Ok bear with me this week is a Looooong post but worth it so read to the end. I recently read an article on the Facilitiesnet.com site/forum (great site BTW) that brought out a few topics that I feel can be expanded on. One of the topics was about which product should facility managers, architects, owners, engineers and contractors specify on a given building.
The author of that article broke it down into the 3 big categories as most do and based the decision more on existing substrates than on specific products & systems. While I agree I still feel there are more situations that the decision should be based more on the system as a whole not a single product or existing substrate.
My point is that there have been such improvements in technology in certain chemistrie’s that the window of differences is becoming very narrow.
The industry and the demands from the end user have dramatically changed what’s expected and what’s required from a fluid applied system. Here’s my $0.02 when we are talking Fluid Applied Roofing systems.
Yes in the consideration on which product/system to use, one should always take existing substrate into consideration. Also we should be looking deeper into the specs of a fluid system and how is it going to enhance or decrease the effectiveness of the existing system once its applied. Remember there are a whole lot of existing restoration opportunities that include: Metal, EPDM, CPA, PVC, TPO, Hypalon/CSPE, Spray foam, Mod Bit, BUR, concrete as well as multiple boardstocks. This is a lot of opportunity for error if not looked at with a open mind and a complete system approach.
Today most all of the quality roof coatings are pretty compatible with these substrates.
Acrylics with the use of a primer can pretty well be applied to all of the above and have great adhesion and long term performance, but do require do diligence on insuring positive drainage. Another concern or issue can be the way that certain substrates literally drink coatings such as Mod Bit, to the point that if aged to much it can take so much acrylic to get your specified mil thickness that a silicon or urethane would have been a better choice financially for the building owner.
Secondly Certain solvent based products for example are not typically spec’d for single ply’s such as EPDM or Mod Bit because of the reaction from the solvents and the EPDM/MB. Also remember that in some circumstances a primer is typically required and recommended to insure that no excessive bleed out happens that could cause dis-bonding/adhesion issues.
Now recently there has been a barrage of silicon manufactures start flooding the market with advertising and claims that it is the best all around product for fluid applied systems.
Now before you get to worked up realize we actually market our own silicon manufactured specifically for Conklin and only Conklin by the BASF company in a private labeling agreement. Unlike many other silicon companies who are having their products produced by 1 of the other 5-6 producers in the industry.
The number one problem with the ‘cure all’ approach is that silicon is being promoted with the so called easy way out, but doesn’t fix the problem. It is no different than putting brand new tires on a car that is severely out of alignment. Yep you have good tires that will do the job, and the cars going to drive fine, but guess what until you fix the front end alignment you basically put a fake facade on that car and will end up spending more money on tires and possibly other issues from the root cause.
Fluid applied roofing systems should be treated like any other system in the way that the NRCA regulations state for ponding water.
If the roof has more than 1/4” of water in an area after 72 hours it is deemed ponding and needs attention. Reasoning behind this is many layers deep.
- 1: It can be a weight issue if the area is of large sq footage and the buildings dead load can’t handle the additional weight that the water adds to the overall dead load.
- 2: It allows for enhanced degradation of the roofing system in place, no matter what the technology is. It does this via excessive dirt pick up, increased heat gain via UV absorption (bad for white roofs designed to be cool) and holds pollen, leaves, tree buds and debris that hold moisture and don’t allow for proper dry outs cycles between weather events.
There are products &/or methods that can be used to remedy those low spots whether it is a high build lightweight filler or spray foam or even internal drains, if there is a will there is typically a way to get the water off.
If our industry is going to continue to move forward and capture market share we have to have all hands on deck promoting and providing viable alternatives that follow Roofing Industry standards set forth. If we have manufacturers that are willing to promote a product even though it goes against the Industry standards I feel we are doing ourselves an injustice that will hurt us long term.
Just as silicon in my opinion is incorrectly marketed as ponding water exempt, and even used by many reps as a stand alone selling point, you have the exact opposite on the acrylic side of the equation. Acrylics can not take standing water for the length of time that most roofs that have water ponding issues but hold up extremely well on slopes surfaces as long as due diligence is given to quality control & mil thickness. The Problem commonly seen in the acrylic industry is guys using a cheap product on any roof even if it has water drainage issues and premature failure is inevitable.
Urethanes are the black sheep of the family due to minimal resources placed into that chemistry.
But due to raw material outlooks and demands from the industry on sustainability the Urethane market share is growing very quickly and looks to continue its growth into the future. Urethane is ideal for Restaurant roof restorations and roofs with high levels of animal fats or chemical contamination plus gives no issues/concerns with re-coat’s within any reasonable time frame of weathering. Also from a ponding water standpoint quality urethanes will hold up as well as any of the Big 3 chemistry’s.
All in all the Fluid Applied Industry has lots to offer and has a solution for the vast majority of the existing roofs out there. But as with anything else in any industry there is seldom a 1 system cure-all that’s the best decision for every party involved, so let’s promote the Industry as it is needed to be which is a diversified, sustainable, evolving, problem solving industry that’s here to stay.
