AUGUST 2015

www.edgedefense.com 

EDGE DEFENSE : the first smart safety mat 

system created exclusively for commercial roofs. 

Make your roof a smart roof. Edge Defense 

is a game-changing first line of defense for all industries 

whose work takes them to the roof. When the designed 

load is detected, the mat sounds an alarm and transmits 

data to the controllers, providing awareness of the 

roof’s ledge and around-the-clock security which helps 

deter trespassing. 

Falls off of roofs 

are the leading 

cause of death for 

construction workers 

- U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

www.roofmonitor.com 

Find Us Online: 

© 2015 Roof Monitor. All Rights Reserved.

table of contents 

18 

features 

10 DYNAMIC GLAZING: HELPING TO PROVIDE 

HEALTHY, COMFORTABLE, AND 

ENERGY-EFFICIENT BUILDINGS 

By Helen Sanders 

18 PROTECTING THE BUILDING ENVELOPE 

By Dean Lewis 

16 

25 IMPACT OF WINDOWS ON 

OVERALL BUILDING ENERGY 

PERFORMANCE: USING SCIENCE 

TO GUIDE BUILDING THERMAL 

PERFORMANCE SELECTIONS 

By Michael Bousfield 

29 A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO 

EVALUATING HISTORICAL 

WOOD WINDOWS FOR REPAIR 

AND RESTORATION 

By Steven R. Marshall, RRC, CDT, LEED AP, 

and Catherine Matathia, PE, LEED AP 

T h e J o u r n a l o f R C I 

RCI Headquarters 

1500 Sunday Drive • Suite 204 

Raleigh, NC 27607 

800-828-1902 

919-859-0742 

Fax: 919-859-1328 

www.rci-online.org 

Scan this QR Code 

to find out more 

about RCI, Inc. 

RCI was char tered, in part, to bridge the gap between the seem ingly disparate elements of the roofing pro fession. It later expanded to include issues of 

waterproofing and of the entire building envelope. The goal of Interface is to connect these elements, educate and inform about related topics, establish a common 

ground for dis cus sion, promote Association pro grams, and reach out to the industry at large. The articles contained in this publication are intended to pro vide 

infor mation that may be useful to read ers of Interface. RCI does not necessarily endorse this infor ma tion. The reader must evaluate the in for mation in light of the 

unique circumstances of any par tic ular situation and independently de ter mine its applicability. The entire contents of this journal are copyrighted by RCI, Inc. 

Interface (ISSN 2380-0240) is a vital source of information written for and by building envelope experts. Featuring a paid circulation of 3,000, it is commonly 

circulated intraoffice among multiple colleagues, creating a total estimated readership of 9,000 per issue. If you would like more information about advertising in 

Interface or marketing to RCI members, contact Director of Marketing Communications William Myers at wmyers@rci-online.org. 

4 • I n t e r f a c e a u g u s t 2 0 1 5

August 2015 • Vol. XXXIII, No. 7 

special interest 

16 Roofing Demand to Rise 3.9% Annually 

22 Affordable Care Act Upheld 

26 Publish in Interface 

39 Haddock Granted Carl Cash Award for Interface Articles 

34 

15 

25 

departments 

6 President’s Message 

8 Letters to RCI 

38 Industry News 

39 Advertisers’ Index 

40 Calendar of Events 

42 Would You Look at That! 

In This Issue: We explore various window-related issues, including evaluation of historic 

wood windows, the impact of windows on overall building envelope performance, code 

changes affecting fenestration, and dynamic glazing. 

On the Cover: The Manhattan skyline provides varied windows on the world. In the 

foreground, the 46-story Hearst Tower at 300 West 57th Street opened in 2006 with 

Gold and Platinum LEED ratings on the base of the 1928 building. See a YouTube 

drone tour of the tower narrated by architect Lord Norman Foster at www.youtube.com/ 

watch?v=cuHzQF5ackM&feature=youtu.be. 

R CI Officers 

Jean-Guy Levaque, RRC, RRO, President 

Robért Hinojosa, RRC, RWC, REWC, RBEC, RRO, PE, 1st Vice President 

Michael Williams, RRC, RWC, RRO, 2nd Vice President 

Michael E. Clark, RBEC, RRO, PE, CSRP, Secretary/Treasurer 

Interface Staff 

Kristen Ammerman, Executive Editor 

Wanda Edwards, PE, Technical Editor 

Nicole Leech, Designer 

Catherine Moon, Editor, RCItems 

William Myers, Advertising Sales 

Peer Review Board 

Richard L. Wagner, RRC, CCS, Chair 

Marc N. Boulay 

Remo Capolino, RRC, PE 

D. Keith Davis, RBEC 

Marcus Dell, PEng 

Rick Harris, RRC 

Michael Hensen, RRC, PEng 

C. Allan Kidd, RRC, EIT 

Donald Kilpatrick 

Kenneth Leggett, RRC, RRO 

RCI Staff 

James R. Birdsong, Executive Vice President & CEO 

Micki Kamszik, Associate Director, Director of Registrations 

Kristen Ammerman, Director of Publications 

Rebecca Cunningham, Director of Educational Services 

Wanda D. Edwards, PE, Senior Director of Technical Services 

Melany Elwell, Director of Human Resources & Operations 

Rick Gardner, RCI Foundation Development Officer 

Alexander B. Jeffries, Director of Membership Programs 

Ashley Johnson, Member Services Specialist 

Ashley Massengill, Meetings Specialist 

Karen McElroy, Senior Director of Conventions & Meetings 

Catherine Moon, Leadership & Publications Specialist 

William Myers, Director of Marketing Communications 

Tammy M. Patterson, Director of Finance 

Walter J. Rossiter, Director of Technical Services 

Gerard Teitsma, Education Advisor/Consultant 

Debbie Wichman, Registration Programs Specialist 

Tara S. Wilson, Executive Assistant to Executive VP & CEO 

A u g u s t 2 0 1 5 I n t e r f a c e • 5

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 

First Graduate from RCI Building 

Envelope Apprenticeship Program 

Lands Multi-Year Consulting Services 

Program with Local School Board! 

Jean-Guy Levaque, RRC, RRO 

President 

Now that I have your attention, 

I want to say that this 

(presently fictitious) headline 

could be read in a newspaper 

in your area if RCI continues 

its growth in membership, 

strengthens its education programs, and 

continues to gain recognition from governing 

bodies in the next few years. 

I would like to talk about the potential 

to develop formal apprenticeship programs 

for members or potential members interested 

in furthering their career paths within a 

recognized, formal training approach. RCI 

has required candidates to provide proof of 

work experience and past and continuing 

education in order to qualify to sit for registration 

exams. This has not been a structured 

approach and may be a hindrance 

for some to consider formal career paths 

in building envelope quality assurance or 

consulting fields. 

More and more governments are concerned 

about the level of education at the 

high school and post-secondary levels, specifically 

in the trades and construction professions, 

where graduates are not prepared 

for the workforce. These same governments 

are turning to the private sector to set up and 

administer apprenticeship programs, and RCI 

has the opportunity to be one of these associations 

to drive the apprenticeship programs 

for the young, up-and-coming members in 

the quality assurance and consulting fields. 

Picture a world in which an apprentice 

went through such a program with the aim 

of attaining his/her accreditation as an 

RRO, RRC, RBEC, or other registration. We 

have all the pieces of the puzzle in place. 

It only takes a concentrated effort to bring 

these pieces together into an integrated 

program. 

What are the advantages and disadvantages 

of moving towards a formal apprenticeship 

program? 

One key advantage is that it would 

position RCI registrations as value-added 

credentials to the traditional architectural 

and engineering programs. This may serve 

government goals to increase hiring in 

professional fields. If we look at other 

industries (the medical community, for 

instance), some governments are allowing 

pharmacists to review certain conditions 

with patients and prescribe medications. 

This previously had to go through physicians 

only. This alleviates the stress on 

doctor billings and gives more responsibility 

(and, therefore, revenue) to the pharmacists. 

There appears to be a parallel here, 

where governments could recognize RCI 

registrants as providing specialized services 

now only authorized through the architectural 

or engineering community. The niche 

that RCI members have helped create over 

the years could become a code-recognized 

requirement or allowance. 

One disadvantage could be that RCI 

might be restricted by government regulations 

that are not presently in place. It would 

make RCI registrants more accountable to 

meet and maintain levels of proficiency 

where the expectations are not presently as 

stringent. This may be a problem perceived 

by some, but I see this as an opportunity to 

help mold our industry before regulations 

are enforced on our registrants. 

I believe that we need to explore apprenticeship 

programs more in depth and come 

up with strategies to best position our 

members as key providers of specialized 

services in the building industry. 

On another matter affecting our industry, 

we recently had a meeting with a 

national purchasing agency to discuss the 

various ways projects are purchased. We 

see value in continuing talks with this agency 

to better understand procurement practices 

in order to best advise our members 

on how to participate or position themselves 

in this ever-changing environment. The 

meeting provided some interesting insight 

into how this agency prepares RFPs for its 

clients, how it goes out to market, and the 

resulting contracts that are put in place. 

