Florida Building Commission

Roofing Technical Advisory Committee


MARCH 02, 2016



Meeting was conducted via Teleconference/Webinar:

public point of access: Department of Business and Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre, Suite 90A, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399       (850) 487-1824


TAC Members Present: Chairman; Brian Swope, Bob Boyer, Remington Brown, Jimmy Buckner,  Mark Zehnal,

Alternates Present: Robert Whitcomb for Chuck Goldsmith

Guests Present: Kurtis Gurley, David Prevatt, Bill Boyer,  Joe Belcher,  Rob Viera, Charlie Kennedy, Mike Eniss, Sal Delfino, RANDY NICHOLAS, William Miller, Dennis Mathis, dwight wilkes

Staff Present: Mo Madani, JOE BIGELOW, JIM RICHMOND, ROBERT LORENZO, Jim Hammers, Robert Benbow, NICK DUVAL and April Hammonds via Teleconference.

Ř Objective: To review  and accept the interim reports for the research projects on the Corrosion of Roofing Fasteners and a research project titled “Field Study and Assessment of Sealed Attics”


Meeting Minutes





Welcome and Opening Remarks:  Meeting opened at 1:00pm with meeting protocols regarding muting of phones and personal identification when speaking.



Roll Call – Roll Call was taken with a quorum present.


Review and Approval of Meeting Agenda – Motion was entered by Bob Boyer and seconded by Mark Zehnal to accept the Agenda as posted.  Unanimous approval.


Approval of Minutes of Decenber 28, 2015 – Motion was entered by Bob Boyer and seconded by Mark Zehnal to accept the minutes as posted.  Unanimous approval.


Review and accept the Interim Report for the Research Project on the Corrosion of Roofing Fasteners.


Dr. Kurtis Gurley, College of Engineering at the University of Florida, provided a PowerPoint presentation to give the TAC an overview of interim report for the research project. He gave a brief background of the past work on this research project. Next, he went over the 1-8 scoring system for the corrosion of fasteners in this research project. He then went over the results from last years’ research project which showed a wide disparity in the performance of electrogalvanized (EG) fasteners from different manufacturers, a high failure rate of the TAS 114 criterion for electrogalvanized (EG) fasteners, some of the fasteners were electrogalvanized(EG), but not marked as ASTM A641 or TAS 114 compliant, and that the results provided a baseline against which to measure ASTM A641 and TAS 114 compliant fasteners. He went over the scope of work for this year’s project which included working with Mark Zehnal, Florida Association of Roofing and Sheet Metal Contractors (FRSA) to identify and procure test specimens from suppliers located in North, Central, and South Florida regions. His observations included ASTM A641 certified EG performance was no better than unlabeled EG fasteners from the previous years’ study in regards to corrosion; HVHZ compliant EG fasteners which are presumed TAS 114 Appendix E compliant perform no better than non-HVHZ ASTM A641; hot dipped fasteners perform much better than EG fasteners and Mechanically Galvanized screws perform better than Electroplated (EP) screws. Another major observation of this years’ project was that Miami-Dade approved EG fasteners did not reveal a single EG sample that passed the TAS 114E criterion of < 5% surface corrosion. Each of the 30 such fastener samples tested had a score of at least 3 (partial light surface corrosion) on both the head and shaft, and most samples displayed significant heavy corrosion. Dr. Gurley then proceeded to provide the TAC with some additional work that needed to be completed for next round of testing which included testing the fasteners after they had been driven into the substrate.


Mark Zehnal then entered a motion to accept the interim report as presented. The motion was seconded by Bob Boyer. This motion received unanimous approval.


To review  and accept the interim report for the research project entitled “Field Study and Assessment of Sealed Attics”


 Dr. David Prevatt, of the College of Engineering at the University of Florida and Dr. William Miller, of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, provided a PowerPoint presentation to give the TAC an overview of the research project. Dr. Miller went over the project team which is comprised of Dr. Prevatt from the University of Florida and Dr. Miller’s Team from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He spoke on the motivation for the research project where Oak Ridge National Laboratory noticed that they observed peaks in the relative humidity in sealed attics and eventually noticed visual evidence of moisture storage in open celled spray foam. Dr. Miller  stated that the purpose for this research project was to monitor relative humidity, temperature and moisture content of sheathing in two residential structures having sealed attic systems. In addition, the purpose of this research project is to document the air tightness of the homes, duct systems and sealed attics using blower door equipment. He went on to articulate the goals of the research project which is to record the moisture content of the wood roof decks and relative humidity & temperature of the indoor ambient, the outdoor ambient and the attic for a 12 month period that includes the hot and humid summer months.


Dr. Miller went over the objectives and scope of work for this research project. He spoke about the field instrumentation for this project which includes Campbell Scientific Data logger, which is used to collect data such as temperature and moisture content and the Minneapolis Duct Blaster System which is used to determine the air leakage in the duct system of a home.


Dr. Prevatt went on to discuss the code provisions related to this study.


Dr. Miller spoke on the outcome of this project which Go or No Go decision for future research on this topic. He then stated that a go decision would allow the ORNL computer toolkit to compare analytical models against empirical findings of moisture accumulation.


Mo Madani raised concern that the scope of work for the contract requires both homes to be within Zone 1 and Zone 2.


Dr. Miller responded that house 1 is located in zone 2 and home 2 is located in zone 1 which would meet the requirements of the contract.


Mo Madani asked about a timeline for the instrumentation setup.


Dr. Miller responded that instrumentation setup would not take very long.


Mo Madani then asked if they would be sticking with two homes.


Dr. Prevatt responded that yes they would be sticking with two homes one in zone 1 and one in zone 2.


Dennis Mathis asked three questions, first the difference in moisture content higher or lower on the roof sheathing; does roof color or roofing material impact this stud ; Third, will there be any duct leakage for the ducts in the attic.


Dr. Miller responded that they will be conducting duct blaster tests so they will know the leakage rate in the duct system. In terms of roof color the more light the shingle the less the temperature of the roof and that shingle color makes a difference during the daytime but does not make a difference at night. He then stated that they received data from a laboratory and using the pin sensors they can tell the different moisture content in the wood at different times during the day.


Dr. Prevatt added that during previous testing of roof moisture content that there was no difference in moisture content between the higher and lower portion of the roof decking. Although during this test the moisture content was higher at the eave.


Dr. Miller stated based on previous research the moisture content was higher towards the rafter of the roof.


Mark Zehnal stated the funding and time is limited to get data and if this works future funding can be acquired for future research of this topic.


Mo Madani made the statement that the criterion for the home selection with regards to the age, code compliance, and availability of information such as the energy information sheets.


Dr. Miller responded that he wanted to go with contractors that are willing to allow studies to be conducted on homes they have built for themselves.


Dr. Prevatt responded that we are not necessarily going to find that the sprayed insulation is going to meet a particular compliance, level however, once we receive the information about the foam characteristics, we can input the information into the software packages.


After some further discussion, Mark Zehnal entered a motion to accept the interim report as presented. The motion was seconded by Bob Boyer. This motion received unanimous approval.


Public Comment – No Public Comment


Member Comment – No Member comment





Staff Contacts: Robert Benbow, Robert.benbow@myfloridalicense.com, (850) 717-1828;

Mo Madani, mo.madani@myfloridalicense.com, (850) 717-1825.

Note: This document is available to any person requiring materials in alternate format upon request.  Contact the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Office of Codes and Standards, 1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 90, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0772 or call 850-487-1824.