Photos courtesy of Siplast, Irving, Texas
Photos courtesy of Siplast, Irving, Texas
To say this year has been tumultuous for the low-slope polymer-modified bitumen industry is understating the obvious as anyone directly involved with the industry knows. A few things come to mind: crude oil sources and prices, changes to the NRCA/MRCA Certified Roof Torch Applicator (CERTA) program, cool roof initiatives and innovations, refineries intermittently going down for various reasons, raw material allocations, FM 1-52, and asphalt sourcing and consistency.
Raw material costs
Unless you have been away from the planet for the past year, you are well aware the single biggest effect on our bottom lines—personal and professional—was and is crude oil pricing. The volatile crude oil market has left an indelible mark on the pricing structure of asphalt and related materials. For that matter, the same can be said of any material derived from crude oil, including plastic and rubber components used to manufacture roof membranes, insulation and roofing accessories. Furthermore, steel prices affected the cost of deck materials, fasteners, pails and more.
Raw material costs skyrocketed across the board in 2008. Whether they were a result of diesel and gasoline prices and subsequent shipping and delivery costs, natural gas driving up costs of manufacturing or simply the escalation of crude oil prices, virtually every raw material was affected. Crude oil pricing compounded by a worldwide shortage of butadiene exacerbated SBS polymer prices and led to supply shortages. Asphalt supplies ran short in some parts of the U.S. and caused long lead times in addition to pricing woes.
What may not be as commonly known is that crude oil prices and supply shortages were not the only factors affecting asphalt costs. Until this year, straight-run asphalt (or flux) pricing did not necessarily track that of crude oil. Asphalt was sold at rates below the cost for refineries to process it, and market rates for paving and roofing asphalts were not always in sync. The newly established pricing is based more on the true value of the material to the refinery, and asphalt prices now more closely follow those of crude oil.
Mopping asphalt was selling for more than $1,000 per ton in some markets this year. Worse, market prices more than doubled in 2008 for straight-run roofing and paving asphalt, and this spike was not limited to North America.
Having recently returned from a meeting in Europe attended by companies representing countries from the United Kingdom to Russia, I learned the landscape of the bitumen situation in Europe has changed, as well. Bitumen prices there have increased, and supplies have tightened. This truly is a worldwide issue, but there are some reasons for optimism: hurricanes did not devastate major coastal refineries; asphalt supply is not as tight as it was some months ago; and crude oil's cost per barrel has receded from its peak.
When raw material costs increase by the magnitude they did in 2008, manufacturing companies are left with few options: absorb some or all the cost increases, increase prices, become leaner, "value engineer" their products, or any and all of the above. What does this mean for the polymer-modified bitumen industry? It depends on who is asked.
Absorbing part of the cost increases and becoming leaner should be relatively transparent to customers. Increases in selling prices are evident, but value engineering of products may not be—at least not immediately.
Call it what you will, value engineering is a cost-cutting exercise. Where does one make the cut(s)? In the case of polymer-modified bitumen, the most expensive components, as the product's name implies, are the polymer modifier and the bitumen.
Is it still possible to manufacture high-quality polymer-modified bitumen membranes consistently in the current economic climate? Was there any doubt my answer would be "yes"?
Polymer-modified bitumen manufacturers skilled in the science and art of asphalt blending will be doing the same things they always have—selecting and blending asphalt to improve its compatibility with specific polymers.
For those not as adept with asphalt blending—or maybe just more enthralled with value engineering—more variability in product quality may be expected. Will such products perform differently? Unfortunately, the answer to this question is often several years in the making, and the unwitting consumer holds the envelope with the ultimate answer.
With some expertise and a long-term outlook, polymer-modified bitumen products can be produced with enduring high quality and consistency, just not at the same cost as a year ago. And the same holds true of all other roof membrane types. Crude oil prices are indeed easing, but your guess is as good as any for 2009.