There is opportunity for RCI to educate purchasing 

agencies on how to best approach 

our members for short- and long-term services. 

More to come on this topic. 

Enjoy the rest of your summer season! 


DO A FEW 

MILS REALLY 

MAKE A 

DIFFERENCE? 

MEMBRANE 

THICKNESS 

GUARANTEE 

You bet they do. They can mean the difference between clinching the Masters title and 

never wearing the green jacket. Or the difference between a long lasting roof and one that 

is less durable. So if you’re looking for superior, reliable performance, you want the new 

Sika Sarnafil Thickness Guarantee. 

The roofing industry standard allows membranes to be manufactured up to 10% below 

the advertised thickness, which means your 60 Mil membrane could really be 54 mils thick! 

But with our Thickness Guarantee, you get every mil you pay for, guaranteed. 

So don’t take a chance on your next roof. Visit www.thicknessguarantee.com or call 

800-576-2358 for Sarnafil Thickness Guarantee program details and to see the difference 

a Sarnafil membrane can make. Because a few mils can mean the difference between 

failure and a performance that people will talk about for decades to come. 

SIKA CORPORATION — ROOFING 

Phone: 800-576-2358 

usa.sarnafil.sika.com

letters to RCI 

Have a strong opinion on an issue Interface has covered? Want to start a conversation on a subject of importance in the 

roofing, waterproofing, and exterior wall industry? Write a Letter to RCI and e-mail it to kammerman@rci-online.org or 

mail it to Letters to RCI, c/o Kristen Ammerman, Director of Publications, 1500 Sunday Dr., Ste. 204, Raleigh, NC 27607. 

Kristen Ammerman 

Executive Editor 

Interface, The Journal of RCI 

RE: June 2015 Interface 

“Environmental Product Declarations: 

A Primer for the Building Envelope 

Practitioner” 

Ms. Ammerman: 

I have read the article titled “Environmental 

Product Declarations: A Primer for 

the Building Envelope Practitioner” by Dr. 

James L. Hoff, DBA, appearing in the June 

2015 issue of Interface and have several 

comments. 

The author provides a thorough overview 

of Environmental Products Declarations 

(EPDs) and the Product Category Rules 

(PCRs) that govern the creation of individual 

EPDs. Though the article is a summary of 

the general PCR and EPD process, it fails 

to adequately acknowledge one of the main 

weaknesses of EPDs: the challenge of identifying 

the service life of products. 

An example of why this is important 

follows. The article contains two references: 

The PCR for Product Group: Building 

Thermal Insulation and EPD: Polyiso Roof 

Insulation. The referenced PCR, in Section 

6.2.4, states: “The reference service life of 

the building is defined as 60 years and the 

number of replacements of the insulation 

products will be declared accordingly.” The 

referenced EPD for polyiso roof insulation 

violates Section 6.2.4 by failing to indicate 

the number of replacements that are 

assumed to occur in 60 years; instead it 

provides a disclaimer that “it is very difficult 

to quantify the service life of polyiso roof 

insulation independent of specific design, 

application, and maintenance conditions.” 

As a result, the EPD lists environmental 

values without assuming a replacement will 

be necessary in 60 years. 

The article does not mention the difficulty 

of determining service life of insulation. 

Instead, in the Common Functional Unit 

section, the following statement is made: 

“And unless damaged by unforeseen forces, 

most thermal insulations have a service life 

of 60 years or more when protected within a 

wall, ceiling, or roof assembly.” This lack of 

acknowledgement is especially troubling for 

polyiso roof insulation because there exist 

no credible data to support the performance 

of the product for 60 years. 

Additionally, the present blowing agent 

formulation was developed and implemented 

in the early 2000s, making it less than 15 

years old. The R-value of polyiso insulation 

declines over time, and its listed LTTR value 

is based upon a 15-year time-weighted 

average. Both are far short of the 60-year 

timeframe assumed by the author and in 

the referenced EPD. The bottom line is that 

the EPD referenced in the article makes 

polyiso roof insulation products seem to 

be more environmentally friendly than they 

actually are when compared to EPDs that 

follow the service life provisions of the PCR 

as they are supposed to. 

This service life issue should be a concern 

to roof system designers. By providing 

EPDs to owners that promise an overly optimistic 

service life, we may have to answer 

difficult questions when the products don’t 

deliver the promised environmental benefits. 

Regards, 

Jason Wilen, RRO, AIA, CDT 

Director, Technical Services 

National Roofing Contractors Association 

Author’s response: 

Reference: Jason Wilen letter to 

Interface dated June 19, 2015 

Dear Ms. Ammerman: 

Service life is always a critical issue for 

the building envelope professional, and I 

appreciate Jason’s reminder of its importance 

in any product evaluation or comparison. 

In my own research over the past 30 

years, I have conducted numerous studies 

involving service life, including the analysis 

of warranty repair records, the application 

of Total Quality Management (TQM) techniques 

to system design, and the development 

of a building service life optimization 

matrix. And because of my past involvement 

with service life issues, I certainly would not 

suggest that any building consultant look 

at an Environmental Product Declaration 

(EPD) without recognizing the importance 

of service life. 

I agree with Jason that it is very difficult 

to determine the service life of insulation. 

The fundamental problem is that very few 

roof or wall assemblies ultimately fail due 

to some property of the encapsulated insulation 

materials. Instead, wall and roof 

failures usually may be traced to failures 

in the inner or outer moisture seal materials. 

As a result, the service life of building 

thermal insulation is almost completely 

dependent on the performance of noninsulation 

components. At the time I wrote 

this article, almost all of the available EPDs 

for wall and roof systems involved thermal 

insulation materials, and few, if any, published 

third-party EPDs were available for 

roofing membrane or wall finish materials. 

As a result, it would have been difficult, 

if not impossible, to accurately discuss 

insulation service life in the article without 

additional service life and impact information 

for the complementary roofing and wall 

finish products. Hopefully, with a number of 

roofing membrane and wall finish EPDs on 

the horizon, future articles will address the 

issue of service life in greater detail. 

Although I agree that the service life of 

insulation is difficult to determine, I would 

suggest that Jason’s assertion that the lack 

of provision for replacement within current 

thermal insulation EPDs somehow “violates” 

the underlying Product Category Rule (PCR) 

is a statement of personal opinion rather 

than accepted fact. Although the article 

highlighted how service life was addressed 

specifically in a single-product EPD for polyiso 

insulation, it is important to note that 

the application of a single 60-year service life 

has been uniformly used in every other thermal 

insulation EPD published to date, and 

there are over a dozen published insulation 

EPDs now available. In addition, this 60-year 

frame has been reviewed and consistently 

found to be in accordance with the underlying 

PCR by no less reputable product certifiers 

than the National Sanitation Foundation 

(NSF) and Underwriters Laboratories (UL). As 

a result, although it is possible that Jason’s 

opinion is correct, it should be noted that 

it stands in clear contrast to the remaining 


ody of research and evaluation of thermal 

insulation EPDs. 

I also agree with Jason that there are 

a number of performance characteristics 

of the particular insulation product (polyiso) 

used as an example in the article that 

are important when evaluating or comparing 

impact data for thermal insulations. 

However, I would suggest that these performance 

characteristics are in no way unique 

to this single product. All foam insulation 

materials—including spray polyurethane, 

polystyrene, and polyiso—have or may soon 

undergo changes in blowing agents as well 

as other significant ingredients. And the 

constitution of many non-foam insulation 

alternatives available today is based on recipes, 

densities, and thicknesses much different 

than in the past. As a result, I would 

suggest that any inherent uncertainty 

regarding insulation performance is pretty 

much the same for all modern insulation 

materials available today. 

Finally, I would suggest that the current 

uncertainty inherent in thermal insulation 

materials offers much greater opportunity 

than risk. One of the most important roles 

for the building envelope consultant is to 

help clients work through the complexity of 

product and system selection. And because 

all currently published thermal insulation 

EPDs employ the same 60-year service life 

and a similar R-value evaluation metric 

per functional unit, the building envelope 

consultant is provided a level playing field 

to initiate any evaluation or comparison. 

If the consultant believes that the roof or 

wall system in which the insulation will be 

placed will last only 20 years instead of 60 

years, then the 60-year impacts declared 

in the EPD may be easily compressed to 

the desired 20-year time period. In a similar 

manner, if the consultant believes the 

R-value for a particular product is too high 

over the planned service life, the impacts 

declared in the EPD may be easily interpolated 

down to any desired R-value. 

In summary, I believe the uniform comparability 

of current thermal insulation 

EPDs and the ease at which the impacts may 

be adjusted provide a significant advantage 

for any building envelope consultant seeking 

to advise clients about the environmental 

impacts of materials. And as I mentioned at 

the close of the article, I remain interested in 

digging deeper into EPD data and providing 

additional analysis for the consulting community 

in future articles. 

