Most conscientious roofing contractors would never try to sell a roof using that kind of hyperbole. We know that these kinds of statements cause misconceptions and represent clearly unobtainable objectives. Roof systems are designed to meet specific requirements within defined design parameters. Anyone who has observed the damage from a Category 5 hurricane firsthand or the devastation left by an EF-5 tornado knows just how bold this statement is. These are some of the most severe weather events we have experienced, but we have no idea how much worse they could be in the future. Yet a new program brought to us by an insurance industry safety group was introduced using that specific language.
The Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS), an organization funded by major insurance interest, is currently promoting a new FORTIFIED Roof (FR) program as part of their FORTIFIED Home designation. It calls for a FORTIFIED Wise Roofing Contractor to pass a certification test at the end of limited online training from the FORTIFIED University. They would then be the only contractors whose roofs can be certified as FORTIFIED Roofs. The program is voluntary and is significantly less stringent than the requirements to become a Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) Certified Roofing Contractor. As planned, consumers, builders and developers can request a FORTIFIED Roof installed by a FORTIFIED Wise Roofing Contractor. There is a special FORTIFIED logo to use in advertising. This will certainly appeal to many consumers but it may be misleading in practice. Let’s review some of the ways this could happen.
How different are the FR requirements than the requirements of the Non-High Velocity Hurricane Zone (HVHZ) sections of the Florida Building Code (FBC)? One would think that they must be substantial to be FORTIFIED. Not so much, let’s review and compare.
In the FORTIFIED Home program (not FORTIFIED Roof), an existing roof covering’s condition must be evaluated. If the roof covering is determined to have more than five years of usable life remaining, reroofing is not required. If the roof covering has five years or less of remaining useful life, then the roof cover must be replaced (per FORTIFIED Roof). The FBC understandably and thankfully does not have any language like this. Here and elsewhere (as noted with an asterisk (*), the FORTIFIED Roof program requires photo documentation.
In the FORTIFIED Roof program, all existing roof materials must be removed unless a particular urethane foam adhesive is applied to both sides of each roof framing member at the deck from within the attic. In the FBC, recovering is allowed for no more than two roof coverings in certain situations including meeting the current roof covering uplift resistance requirements when doing so.
Roof sheathing in both the FBC (during replacement) and FR program needs to be re-nailed if the original attachment is not sufficient. Both require 8d ring shank nails 6” o.c. The FR program additionally requires that a 4 ft. wide area at gable ends and hip corners be re-nailed at 4” o.c. Note: We are concerned about splitting the 2x when older lumber is nailed this close.*
In the FR program, if the roof sheathing is less than 7/16”, the sheathing must be replaced or recovered with a minimum 7/16” sheathing. The FBC requires compliance with product approval or prescriptive requirements.
Underlayment (or secondary water barriers) requirements are nearly identical in both the FBC and the FR program. This is due to the adoption of the “sealed deck” requirements in the 2020 FBC. The FR program information is contradictory on the use of synthetic underlayment.*
How close is the project to saltwater? The FBC leaves it mainly up to the manufacturer’s approved installation instructions and product approvals to deal with corrosion resistance beyond the methods specifically called out in the code. In the FR program, there are four different distances to consider: structures within 300 ft. of saltwater; structures more than 300 ft. but less than 1,000 ft. from saltwater; structures more than 1,000 ft. but less than 3,000 ft. from saltwater and structures more than 3,000 ft. from saltwater. Then you refer to a table to see what level of corrosion resistance is required. Confused yet? Note: The method to evaluate what constitutes “saltwater” is unclear. Where coastal rivers converge with bays, oceans or gulfs, the salinity of the water changes dramatically with the tides and rainfall amounts. So, at what bodies and where exactly is the line we measure from. Does brackish count? Where do we have to use stainless steel fasteners? This leaves room for misinterpretation and confusion.
Flashing requirements in the FBC are numerous, from a minimum thickness for metal flashing to prescriptive and descriptive methods for different types of roof coverings. Again, the FBC depends on specific requirements, manufacturer’s approved installation instructions and product approval. The FR program has General Flashing Guidelines for Steep-Sloped Roofs that primarily covers shingle roof coverings. There is very little on other roof types. The details shown are very narrow in scope and dictate every dimension and shape to be used rather than using performance requirements. This approach does not allow changing the design components for job conditions. Many proven profiles that roofing contractors have successfully used for decades would not comply. Many of these details do not follow accepted roofing practice. An example is not setting surface mounted counter flashing in sealant. FR detail calls for only caulking the Philadelphia kick at the top. This detail will lead to water intrusion shortly after its installation with no secondary seal.