Reflections
All this talk of the petroleum situation and the trickle down to the asphalt business has shone a light on the polymer-modified bitumen industry.
Where does all the energy from sunlight go? It depends on the surface radiative properties of the particular polymer-modified bitumen membrane it reaches.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Web site: "Cool roof materials have two important surface properties: a high surface reflectance—or albedo—and a high thermal emittance."
There has been a proliferation of cool roof initiatives since the Oct. 15, 2005, implementation of California's Title 24. This was the first far-reaching cool roof regulation in the U.S. that put into law an energy-efficiency standard for low- and steep-slope roof systems. (Although EPA's ENERGY STAR® program preceded Title 24, it was and remains a voluntary program.)
Although the use of highly reflective membranes for low-slope roof system applications within Title 24 is not mandatory, for all practical purposes, it may as well be. The prescriptive criteria for the 2005 version of Title 24 are common knowledge: 0.70 surface reflectance and 0.75 thermal emittance (I hope you understand increased R-value may be used as a "trade-off" when roof membranes of lesser reflectance and emittance are installed).
However, because of the relative complexity of choosing one instead of the other, many find it simpler to merely request the high-reflectance membrane option.
The 2008 version of Title 24 that becomes effective July 1, 2009, includes new requirements for minimum insulation levels, acceptance of ballasted systems as "cool" and the addition of the Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) to the existing prescriptive criteria. SRI is calculated using the membrane's reflectance and emittance values plus a coefficient for convection. SRI is a more reasonable criterion because it includes wind's cooling effect on a roof's surface.
What is the latest in cool roof technology for polymer-modified bitumen membranes? Coatings (field- or factory-applied), laminated-coated surfaces, plastic laminates and synthetic white flakes, to name a few. All these polymer-modified bitumen roof membrane surface treatments or methods have been introduced to the market during the past three or four years, and reflective foil-surfaced polymer-modified bitumen products have been around for several decades.
Generally speaking, the best qualities of traditional polymer-modified bitumen systems remain intact when these new cool surfaces are employed. For some products, the only change is a substitution of the mineral aggregate surface with a more reflective material to meet specific "cool" requirements. Although the white granule aggregate surfacing yields about 30 percent reflectivity, some new surfaces have reflectivity values ranging from 60 to 85 percent when they are initially installed.
What are the long-term ramifications of these new cool surfaces whether polymer-modified bitumen or synthetic membrane?
At the risk of sounding trite, the answer again rests in the hands of consumers. As for polymer-modified bitumen roof systems, white-surfaced polymer-modified bitumen membranes should at least perform as well as their "noncool" counterparts. That is to say nothing of their reflectivity values in years to come. It is obvious white membranes installed on low-slope roof systems will lose reflectance; it is more a matter of how much and how quickly.
Many in the roofing industry have offered their opinions and technical points of view pertaining to the selection and performance of highly reflective roof systems, so I won't belabor the point. But be aware there are many issues that should be ruminated before choosing a bright white membrane simply because it is the "cool" thing to do, including membrane cleaning and potential subsequent consequences, condensation issues in certain conditions, potential negative effects of deflected radiation, etc.
I have not taken the time to discuss green technologies, photovoltaics and sustainability. But I am sure plenty will be written about these issues in the future.
In situ testing
Now to an uplifting topic: FM Global made yet another splash this year. Those versed in the common vernacular might even say its latest imposition to the roofing industry sucks. I am referring to the requirement for in situ negative pressure (vacuum) testing in hurricane-prone regions where design wind speeds are at least 100 mph.
Loss Prevention Data Sheet 1-52 (FM 1-52), "Field Uplift Tests," which was revised in February 2007, has been addressed in some detail by NRCA's Associate Executive Director of Technical Services Mark S. Graham in "Concerns with FM 1-52 testing," June issue, page 26, and in this issue on page 20. The changes were published and posted on FM Global's Web site with little fanfare or forewarning.
As Yogi Berra said: "This is déjà vu all over again."