Best regards, 

Dr. James L. Hoff, DBA 

TEGNOS Research, Inc. 

Have a comment you wish 

to air publicly about a recent 

article in Interface? 

Write to Letters to the Editor, 

Executive Editor Kristen Ammerman, 

at kammerman@rci-online.org. 

31 st International Convention 

and Trade Show 

March 10-15, 2016 | Orlando, Florida 

Rosen Shingle Creek Resort 

RCI, Inc. | rci-online.org/international-convention.html | 800-828-1902 

A u g u s t 2 0 1 5 I n t e r f a c e • 9

HEALTHY BUILDINGS: 

THE IMPORTANCE OF 

DAYLIGHT AND VIEWS 

The evidence of the positive benefits of 

access to daylight on human health and 

well-being is now indisputable. 1 Daylight 

can be thought of as a drug—one that 

is crucial to human health. Nature provides 

the right dose (intensity) of the right 

type (wavelength) at the right time of day 

to entrain the human body’s circadian 

rhythms. In doing so, daylight plays a 

critical role in maintaining the body’s key 

processes, such as hormone production, 

the sleep/wake cycle, and immune system 

effectiveness. Lack of daylight at the right 

time of the day can cause significant health 

risks, as has been shown by studies on 

the increased incidence of cancer in circadian-rhythm-disrupted 

shift workers. 2 In 

contrast, access to daylight has been shown 

to significantly improve productivity and 

reduce absenteeism in office settings and 

increase healing rates in healthcare environments. 

3 

A view to the outdoors has also been 

shown to be beneficial to the health and 

well-being of building occupants, not just 

because it refocuses and relaxes the eyes 

and provides daylight, but because it also 

satisfies our primal need for safety inside 

while being able to see what dangers might 

lie outside. 4 Views of nature specifically 

appear to be even more important because 

they have been shown to also reduce stress 

levels and improve mood. 5 The World Health 

Organization says that mental health disorders 

are expected to be the number-two 

illness worldwide by 2020, 6 and stress can 

be a major contributor. Providing views of 

nature and access to daylight within the 

built environment would therefore seem to 

be an important design factor. 

Unfortunately, over the past century, 

with the advent of cheap electric lighting 

and the ability to construct larger, deeper 

buildings, our built environment has been 

increasingly isolating us from these critical 

needs. In more recent years, though, there 

has been a movement to increase the availability 

of daylight in buildings through market-leading 

standards such as the U.S. Green 

Building Council’s (USGBC’s) Leadership in 

Figure 1 – Example of the configuration of an electrochromic (EC) dual-pane insulating glass 

unit. 

1 0 • I n t e r f a c e a u g u s t 2 0 1 5

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED ® ) 

rating program, the International Green 

Construction Code (IgCC), and ASHRAE’s 

Standard 189.1. 

The easy way to get a lot of daylight into 

a building would be to use a lot of glass. 

But that is neither conducive to energy 

efficiency nor occupant comfort unless the 

heat and glare that accompany daylight is 

managed effectively. For example, a number 

of LEED-certified buildings, while providing 

good access to views, in practice have been 

shown to have no better energy performance 

than non LEED-certified buildings. With 

large expanses of glass, they also have the 

potential to cause significant thermal and 

visual discomfort if there is insufficient solar 

control and no planned dynamic response 

for glare. Studies have clearly shown that 

the discomfort from glare can more than 

negate any positive gains from access to 

daylight and views, and the same is true 

for thermal discomfort. 7,8 Even if manual 

blinds are employed for glare control, they 

are generally pulled down when the glare 

condition is present and left down long after 

the glare condition has gone, blocking the 

view and daylight admission and negating 

the positive benefits of the window. 

Herein lies a key design challenge: How 

to manage glare and heat gain without 

obstructing the intended views, while still 

admitting sufficient daylight to deliver the 

desired health benefits for occupants as well 

as high-energy performance. 

Dynamic glazing can provide a solution 

to this challenge because of the ability to 

tune its visible light transmission (VLT) 

and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) in 

response to the external environment and/ 

or occupant needs. In this way, heat gains 

and glare can be controlled as needed while 

still maintaining the view through the window. 

The summary below describes different 

types of commercially available dynamic 

glazing and their different performance 

characteristics, and provides key criteria for 

evaluating different types of dynamic glazing 

for building applications. 

DYNAMIC GLAZING 

Thermochromic glazing 

Thermochromic glazing is a passive 

dynamic glazing technology that changes its 

VLT in response to changes in its temperature, 

becoming darker as the temperature 

increases. It is called a “passive” dynamic 

glazing because the occupant has no control 

over the tint level of the glass. 

Current commercially available thermochromic 

technology comes in the form of a 

thermochromic polyvinyl butyral (PVB) laminate 

interlayer material that is laminated 

between two plies of glass using standard 

laminating processes. The resultant laminated 

lite is then generally combined with 

another lite to form an insulating glass unit 

(IGU). The laminated lite containing the 

thermochromic material is on the exteriorfacing 

lite of the IGU. 

The lowest transmission state is determined 

by the temperature that the interlayer 

reaches in the fenestration product, which 

is, in turn, dependent on the IGU construction, 

the weather conditions, and incident 

solar intensity. The product is available in 

laminated IGU configurations with different 

tinted or coated substrates. To provide 

good U-factor performance and improve the 

SHGC, a low-emissivity (low-e) coating is 

also generally added to the inboard lite of 

the IGU. 

The extent to which a dynamic glass 

tints from its highest transmittance (clear) 

state is called its dynamic range and is 

gauged by the visible light transmittance of 

the clear state compared to that of the fully 

tinted state. The actual clear state and tinted 

state visible light transmissions of a thermochromic 

IGU vary depending on the IGU 

configuration, but the ratio of the visible 

light transmission in the highest and lowest 

Envirospec transmittance Ad states 262-0801 is generally 1/21/08 about 9:03 5. AM Pa 

For example, depending on the companion 

Easy to 

Install 

Turn roof tops into 

beautiful deck areas 

The PAVE-EL ® 

Pedestal System 

• Transforms flat roofs into attractive, 

maintenance-free, 

paver stone terraces. 

• Elevates paver stones for 

perfect drainage. 

• Levels paver stones and ensures 

their uniform spacing for 

an ideal roof terrace surface. 

• A perfect solution for laying 

mechanical walkways for use 

by maintenance personnel. 

• Ideal for laying paver 

walkways in roof gardens. 

Figure 2 – Graph of visible light transmission (VLT) versus solar heat gain coefficient 

(SHGC), which demonstrates the heat gain and light transmission range of a highperformance 

EC product compared with examples of standard static glass. 

ENVIROSPEC INCORPORATED 

716-689-8548 • www.envirospecinc.com 

A u g u s t 2 0 1 5 I n t e r f a c e • 1 1

Figure 3 – A two-story 

atrium at Chabot College, 

Hayward, CA, where EC 

glass was used in order 

to reduce the solar loads 

sufficiently to enable the 

use of a natural cooling 

and ventilation system. 

tinted or coated lites in the IGU, the clear 

(low temperature) states have visible light 

transmissions ranging from 27%T on a 

darkly tinted substrate to 60%T when using 

clear float glass; and the respective tinted 

state transmissions range from about 6%T 

to 13%T at 65ºC/150ºF. 9 The transmission 

ratios are therefore 27/6 and 60/13 respectively, 

which is ~4.5 for both cases. 

Electrochromic glazing 

Electrochromic (EC) glass is a type of 

“active” dynamic glazing that has the ability 

to reversibly change its VLT and SHGC at 

the touch of a button or in response to sensors 

(e.g., light, occupancy, temperature) 

or on the command of a building management 

system—all without losing the view 

and connection to the outside. An example 

of the configuration of an EC dual-pane 

insulating glass unit is shown in Figure 1. 

Commercially available EC glazings require 

only low-voltage DC for control. However, 

depending on the manufacturer, some systems 

will be a National Electric Code (NEC) 

class-2, low-voltage, low-current system; 

and some may be a class-1, low-voltage, 

high-current system. The former class-2 

systems are intrinsically 

safe, do not 

require conduit for the 

wires, and are a contractor-preferred configuration 

route. Class 1 systems, because 

of the higher current, require an electrician 

to install; and the wires must be run in 

conduit and connections must be made in 

junction boxes, which add installation costs. 

Currently, the widest dynamic range 

available in EC glazings on clear glass 

substrates spans from a high of 60% VLT 

to a low of 1% VLT, with corresponding 

solar heat gain coefficients of 0.41 and 0.09 

respectively and as illustrated in Figure 2. 

Other ranges for EC on clear glass, such 

as 58% to 3%T and 50% to 10%T, are also 

commercially available. 

EC coatings can also be used in combination 

with different tinted or coated glass 


substrates, 

which can be used to 

provide a range of exterior color aesthetics 

from which the designer may choose. 