The FR program requires that drip edge be installed over the underlayment at rakes and eaves. The FBC has allowed it to be installed over or under the underlayment at the eaves and rakes (gables). But if installed over the underlayment, then a 4” width of plastic cement must be installed over the flange. It also requires compliance with manufacturer’s installation instructions. With the 2020 FBC, it must be installed over the underlayment at the rakes.*
The FBC has descriptive requirements and also uses manufacturer’s approved installation instructions, as well as product approval to address rakes (gables). The FR program has two options for rakes. One has a typical eave starter ran vertically up the rake and either a self-adhering starter or one set in roof cement. The starter option calls for setting the field shingle in roof cement along the rake and between courses at the rake. The starter option does nothing to address cement between the courses, even though both options would depend on the same horizontal sealant strip to adhere the courses. If cement wasn’t required on the starter option, then why require it here? In other words, if the horizontal sealant strip is acceptable between the courses for one option, why not for the other?*
The FBC requires product approval (testing) for all attic vents. The FR program calls for testing in accordance with Miami/Dade RAS 100 (A). This is the same test that many manufacturers use for product approval.*
For gable end vents, the FR program calls for temporary vent protection that must be available in the event of a storm. This is not required in the roofing sections of the FBC and is not typically in the roofing scope of work.*
For asphalt shingles, the FR program requires that shingles must be high-wind rated and installed with six nails per the high-wind installation instructions. The FBC requires shingles to meet the wind rating for the wind speeds where the structure is located, and the manufacturer’s approved installation instructions, as well as its product approval. All other roof coverings (metal, tile, low-sloped roofs, wood shakes/shingles) must be rated and installed for the site-specific wind speed design pressures in the FR program. The FBC also requires all roof coverings to meet the same design pressures, but again refers to the manufacturer’s installation instructions and product approvals. The FBC also specifically refers to the Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau New Roof Construction Manual and the FRSA-TRI Florida High Wind Concrete and Clay Tile Installation Manual for those roof coverings.
When one compares the two approaches to roof system requirements, the substantive differences are not great. This is not that surprising considering an IBHS representative stated in a recent FBC meeting that “the roofing sections of the FBC are the most
robust in the country.” So why does Florida need the FR program? It has already been implemented in several states that have very weak building codes and licensing requirements. In those states it may make sense, but what about Florida? There is little dispute about how extensive the FBC requirements are. They are supported by a product approval system that requires testing. The FBC requirements have proven themselves in recent severe wind events. From our post storm observations, roof coverings installed in compliance with the current FBC requirements have performed very well overall. The recent adoption of ASCE 7-16 increased wind resistance requirements makes them even stronger. They also, unfortunately, make them substantially more complex. FBC changes and additions are subject to an intense peer review process before they can be adopted. This process serves the citizens of Florida very well.
FRSA has been a major proponent of making improvements in the roofing codes. We are always looking for efficient ways to enhance the performance of roof systems. We are considering several changes to the FBC, many of these are similar to items included in the FR program. These and others may be submitted during the next FBC triennial cycle. This process improves the performance of all roof systems in Florida, not just a chosen few.
Florida also has the most stringent construction licensing laws in the country. You must have a Certified or Registered Roofing Contractor qualify a roofing company to contract roofing work in the State of Florida. An applicant for certification must document and demonstrate their trade experience, technical understanding, business acumen, any criminal history and their financial stability in addition to passing a comprehensive exam. Roofing specific continuing education is also required to maintain the license. In contrast, the FR program uses a few hours of online seminars from the FORTIFIED Wise “University,” teaching a narrow ability to pass an exam on the specific FR program provisions. IBHS clearly states in their instruction that they assume the trainee has a level of technical roofing skills not covered in the instruction. According to the IBHS, the FR program isn’t meant to replace Florida’s licensing requirements. But the FR program will almost certainly cause confusion as to who is best qualified to install wind-resistant roof systems.
How this program will be used in the future is very hard to say. Can it be adopted by a municipality for all roofing projects? This would create confusion about what the code requires in any jurisdiction. These types of problems were a major part of what the FBC was created to address. Will it be accepted as a substitute for state licensure during an emergency order after a hurricane or possibly even without one? As stated earlier, the certification requirements are very different.
For contractors, the reporting requirements of the FR program are quite burdensome. They include many lengthy and complex forms, multiple pictures (as noted with asterisks (*) in this article) and other reporting. It isn’t clear how much of this will be reviewed before acceptance. As I understand, it will also require additional inspection coordination or, possibly, the contractor self-inspecting. Will IBHS share in the liability once the work is accepted or will this documentation only be reviewed if there is a problem? These are all reasonable concerns.
The IBHS FORTIFIED Roof program does indeed make some very bold statements and sets some very high expectations, but are they actually achievable? In my opinion, they are redundant for Florida, confusing and mostly unneeded. To paraphrase a prominent contractor: I guess we can just get rid of product approvals, manufacturer’s installation instructions and maybe our licenses and just tell homeowners and building contractors to call their local insurance agent for instructions on how to install their roofs.
Mike Silvers, CPRC is owner of Silver 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 40 years of industry knowledge and experience to FRSA’s team.
Previous Article