IBC, IRC and the FBC to require testing of hip and ridge roof coverings for metal panel roof coverings. The ANSI/MCA FTS-1, Test Method for Wind Load Resistance of Flashings Used with Metal Roof Systems (2019), specifies wind load resistance testing of hip covers on metal panel roof systems in addition to other edge/flashing metal.
Recommendation FL-10c
FEMA should consider submitting code change proposals or supporting code change proposals from other stakeholders such as IBHS, ARMA, NRCA and other aligned groups to the IBC, IRC and the FBC to require a minimum of 6 inches overlap of the roof underlayment to hip and ridges that do not have ventilation components. Wrapping underlayment over hips and ridges that don’t have ventilation components will improve the roof’s resistance to water intrusion in the event the hip and ridge coverings are damaged or blown off.
Conclusion FL-28
Asphalt shingle roof coverings for many residential buildings appeared to have inadequate resistance to wind loads. The amount of damage varied widely at each site visited. Data analysis of roof covering performance in the discrete clusters assessed by the MAT found that 90 percent of the asphalt shingle roofs older than seven years sustained visible damage. Given that Hurricane Ian wind speeds were far less than design-level wind speeds, this is significant. The Florida Building Commission should consider funding more research in collaboration with academia and industry groups such as ARMA, NRCA and IBHS, to determine why asphalt shingle damage, particularly on aged asphalt shingle roofs, is often observed to be widespread. Such research should, at a minimum, include consideration of developing a new or revised test method for wind resistance of asphalt shingles to provide improved resistance to wind loads and study of potential installation, workmanship and manufacturing issues; the effects of aging; potential effects related to transportation and delivery of the product to the site; and the lack of thorough “in-progress” inspections. A similar recommendation was made in both the Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Michael MAT reports.
Conclusion FL-29
Roof coverings that had minor damage that likely could be repaired were often being replaced. Through interviews with homeowners, interviews with contractors and roof permit data, the MAT learned that many roof coverings that appeared to have minor damage (hip and ridge damage was commonly observed) were being replaced instead of repaired.
To better identify minor roof covering damage that could be repaired, the roofing industry (NRCA, ARMA, MCA, Roof Tile Institute, Florida Roofing and Sheet Metal Contractors Association), insurance industry, IBHS and other stakeholders should develop guidelines, training programs and informational tests for building owners and homeowners. Complete roof replacements for roofs that have minor repairable damage are unnecessary and has negative long-term environmental impacts. Replacing roofs is particularly problematic when there is only minor damage to roof coverings that have been recently replaced. The repair of roof coverings with minor damage is significantly more cost effective and less wasteful than a complete roof replacement. Furthermore, replacing roofs that only need minor repairs ties up expertise and resources that are already in limited supply after a disaster and results both in longer wait times for home and building owners that truly need roofs to be replaced and lengthier community recovery periods. While many factors, such as age, color, material availability, location of the damage on the roof, etc., will affect whether a particular roof is a candidate for repair versus replacement, key stakeholders should develop guidance, training and information to help address this important issue.
Note: Excerpts Only
Hurricane Ian Executive Summary
All types of newer roofs (post-2006 construction) performed better than older roofs. Most dramatic was the improvement in tile roofs, where serious damage occurred during Hurricane Charley (2004). Damage to newer tile roofs consisted primarily of hip and ridge tile loss, with most roofs remaining water resistant.
Field Investigation Initial Findings
RICOWI’s review of NOAA flyover photos located several roofs that sustained damage. The teams investigated these roofs and noted that significant roof damage did exist but was not pervasive. However, there was extensive minor damage that may or may not have resulted in leaks.
Building Code Effects
A key goal of RICOWI post-hurricane investigations is to provide data that can improve the sustainability of roof systems wherever installed. This has resulted in improved products, system design, installation methods and building code requirements. Even though it is challenging to sort out the effects of each of these investigations, the data in this report show the improved performance of roofs installed since 2004. Anecdotal evidence of the likely effects of building codes is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 on page 22). On this and the following page are some photos from the RICOWI report.
Appendix C: RICOWI Storm Investigation Program
RICOWI believes there is an essential link between product research, performance and the model building codes. The model code groups are moving more toward “objective based codes” versus “prescriptive codes.” Performance requirements are generally perceived to be requirements stated in a way that allows flexibility in the choice of solutions to satisfy the requirements and are based upon explicitly stated objectives. In addition, there is a general feeling that the right type of data, following a windstorm event, have not been gathered. There is no question that all roofing products and systems of all roofing manufacturers are going to have to meet more rigorous specifications and will be subject to tougher scrutiny of building departments such as seen in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties (FL). Industry involvement in follow-up of severe weather events is imperative.
Through RICOWI’s efforts, codes are improved, buildings are safer; property losses will be reduced and industry is provided clear insight as to needed direction. The reports generated by investigation teams are also utilized to help educate various segments of the building industry and provide a valuable resource to federal, state and local disaster response and preparedness programs.
Looking at the FEMA and RICOWI reports, I believe that a primary message is that while there has been important progress in encouraging and requiring better roofing materials and installation methods that has led to better performance in the field, there is still plenty of room for improvement in multiple areas. At the same time, we can see that asphalt roof shingles are not the singular issue that some industry voices seem to want to make them. Hip and ridge failures were an issue on all types of roof systems, whether asphalt shingles, metal or tile, and perhaps the biggest return on investment in the coming code cycle will be to focus on improvements in that area. At the same time, asphalt shingle manufacturers and representatives can do more to educate the industry and consumers on the value of high quality products by developing objective standards that measure good, better and best. In closing, our goal is to maintain the availability of all proven roof systems. It’s particularly important to keep affordable products available. But when one considers the larger picture including the availability and affordability of property insurance in Florida and the desire to allow us to stay in our homes and use other buildings after hurricanes, then advancements in wind resistance and longevity of roof systems is imperative.
Mike Silvers, CPRC, is owner of Silvers Systems Inc. and is consulting with FRSA as Director of Technical Services. Mike is an FRSA Past President, Life Member and Campanella Award recipient and brings over 50 years of industry knowledge and experience to FRSA’s team.
Previous Article