Heat-gain control: The combination 

of active control and wide dynamic range 

performance of EC glass provides a highly 

flexible heat and light valve for buildings, 

capturing solar heat to offset heating loads 

when needed, blocking unwanted heat when 

in cooling mode, and at all times harvesting 

daylight to offset electric lighting. Improved 

thermal comfort for occupants next to the 

building envelope is a significant benefit, as 

is the energy efficiency, which can be 20% 

better than the code base line, with even 

higher peak-load reductions. 

More important, perhaps, is the EC’s 

ability to enable designers to implement 

more energy-efficient and thermally comfortable 

heating and cooling systems such 

as chilled beams and radiant heating by 

reducing the peak loads from the building 

envelope. Figure 3 shows an application in a 

two-story, south-facing atrium where the use 

of a natural ventilation system was enabled 

because of the use of EC in the façade. 

Glare control without loss of view: 

The ability for an EC glazing to achieve 

1%T when fully tinted provides sufficient 

control of glare to eliminate the need for 

blinds, thus preserving essential views for 

the occupants. Products with transmissions 

of 2%T and above have been shown to be 

insufficient to provide direct sunlight glare 

control, and additional mechanical shading 

devices are needed for some portion of the 

time and/or for some occupants to achieve 

comfort. 10,11 Applications of dynamic glazing 

with tinted state transmissions of 2%T 

and above should be considered where 

direct glare is not a significant issue. For 

example, thermochromic glazing where the 

tinted state reaches a minimum of ~6%T is 

often used in applications where strict glare 

control is not needed, or if it is, is used in 

combination with blinds. 

Effective daylighting performance: 

Electrochromic glazings now come with an 


Roof Technology and Science I 

august 25-26 | atlanta, ga 

The Roof Technology and Science I course is designed for roof 

consultants, building owners, architects, and engineers who want 

to better understand roof construction, materials and performance. 

TopICS InClude 

• Roof decks and drainage 

• Thermal and moisture design, calculations, and materials 

• Bituminous systems, including bitumens, reinforcements, BUR 

membranes and surfacings for bituminous systems 

• Single-ply roofing systems 

• Spray-applied polyurethane roofing systems 

• Protected-membrane roofing systems 

pRogRam goal 

The purpose of this course is to offer students a greater understanding 

of roofing principles and materials so that they may become more effective 

as systems designers, quality assurance observers, or owners/ 

managers. Roofing Technology and Science I is the first program in a 

two-part series. 

RCI, Inc. 800-828-1902 Register today @ rci-online.org/education.html 

Roof Technology and Science II 

august 27-28 | atlanta, ga 

This course is designed for practicing roof consultants, architects, 

engineers, building owners, and manufacturers’ technical personnel 

who desire to become more knowledgeable about the science and 

technology of roofing. 

TopICS InClude 

• Wind design for low-slope roofing 

• Fire characteristics of roofing 

• Cold fluid-applied roofing and waterproofing 

• Roof flashings 

• Roof surveys 

• Moisture surveys 

• Life-cycle costs 

• Maintenance and repair 

• Steep roofing – asphalt shingles, concrete, and clay tile 

• Metal roofing 

pRogRam goal 

It is recommended that students first register for Roofing Technology 

and Science I. Many of the concepts from that course are expanded 

upon in Roofing Technology and Science II. 

RCI, Inc. 800-828-1902 Register today @ rci-online.org/education.html

Figure 4 – An example of one of the new 

advances in electrochromic glazing: in-pane 

zoning. This feature provides the ability to 

optimally balance the need for glare control 

with adequate daylight admission, energy 

performance, and light color quality. Photo 

courtesy of SAGE Electrochromics, Inc. 

Figure 5 – Image of a large-scale installation of EC glazing at Butler County Health Care 

Center, David City, Nebraska. The application features a complex curved façade with 

glazing sloped outwards. The architects chose EC glazing because of the elegant solution to 

the heat and light control and the ability to maintain the views of nature on the campus for 

the patients in the rehabilitation center. Photo courtesy of Daubman Photography. 

ed glass—apply to dynamic glazing (where 

applicable). 

There is also a durability test method, 

ASTM E2141, and accompanying performance 

specification, E2953, which apply 

specifically to EC glazings. The test, developed 

20 years ago by the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL), is stringent and 

involves cycling the EC glazing from clear 

to dark 50,000 times for at least 5,000 

hours at 85ºC/185ºF under simulated solar 

irradiation. Currently, a test method and 

specification for passive dynamic glazings 

(e.g., thermochromics) is in development 

and will likely be based on the environmental 

conditions used in E2141. To ensure 

a high-performance EC insulating glass 

product is specified, compliance with E2953 

and E2190 (insulating glass performance) is 

recommended. 

option of independently controlling up to 

three segments within each pane of glass 

(see Figure 4)—often called “in-pane zoning.” 

This is essential for optimizing the 

balance between providing glare control 

and achieving optimum daylight admission, 

energy performance, and light color quality 

in applications that involve floor-to-ceiling 

glass. In this case, only the segment of 

the pane on which the direct sunlight is 

incident needs to be tinted to 1%T for glare 

control. The other segments of the pane can 

be set to a transmission state that optimizes 

daylight admission, energy performance, 

and light color quality. If the whole pane 

area from floor to ceiling had to be tinted to 

1%T, the space would be too dark, too blue 

(because of the color of the dynamic glass), 

and have suboptimal energy performance 

because electric lights would need to be on. 

INDUSTRY STANDARDS 

The general industry glazing standards—such 

as those for insulating glass, 

safety glazing, heat-treated and laminat- 

KEY PERFORMANCE FEATURES 

SUMMARY 

Electrochromic glazing has the longest 

track record in the dynamic glazing category 

in the construction industry, with a 

proven 12-year history and installations 

dating back to 2003. With the availability 

When evaluating a dynamic glazing technology’s suitability for a particular 

application, it is important to review the following factors: 

• Is active control needed, or is passive operation sufficient? 

• Does the application need sunlight glare control? If so, 1%T in the 

tinted state, or the addition of mechanical shades will be required. 

• What type of exterior color aesthetics does the project need? This is 

a key specification, as color and availability of color choices vary from 

product to product. 

• The system must have durability performance and the ability to meet 

industry standards. 

• Consider ease of integration: retrofit vs. new construction, NEC class 2 

vs. class 1 wiring, ease of wire integration in framing systems, wireless 

vs. wired solutions. 


Figure 6 – Image of a large-scale installation of large, triangular-shaped EC glazing at the 

Frost School of Music, Miami, FL. Note the architecturally favored blue exterior reflected 

color. Photo courtesy of Moris Moreno. 

of larger sizes (5 x 10 ft.), higher volumes, 

improved exterior color aesthetics, nonrectangular 

shapes, wirelessly powered and 

controlled products for retrofit applications, 

and enhanced daylight management features, 

the penetration of electrochromic 

glazing in the commercial market is growing 

rapidly. The photographs in Figures 5 and 

6 illustrate the scale of buildings now being 

glazed with this dynamic glazing technology 

and the enhanced exterior aesthetics that 

can now be achieved. 

Architects and owners are choosing 

dynamic glazing because of the design freedom 

it gives them in applications ranging 

from schools and colleges, to office space, 

to healthcare applications, and beyond. 

They can use more glass without sacrificing 

either energy performance or occupant 

thermal and visual comfort, achieving both 

the desired elegant design aesthetic and a 

healthy interior environment that enhances 

the occupant experience and is conducive to 

high levels of well-being, productivity, and 

employee retention. 

REFERENCES 

1. Health, Wellbeing and Productivity 

in Offices, World Green Building 

Council Report, September 2014. 

2. P. Bhatti et al., “Nightshift Work 

and Risk of Ovarian Cancer,” 

Occupational and Environmental 

Medicine. 2013; 70: 231-237. 

3. Health, Wellbeing and Productivity in 

Offices. 

4. Ibid. 

5. Bill Browning, Chris Garvin, Cattie 

Rayan, Namia Kallianpurkar, Leslie 

Labruto, Siobhan Watson, and Travis 

Knop, “The Economics of Biophilia: 

Why Designing With Nature in Mind 

Makes Financial Sense,” Terrapin 

Bright Green LLC, 2012. 

6. http://www.who.int/mental_ 

health/advocacy/en/Call_for_ 

Action_MoH_Intro.pdf. 

7. Heschong Mahone Group, “Windows 

and Offices: A Study of Worker 

Performance and the Indoor 

Environment,” (technical report) 

for California Energy Commission, 

2003. 

8. O. Seppanen et al., “Effect of 

Temperature on Task Performance 

in Office Environment,” LBNL report 

60946, July 2006. 

9. For an example of the performance 

and configurations of a thermochromic 

system, see: http://www.pleotint. 

com/uploads/1/2/4/1/12414735/ 

pleotint_performance_flyer.pdf. 

10. R.D. Clear, V. Inkarojrit, and 

E.S. Lee, “Subject Responses to 

Electrochromic Windows.” Energy 

and Buildings, LBNL Report 57125, 

March 2006. 