Remember the February 2006 version of FM 1-29, "Roof Deck Securement and Above-Deck Roof Components"?
Before Graham's June article, NRCA's Technical Operations Committee briefly addressed FM 1-52 at the 2008 International Roofing Expo.® Although there were some revisions to the test method (including variable deflection values when testing systems installed over steel decks, increasing the required passing pressure on a roof by 50 percent and giving some arbitrary usage guidelines for cold adhesive-applied polymer-modified bitumen), the real kick was that this new testing would be required in specified hurricane-prone regions. This issue is not limited to polymer-modified bitumen roof systems—it is an important matter affecting the entire low-slope roofing community.
As this field testing requirement was rolled out, uncomfortable situations arose among all stakeholders: building owners, designers, consultants, FM Global, roof system component suppliers and roofing contractors. If a new roof system fails to meet the pressure requirements during an FM 1-52 "bubble" test, there may not be enough fingers for the pointing that's bound to go around and finding a solution could prove difficult.
FM Approvals and its parent, FM Global, agreed to work with the roofing industry in 2007 to undo much consternation caused by unannounced revisions to FM 1-29 in February 2006 that all but eliminated the use of FM 1-90 systems as we knew them. A coalition consisting of several key industry associations from the manufacturing, contracting, consulting and specifying sectors was given an opportunity by FM Global to address the problems associated with FM 1-29.
Thanks to FM Global for its willingness to listen and act, and in August 2007, another revision to FM 1-29 was published that most parties can at least live with.
I am certain it is time to regroup our coalition and ask FM Global to sit with us again to hammer out some of the arduous side effects that FM 1-52's latest iteration is causing. Time will tell.
CERTA
Another topic affecting the polymer-modified bitumen industry is that the CERTA program was revised earlier this year. The revisions addressed a sensitive issue: direct torching of polymer-modified bitumen base flashing sheets. (The original Midwest Roofing Contractors Association [MRCA] version allows for direct torching of base flashings.)
The NRCA/MRCA curriculum from 2004 until April 2008 trained installers that direct torching of base flashings was not the best safety practice. The installation method taught in CERTA—torch and flop—was based on best safety practices.
Although torching the back surface of a polymer-modified bitumen flashing sheet and flopping it into place may work in ideal conditions with some materials, it is certainly a risky technique for installing what are arguably the most important sections of a roof membrane—flashings.
Polymer-modified bitumen membrane type, the installer's familiarity with the product, installation technique and ambient conditions all play important roles in forming a watertight bond in torch-applied flashing applications.
In April 2008, some reasonable and less burdensome options were added to the CERTA program. A working group consisting of NRCA, MRCA, membrane manufacturers and CNA Insurance Cos., Chicago, worked for about two years to bring these options to print and practice. Gathering temperature data during actual flashing applications was a great start and provided the impetus for these changes, but it was CNA Insurance's willingness to listen that made this a reality.
Direct torching with detail torches to polymer-modified bitumen base flashing is now part of the CERTA curriculum and training program. Flashing applications are better off for it. The torch size is defined at 105,000 maximum Btu, and specific backer layers are required in areas to receive the direct torch-applied flashings. This should push those of us on the manufacturing side to develop more products and details to make life a little easier for our contractor friends. For more information about these changes, go to www.nrca.net/rp/education/nrca/0508_certa.pdf.
Divinations
Are cool roofs here to stay? Yes.
May the definition of cool roofs continue to evolve? If we listen to reason and rely on sound science, yes.
Will changes to FM Global 1-52 continue to cause heartburn? Yes, but I hope the industry coalition and FM Global will reconvene in 2009 to ease the pain.
Are high-quality polymer-modified bitumen products going away? Absolutely not.
Tim Kersey is manager of technical development for Irving, Texas-based Siplast. Kersey is based in Arkadelphia, Ark.
COMMENTS
Be the first to comment. Please log in to leave a comment.