11. J. Mardaljevic et al., “Electrochromic 

Glazing: Properties and Design 

Guidelines,” DETAIL Green, 2014, 1. 

Dr. Helen Sanders 

Dr. Helen Sanders 

has 20 years’ 

experience in the 

glass industry 

and more than 

15 years’ experience 

in dynamic 

glass technology 

and manufacturing. 

Sanders is 

currently responsible 

for SAGE 

Electrochromics’ 

technical business development and is an 

active member of ASTM International, IGMA, 

and GANA. She earned a BA and MA degrees 

in natural sciences and a PhD in surface 

science from the University of Cambridge, 

England. Recently, Sanders was named one 

of USGlass Magazine’s Top 100 Influencers. 

Roofing Demand to Rise 3.9% Annually 

U.S. demand for roofing is projected to rise 3.9% annually to 252 million squares in 2019, valued at $21.4 billion, according to a 

new Freedonia Group study. Asphalt shingles accounted for the largest share of roofing demand in 2014, and demand is forecast 

to rise at an above-average pace the next four years, following the rebound of the housing market. But roofing tiles are expected 

to register the most rapid growth of all roofing products through 2019, driven by strong gains in the South and West. 

Reroofing accounts for the largest share of U.S. roofing demand, totaling 81% in 2014. 

— Freedonia Group 


PROTECTING 

THE BUILDING 

ENVELOPE 

BY DEAN LEWIS 

This series of images shows a vane axial wind-generating 

device as described in AAMA 501.1. This is a field 

dynamic water penetration test. The blades of the fan 

can be rotated to generate a different wind speed. These 

types of fans are generally used for hurricane-type 

testing. Photos courtesy of Architectural Testing. 


The American Architectural 

Manufacturers Association 

(AAMA) was founded in 1936. 

The organization has been 

developing product performance 

standards for window, 

door, skylight, curtain wall, and storefront 

products for over 70 years and has been 

certifying products for over 50 years. AAMA 

also engages in product testing, market 

research projects, and continuing education. 

While the association’s focus is and 

has always been on fenestration, additional 

guidelines, standard practices, and specifications 

have broadened the available information 

to matters that protect the building 

envelope from water penetration and air 

leakage. These specification and guidelines 

also go a long way toward ensuring the 

appropriate structural wind resistance of 

windows, doors, and skylights. And, as anyone 

in our field knows, protecting a building 

envelope starts from the top, so we’ll start 

with skylights, the need for proper installation, 

and why field testing plays a crucial 

role in this process. 

SKYLIGHTS 

Unit skylights have been included in 

the North American Fenestration Standard 

(NAFS) since the 2002 edition. AAMA 1607, 

Voluntary Installation Guidelines for Unit 

Skylights, was last updated in 2014. This 

document has been developed for the purpose 

of providing a guideline for installing 

preassembled unit skylights onto a roof. 

It provides clear illustrations and concise 

commentary on the principles involved to 

ensure good installation practice when the 

unit manufacturer has not provided such 

detail in its instructions. 

Additionally, a skylight specification/ 

selection guide is nearing completion. This 

will provide another resource to those in the 

industry for how to best protect the building 

envelope when it comes to skylights – starting 

from the top. 

manufacturer’s installation instructions. 

But they can vary in methods and thoroughness, 

often omitting detail on how 

to handle various surrounding wall and 

job-site conditions. The need to fill in such 

gaps and provide more consistency among 

installers propelled AAMA’s development 

of the InstallationMasters Program in 

2000 to train and certify residential window 

installers, with over 12,000 individuals certified 

to date. 

AAMA has published and maintains 

several documents that detail the practice 

of installation and reinforce the importance 

of doing so properly. These standards go 

a long way toward protecting the building 

envelope, as well. Note that some of these 

documents have been written in collaboration 

with the Fenestration Manufacturers 

Association (FMA) and the Window and 

Door Manufacturers Association (WDMA). 

FMA/AAMA 100-12, Standard Practice 

for the Installation of Windows With 

Flanges or Mounting Fins in Wood Frame 

Construction for Extreme Wind/Water 

Conditions – This standard practice covers 

the installation of windows in wood-frame 

new construction for residential and light 

commercial buildings of not more than 

three stories above-grade in height, utilizing 

a membrane/drainage system. This practice 

applies to windows that employ a mounting 

flange or fin that is attached to the window 

perimeter frame and is designed as an 

installation appendage. 

FMA/AAMA 200-12, Standard 

Practice for the Installation of Windows 

With Frontal Flanges for Surface Barrier 

Masonry Construction for Extreme Wind/ 

Water Conditions – Here, AAMA covers 

the installation of frontal-flanged windows 

into buildings with surface barrier wall 

construction (masonry/concrete). Frontalflanged 

windows employ an integral or 

applied flange that is attached and sealed to 

the window perimeter frame and is designed 

to cover a previously installed buck and/or 

integrate with a precast sill. This standard 

practice covers the installation process for 

windows from pre- to post-installation. 

FMA/AAMA/WDMA 300-12, Standard 

Practice for the Installation of Exterior 

Doors in Wood Frame Construction for 

Extreme Wind/Water Exposure – The 

methods within this document cover the 

installation of exterior doors in new construction—both 

residential and light commercial 

buildings—of not more than three 

stories above grade in height, utilizing a 

membrane/drainage system. This practice 

applies to exterior doors that employ 

a mounting flange, exterior casing/brick 

mold, or a box frame. 

FMA/AAMA/WDMA 400-13, Standard 

Practice for the Installation of Exterior 

Doors in Surface Barrier Masonry 

Construction for Extreme Wind/Water 

Exposure – Similar to the previous listing, 

INSTALLATION 

This brings us to the subject of installing 

windows and doors in the building envelope. 

A great product is of little use if it’s not 

properly installed. The quality of installation 

depends on a number of details, such as the 

installer’s skill and experience, the product 

type, and the configuration and construction 

of the building wall. 

In addition to local building code 

requirements, the first stop is always the 

An example of a residential curbmount skylight, courtesy of CrystaLite. 


Bonobo Winery in Traverse City, MI. 

Photos courtesy of Pella Windows and Doors. 

2016 rCI DoCumEnt CompEtItIon 

RCI, Inc. 800-828-1902 

Earn rCI Dollars anD othEr InCEntIvEs 

The winners of the 2016 RCI Document Competition will receive a plaque and 

recognition during the annual awards luncheon at the 31 st RCI International 

Convention and Trade Show, publicity of their winning projects in Interface, 

and RCI Dollars. Prizes will be awarded to nine winners in three categories. 

largE projECt | small projECt | rEport 

First-place winners ......... 1,000 RCI Dollars 

Second-place winners ..... 500 RCI Dollars 

Third-place winners ........ 200 RCI Dollars 

RCI Dollars will be redeemable for any product or service provided by RCI or 

the RCI Foundation. RCI Dollars are redeemable by the award winner or by 

anyone specifically designated by the award winner. Use winnings for yourself 

or to help a friend or colleague buy a reference book or attend a seminar. 

Entry deadline: October 31, 2015 

DownloaD Your EntrY Form toDaY! 

www.rci-online.org/document-competition.html 

this standard practice covers the installation of exterior doors in 

new construction for residential and light commercial buildings, 

but with surface barrier wall construction (masonry/concrete). It is 

expected that all referenced components meet code requirements in 

force at the time of the installation. 

AAMA 2400-10, Standard Practice for Installation of 

Windows With a Mounting Flange in Open Stud Frame 

Construction for Low Wind/Water Exposure – The 2400 document 

addresses recommended methods and sequences used to 

apply or modify the water-resistive barrier or other flashing and 

sealing materials to open-framed construction. The techniques 

demonstrated here have been developed 

specifically to create a moisture barrier to 

incidental liquid water penetration at the 

external interface between the window and 

the rough opening. Whether through the 

external interface between the window and 

rough opening, the window joinery, or the 

installation joints around the perimeter of 

the window, water that does manage to 

penetrate will not have a means to exit 

to the building exterior. As a result, this 

standard is recommended for buildings and 

installations considered at low risk of water 

intrusion. 

AAMA 2410-13, Standard Practice 

for Installation of Windows With an 

Exterior Flush Fin Over an Existing 

Window Frame – In some cases, it is not 

advisable to disturb the seal between a 

previously existing window’s frame and the 

water-resistive barrier. In such cases, the 

existing frame may be left in place and a 

replacement window installed within it. This 

practice covers just such an application in 

detached one- and two-family dwellings and 

townhouses not more than three stories 

above grade in height. 

AAMA IPCB-08, AAMA Standard 

Practice for the Installation of Windows 

and Doors in Commercial Buildings – 

Here AAMA moves from residential and 

light commercial to commercial buildings, 


covering windows and both hinged and 

sliding-glass doors. Information pertains 

to both new construction and replacement 

projects. Storefront and curtain wall products, 

profiles, and systems are frequently 

used in window and door openings; however, 

these applications are outside the scope 

of this standard practice. 

• Clear polycarbonate dome cover 

coated for UV resistance 

• Translucent and double domes 

available when specified 

• Fully gasketed design 

ensures weathertightness 

• The safe and reliable 

operation that you have 

come to expect from a 

Bilco roof hatch 

FIELD TESTING 

AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-11, 

the North American Fenestration Standard 

referred to as NAFS, is based on lab testing 

for air leakage, water penetration resistance, 

and structural resistance to wind 

loading. While there is no AAMA field test 

for structural qualities of fenestration products, 

AAMA 502 (Voluntary Specification for 

Field Testing of Newly Installed Fenestration 

Products), 503 (Voluntary Specification for 

Field Testing of Newly Installed Storefronts, 

Curtain Walls, and Sloped Glazing Systems) 

and 511 (Voluntary Guideline for Forensic 

Water Penetration Testing of Fenestration 

Products) define the appropriate air and 

water test pressures, test durations, and 

conditions for air and water leakage field 

testing and for forensic investigation of 

existing leaks. 

Note that both AAMA 502 (for “punched” 

openings) and 503 (for storefronts and curtain 

walls) are applied to newly installed 

products. If field testing is required after the 

building occupancy permit has been issued 

or more than six months after product 

installation, then AAMA 511 (the forensic 

document) needs to be followed. 

The current edition of the industry standard 

specification for windows and doors is 

NAFS-11 (published in 2011), although some 

current building codes still cite NAFS-08. As 

a standard, NAFS specifies ASTM E283 for 

air leakage and ASTM E547 and/or E331 for 

water penetration resistance test methodology, 

depending on the product’s performance 

class. These tests are performed under controlled 

environmental conditions. Prototype 

test samples are mounted plumb, level, and 

square per NAFS-11 tolerance in a precise 

test buck opening. 

NAFS-11 certification provides a convenient 

means to determine the field test 

pressure for water penetration resistance 

for all classes of certified fenestration products. 

Most windows and doors will have the 

ratings posted on them with a permanent 

label, with pressure designated in Pascals 

and in psf. 

The AAMA 502 specification was originally 

published in 1990 and was initially 

used primarily for commercial installations 

such as schools, hospitals, and government 

buildings. With increased concern and code 

requirements for residential construction, 

the AAMA 502 specification is now widely 

used on all types of installations. It has 

since been updated several times, specifying, 

among other things, that: 

• An AAMA-accredited lab must perform 

testing. 

• The field test air and water test pressures 

are to be reduced from the lab 

testing figures. 

• Field-testing is intended for newly 

installed products. 

Both ASTM E331 and E547 for water 

apply to laboratory testing per NAFS requirements. 

Procedure A (uniform static air pressure 

difference) is used for AW Class (architectural) 

products, while Procedure B (cyclic 

static air pressure difference) is used for other 

performance classes. Test methods for field- 

It’s a Roof Hatch... 

It’s a Skylight... It’s a Bilco. 

Type GS Roof Hatch 

All the security and convenience 

of a roof hatch with the added 

benefits of a skylight. 

The natural daylight is ideal 

for ladder access roof hatches 

located in stairwells or closets. 

Also offered in sizes for staircase access 

and special sizes are available for unique 

access requirements. 

To learn more, visit www.bilco.com 

or call 800.366.6530 

The Worldwide Source for 

Specialty Access Products 

BLC946 GS Interface Ad_4.9375x7.50.indd 1 

5/27/15 1:57 PM 


to determine the actual source of the leak, 

and diagnostic testing is an integral part 

of this analytical approach. AAMA 511 

is a complementary document to ASTM 

E2128 (Standard Guide for Evaluating Water 

Leakage of Building Walls). 

On April 28 of 2015, AAMA conducted 

a very popular webinar, which was open to 

anyone in the industry (most AAMA webcasts 

are reserved as a benefit of membership). 

The recorded version, including questions 

and answers, is available on AAMA’s 

Vimeo page (vimeo.com/126545899). 

Pella ® team members prepare to install energy-efficient two-wide composite Pella windows 

into the home of Steve and Sue Ralston of Waterloo, Iowa. Photo courtesy of Pella Windows 

and Doors. 

testing referenced in AAMA 502 are ASTM 

E783 for air and E1105 for water. Note that 

while the ASTM documents prescribe the 

methods of test, AAMA 502 defines the test 

pressures and testing conditions to be used 

and provides the pass/fail criteria. Both 

together provide the conditions for the field 

tests. For ease of compliance with the test 

methods and acceptable pass/fail criteria, 

AAMA 502 includes a short form specification; 

the project specifier need only fill in a 

few select blanks. 

AAMA 503 was originally published in 

1992 and is a similar document to 502, but 

for storefronts, curtain walls, and sloped 

glazing systems. The current edition is 503- 

14 and is essentially an editorial update 

from the 2008 edition, which defined “newly” 

installed as prior to issuance of the occupancy 

permit, and not to exceed six months 

later than that. Any testing performed after 

six months is considered beyond the scope 

of AAMA 503, but within the scope of AAMA 

511 (the forensic procedure). 

AAMA 511 provides a systematic method 

of investigation and analysis to determine 

the location and cause of known leaks. 

Often, improper or inadequate leak investigations 

result in investigators misidentifying 

the source of water penetration through 

the exterior wall. This error can result from 

observations of water penetration at or near 

a window, door, or skylight opening that 

may actually originate from the surrounding 

construction. 

In other cases, the water penetration 

is from a combination of sources that may 

be inclusive of the fenestration product 

assemblies. A systematic forensic investigation 

of the water penetration is required 

PROTECTING THE BUILDING 

ENVELOPE 

All of these factors can work together to 

protect the building envelope. Ensure this 

is done by implementing proper installation; 

respecting field testing; and knowing 

your windows, doors, and skylights inside 

and out. 

Dean Lewis 

Since joining the 

AAMA in 1999, 

Dean Lewis has 

managed product 

certification and 

has advanced 

AAMA’s FenestrationMasters 

professional 

certification 

program and 

other educational 

initiatives. He 

began his career 

at PPG Industries with positions in project 

engineering and design, sales, and customer 

technical support. He has served on committees 

of ANSI, ASTM, and ASHRAE. Further 

experience includes teaching in the industrial 

and military sectors, plus 35 years of managing 

technical training, publishing, and certification. 

Lewis holds a BS in physics with 

graduate work in engineering management. 

Affordable 

Care Act 

Upheld 

The U.S. Supreme Court, for the second time in three years, has affirmed the legality of key 

provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In a 6-3 opinion issued on 

June 25, the court said that federal tax credits that enable individuals who cannot otherwise 

afford health insurance to purchase coverage are permissible under the Affordable Care Act 

and are in line with what Congress intended when it wrote the law. 

Contractor groups say that they will continue to push for more construction-industryfriendly 

changes to the law or outright appeal, claiming that the law has caused health care 

premiums to rise. Since the measure was enacted, the Republican-controlled House has 

voted to alter or repeal the law about 50 times, but few changes have been enacted. The 

constitutionality of the law’s “individual mandate” was also the subject of an unsuccessful 

legal challenge before the Supreme Court in 2012. 

– ENR 


It’s 

time 

to 

With NVS, you bring a permanent insulation 

solution to your next re-cover project. 

Siplast’s NVS Lightweight Insulating Concrete System 

was developed to solve reroofing problems economically. NVS 

combines the unique properties of aggregate-based lightweight 

insulating concrete and premium expanded polystyrene foam 

insulation board. 

Once a Siplast NVS System is poured in place, it stays there a 

long, long time. Unlike disposable rigid polyisocyanurate insulation, 

NVS can be reroofed indefinitely, which dramatically reduces 

both the environmental cost of filling landfills with discarded 

polyisocyanurate and the life-cycle cost of the roof. Siplast 

Lightweight Insulating Concrete is truly sustainable. 

Learn more about how your next re-cover project can include a 

permanent insulation solution. For information on Siplast NVS 

Lightweight Insulating Concrete Systems, 

please call 1-800-922-8800, or visit our Web site at 

www.siplast.com. Or, scan the QR code below to visit the site 

or see a video on NVS Lightweight Insulating Concrete. 

video 

www.siplast.com

Building Envelope Technology 

Symposium 2015 November 9-10 | Nashville, TN 

Too Hot to Keep Your Cool 

Timothy Mills, PE, LEED AP, MASCE 

Curtain Wall Sunshade Challenges 

Mark K. Schmidt | Oana A. Toma 

Starting Over: Reskinning Deteriorated Masonry Walls in Occupied Condominium Towers 

Reid Johnson, PEng | Sarah Gray, PEng, CAHP 

Common Deficiencies With Public School Building Envelopes 

Thomas Gernetzke, FRCI, RRC, RWC, REWC, RBEC, RRO 

Authenticity vs. Stability: Challenges in Restoring the Sun Building 

Charu Chaudhry, LEED AP | Lisa Davey 

Conventional and Nonconventional Repair of Curtain Wall Systems 

Kamran Farahmandpour, FRCI, RRC, RWC, REWC, RBEC, PE, CCS, CCCA 

Horizontal Above-Grade Waterproofing 

Karim P. Allana, RRC, RWC, PE 

How to Evaluate Moisture Durability Issues Due to Air Leakages in Highly Insulated Walls 

Simon Pallin, CEM 

When the Field Performance of Masonry Does Not Correlate With Lab Test Results 

Peter Meijer 

Replacing a Failing Building Enclosure: A Challenging Canadian Case Study 

Lurita McIntosh Blank, REWC, CDT 

Challenges in Preservation Engineering: Restoring a 100-Year-Old Historical Terra Cotta Façade 

Carly Connor | Hannah Thevapalan 

Drones: A New Tool 

William Waterston, RRC, AIA 

Learn Valuable Insights From Leading Experts 

Peer-reviewed presentations provide information valuable 

to anyone involved with designing or maintaining new or 

existing building envelope systems. 

Real-World 

Knowledge 

for Building 

Envelope 

Designers 

Gaylord 

Opryland Resort & 

Convention Center 

www.rci-online.org/symposium.html

The assembly with the lowest 

thermal performance diminishes 

the effectiveness of all 

of the other thermally resistant 

assemblies in a building. 

Focus improvements here first. 

If a building has an R-40 roof, R-18 walls, 

and R-2 windows (pretty normal for many 

aluminum window types), then increasing 

the R-value of the windows from R-2 to 

R-3 will have more impact on the building 

than multiplying the R-value of the roof by 

1,000,000! 

Often, building designers and developers 

quibble over small changes aimed at reducing 

heat loss in buildings. However, many 

are unaware of the effect—or lack thereof— 

that these changes have on the entire building. 

Adding insulation to already reasonably 

high-performance assemblies is nearly 

inconsequential if there are other common 

assemblies in the building with lower thermal 

performance, such as windows. 

In some cases, this is akin to working 

on a car’s flat tire while ignoring that the 

engine has blown up. 

Looking at the big picture can help 

gain some perspective on whole-building 

effects. Here are steps to use to allow basic 

science to lead our logic for selecting building 

envelope assemblies for their thermal 

performance: 

1. Identify a thermal performance target 

for the entire building envelope. 

2. Understand the effective thermal performance 

of each envelope assembly. 

3. Compare their contribution to heat 

loss, thereby highlighting which 

assembly can have the most positive 

impact if improved. 

KEEPING IT SIMPLE – AN ANALOGY OF 

HEAT LOSS 

For a simple analogy, imagine yourself 

on a winter vacation at a mountainside ski 

resort. It’s early morning, you have a beautiful 

room with a balcony, and the morning 

is bright, clear, and cold. Perfect. The sun 

shines off the frost on your balcony and 

off of the snow on roofs of other buildings 

around the resort (Photo 1). 

What an opportunity to ease yourself 

into the day with a hot cup of coffee and a 

bit of cold, crisp, fresh air! Since it’s winter, 

you put your ski jacket on over your housecoat 

before walking out onto your balcony 

with your coffee, and then lean against the 

railing. But something’s wrong; your bare 

feet are getting really cold—really fast! It’s 

not hard to imagine that your below-freezing 

balcony surface is a bit too cold for comfort. 

So you walk back into the room, but 

don’t want to abandon the morning. Round 

two: You add your partner’s ski jacket over 

your own, and also grab your gloves, hat, 

and scarf. This will be twice as warm! 

Back out onto the balcony. 

Still bare feet. 

And the cold balcony forces you back 

inside just as quickly as before. Not surprising. 

Why? The heat that is leaving your body 

through your feet—at an uncomfortably 

fast rate—is not altered by adding clothing 

elsewhere. Perhaps your back or neck now 

lose heat slower as a result of the second 

layer of clothing, but that does nothing for 

your feet. 

Finally, imagine the difference that a little 

pair of slippers would have made, rather than 

the whole second layer of jackets and other 

woolly things. There are some simple physics 

happening here: Adding more insulation to 

one area (your upper body clothing) does not 

reduce the heat flow leaving through a different, 

less-insulated area (your feet). 

Therefore, the only rational thing to do 

to improve the heat loss of a whole body 

(or a whole building) is to target the thermally 

weakest area and improve it at least 

a little bit. This makes simple sense; find 

the assembly that loses heat fastest, and 

improve it to slow this down. 

First, let us illustrate this idea with an 

analogy. 

Photo 1 – Kyber Himalayan Resort & Spa, Gulmarg, India. Photo courtesy of kyberhotels.com. 


A CALCULATION MADE SIMPLE 

Let’s calculate the difference that the 

above approach makes, considering the 

most common assemblies in a building 

enclosure—the roof, the walls, and the 

windows. 

What is the specific question? Here it is, 

with a hypothetical choice built in: 

• If your objective is to improve the 

whole building’s thermal performance, 

and you only have the budget 

to improve one of your three 

assemblies (roof, walls, and windows), 

which one should you focus 

on for the biggest bang-for-yourbuck 

results? 

This is a reasonably simple calculation; 

it’s called an area-weighted average heat 

flow calculation. The idea is to determine 

the rate of heat flow through the whole 

building and what portion of that total is 

caused by each assembly. 

The calculation inputs are the conductance 

of each of the assemblies and the 

percentage area that they represent. You 

could also start with effective thermal resistance 

(R-value eff 

), rather than conductance 

(U-value). You’ll just need to invert the 

R-values to become U-values prior to picking 

up your calculator. 

• Conductance of each whole assembly 

(e.g., #1, 2, and 3) is expressed as: 

— U-value 1 

(U 1 

) 

— U-value 2 

(U 2 

) 

— U-value 3 

(U 3 

) 

• Area covered by 

assembly #1, 

#2, and #3 is 

expressed as a 

fraction of 1 (e.g., 

0.3 = 30% area): 

— Area 1 

(A 1 

) 

— Area 2 

(A 2 

) 

— Area 3 

(A 3 

) 

• For an area-weight 

U-value calculation 

to determine 

a U-value for the 

whole enclosure, 

the equation is: 

(U 1 

•A 1 

) + (U 2 

•A 2 

) 

+ (U 3 

•A 3 

) = U overall 

• Then, to see the 

result as an effective 

R-value: 

1 

U overall = R-value 

For those who understand 

this but would like 

to skip the math, Cascadia 

Windows & Doors has 

published an online areaweight 

R-value/U-value calculator to do 

this exact calculation. Just visit www.cascadiawindows.com, 

click on “Support,” and 

choose the “R-value Calculator”; it’s one of 

the first couple of options. 

Try inputting this case study (with the 

author’s house, seen in Photo 2), prior to 

running your own scenarios: 

Photo 2 – Author’s former house, located in greater Vancouver, 

BC, Canada. 

• For walls, enter R-10 effective and 

assume 40% area. 

• For windows, enter R-2 effective 

(aluminum frames, double glazing), 

and assume 20% area. 

• Add “roofs” as an additional assembly. 

Enter R-20 effective, at 40% area. 

Publish in Interface 

Interface journal is seeking submissions for the following issues. Optimum article size is 2,000 

to 3,000 words, containing five to ten graphics. Articles may serve commercial interests but 

should not promote specific products. Articles on subjects that do not fit any given theme may be 

submitted at any time. 

ISSUE SUBJECT SUBMISSION DEADLINE 

November 2015 Claddings August 14, 2015 

December 2015 Extreme occupancies September 15, 2015 

January 2016 Steep roofs October 15, 2015 

February 2016 Building env. issues (misc.) November 13, 2015 

March 2016 Design issues December 15, 2015 

April 2016 Historical Restoration January 15, 2016 

Submit articles or questions to Executive Editor Kristen Ammerman at 800-828-1902 

or kammerman@rci-online.org. 


Observe the whole-building effective 

R-value. It’s R-6.25 (ft 2 °F hr./BTU). That’s 

not awesome—especially for a wood-frame 

building. Let’s look at the effect of improvements 

to each assembly in turn: 

• Improve walls from R-10 eff 

to R-20 eff 

. 

The net result on whole building: 

increase of R-0.89, to a new total of 

R-7.14 eff 

(14% increase). 

• Alternately, improve roof from 

R-20 eff 

to R-40 eff 

. The net result is an 

increase of R-0.42 eff 

, to a new total of 

R-6.67 eff 


• Alternately, improve windows from 

R-2 eff 

to R-4 eff 

by changing window 

frame material to a low-conductivity 

type (in this example, fiberglass— 

still with double glazing). The net 

result is an increase of R-2.84, to a 

new total of R-9.09 eff 


The dramatic increase with the window 

example occurred simply from changing the 

material type of the frames—not the glazing—for 

the assembly that happened to have 

the least area (20% of building envelope). 

Finally, just for fun, set the windows 

back to the original R-2, and now add roof 

insulation until the thickness would reach 

the moon. (Depending on your estimate, 

put in something like R-one billion!) As 

it turns out, this still only improves your 

whole building’s R-value to R-7.14 eff 

—not 

even a whole R-1 increase over the starting 

point. Why? Because no matter how much 

you insulate one assembly (the roof in this 

case), it does not reduce the rate of heat 

loss from other assemblies (in particular, 

the windows). 

If you’re really cost-conscious, this analysis 

can actually help you—not with the 

goal of determining the best assembly to put 

more money into for better performance— 

but rather, with the goal of determining 

which assembly to improve. This will allow 

you to scale back, avoiding improvements on 

all other assemblies (leave them at code-minimum), 

and to still achieve a net savings! 

Summing it all up: 

1. Understand that the thermally weakest 

assembly leaks heat the fastest. 

2. Identify the effective performance of 

each assembly (R-value eff 

). 

3. Improve the weakest assembly first, 

before spending any time or money 

elsewhere. 

Happy calculating! 

Michael Bousfield 

Michael Bousfield 

is well versed in 

fiberglass window 

and door technology. 

He completed 

the British 

Columbia Institute 

of Technology’s 

architecture and 

building engineering 

technology 

program and 

was awarded its 

BCBEC/BCIT Building Science Award. He 

was employed by RDH Building Engineering 

as a building science technologist, where he 

performed forensic investigations, designed 

rehabilitations, and field review and testing 

for large-scale projects. Since 2009, 

when he joined Cascadia Windows Ltd., he 

has focused on windows, blending marketing 

and technical development, as well as 

speaking, educating, and training. 

www.rci-e-learning.org 

Roof Drainage Design 

Roof System Thermal and 

Moisture Design 

Roofing Basics 

Roofing Technology 

and Science I 

Roofing Technology 

and Science II 

Rooftop Quality Assurance 

Wind Design for 

Low-Slope Roofs - Part I: 

Understanding ASCE 7-05 

Wind Load Calculations for 

Members 


Low-Slope Roofs - Part I: 

Understanding ASCE 7-10 

Wind Load Calculations 

At your own pace, 

on your own time, at your fingertips ... 


Low-Slope Roofs - Part II: FM 

Global Guidelines and Best 

Practice Considerations 

Online Educational Programs 


SeamFree TM PMMA Liquid 

membrane covers the hard-to-reach 

places on roofs. 

JM PMMA SeamFree TM Liquid Membrane, a versatile roofing and flashing system, 

protects roofs from ponding water, UV, chemicals and root penetration, 

ideal for flashings on SBS membrane systems. 

Learn how you can protect your roof now with JM PMMA by visiting us 

at JM.com/roofing.

This article is reprinted from the Proceedings of the 29th RCI International Convention and Trade Show in 2014 in Anaheim, California. 

ABSTRACT 

Historical windows are a key component 

of the fabric and character of a building. 

In many cases, the windows are neglected 

and left to deteriorate. The visible deterioration 

of historical wood and steel window 

systems, along with energy concerns, 

make these windows prime candidates for 

replacement with modern metal or plasticbased 

systems. This article provides architects 

and engineers with an overview of 

the materials and construction methods 

of these historical window systems with a 

primary focus on evaluation and design for 

their restoration. A methodical evaluation, 

condition assessment rating system, and 

repair techniques, including energy-saving 

weatherization techniques, are discussed. 

Renovation and preservation of historical 

structures create many imposing obstacles 

for design professionals. Maintaining 

the structures’ historical fabric and character 

is critical to success, with window restoration 

playing a major role. Consultants 

evaluating window assemblies have to fully 

understand repair techniques used by professional 

window restoration conservators. 

In addition to familiarity with historical 

window constructions and styles of different 

periods, the consultant must comprehend 

the types and origins of wood decay, selective 

wood repair methods, sash stabilization 

techniques, glazing, and hardware restoration 

or replacement to properly and effectively 

evaluate and design the rehabilitation 

of historical windows. This knowledge helps 

to restore the windows in a manner that 

maintains the maximum amount of historical 

significance of the window assembly and 

helps protect against unnecessary and/or 

damaging repairs that might be performed. 

COMPILE ARCHITECTURAL AND 

HISTORICAL INFORMATION 

Confirm purpose and history of windows 

In order to provide and execute an 

appropriate repair and/or restoration plan, 

the original intent and purpose of the windows 

in the structure should be considered. 

For example, long runs of fixed, continuous, 

clerestory windows in a warehouse are 

presumably to provide adequate lighting 

rather than ventilation to the interior spaces. 

Alternatively, casement windows in a 

residential building circa 1920 function as 

an aesthetic element and can provide a relatively 

large amount of fresh air and sunlight 

to the interior. Additional window factors, 

including provisions for views of the outside 

and their contribution to the overall historical 

significance of the building façade, 

should also be considered. 

Establishing the building’s “period of 

significance” is critically important. The 

period of significance is often identified by 

an historical architect or preservationist 

during a study of the building and is then 

incorporated into an historical nomination 

form. It relates to when the building was 

considered important, based on an historic 

event, association with a significant person, 

distinct characteristics of design or construction, 

or its potential to yield important 

information. Depending on the treatment 

selected, all of the building’s remaining historical 

features could be preserved equally, 

even if they are of different vintages; or the 

entire structure could be restored to one 

time period that has been identified to be 

its period of significance. For example, a 

building that was originally constructed in 

the 18th century could have had multiple 

additions and changes in use, leading it to 

incorporate wood windows from the 18th, 

19th, and 20th centuries, all of which may 

be historical. Unless one period of the building 

is identified to be of specific significance, 

the appropriate approach may be to restore 

each of the windows to their specific time 

periods. 

Additional research should be performed 

to determine if some or all of the windows 

have been replaced and just appear to be 

original. In some instances, when buildings 

undergo major renovations during their history, 

the original windows could have been 

completely replaced. If original drawings 

are not available, care should be taken to 

measure and compare muntin, brick mold, 

sash rail, and frame profiles for each window 

throughout the building. Windows that 

look original may not be when compared 

to the other windows in the building that 

may have been salvaged during the major 

renovation. Typically, the slight changes in 


Photos 1 and 2 – An historical photo of the Boston Fire Station, 

Boston, MA (below) and an historical post card of the Beverly City 

Hall, Beverly, MA (left) helped identify the appropriate window 

configurations for these buildings. 

the profiles of the sash rails and muntins 

can differentiate one series of windows from 

another. It is not uncommon to salvage the 

existing window frames and only replace 

the sashes. 

Compile Historical Documentation 

Gather any available drawings, details, 

building elevations, and historical photographs. 

These will assist in determining the 

original configuration and location of the 

windows and if any significant changes or 

alterations have been performed. Sources 

for this information include building owners, 

libraries, local historical societies, preservation 

groups, etc. Useful resources and 

historical data include the following: 

• Original building plans, façade elevations, 

window schedules, and window 

and wall details—any information 

that indicates how the windows 

were designed or constructed 

• Previous reports or photographs that 

document the windows or building 

façade 

• Knowledge of or records of local 

practices or what was normally 

installed by builders at that time 

and in that region 

• Books such as Traditional Building 

Details or historical building codes 

• Architectural guide books to identify 

the style of the building, its vintage, 

and typical associated window styles 

See Photos 1 and 2. 

ESTABLISH DOCUMENTATION SYSTEM 

After compiling the available historical 

data and researching the building’s service 

history, perform a cursory review of the existing 

conditions of the façade and windows. 

This preliminary and limited review will 

allow for a more accurate window assessment 

plan to be established. Performing a 

cursory review 

of the windows 

to determine 

general 

characteristics 

including, 

but not limited 

to, material 

type, configuration, 

operability characteristics, and 

hardware, will help establish and streamline 

the documentation system and improve efficiency 

when performing more rigorous field 

evaluations. 

In addition to the initial review, a unique 

numbering system for each window or rough 

opening should be established. The intent 

of the numbering system is to simplify the 

documentation process and provide accurate 

data collection for each window. It also 

serves as a method to link the various data 

forms (i.e., photos, window elevation, reports, 

checklists, and building elevations) together 

so they can all be accessed through this 

numbering system. Typically, this alphanumeric 

window identification should include 

the single letter representing the referenced 

building’s exterior elevation (i.e., N, S, E, W), 

floor number, and alphabetical window designation 

starting from left to right. For example, 

the window identification number “N3A” 

would indicate the first window from the 

left, on the third floor of the building’s north 

elevation. If multiple buildings were involved, 

the building name or number would precede 

the identification number. This unique numbering 

system should be established prior 

to performing a detailed window survey to 

reduce potential confusion when the field 

notes and information are compiled in the 

office at a later time. 

When using the building’s original architectural 

drawings, we strongly recommend 

comparing them to the building’s existing 

façade prior to developing the numbering 

system. It is not uncommon for windows 

to have been enclosed or altered since the 

building’s original construction. Once the 

actual number of windows is known, then 

the numbering system can be developed, 

and modifications can be noted on copies of 

the elevation drawings for reference in the 

final report. 

Prior to initiating field evaluations, a 

window designation and condition/defect 

checklist for each common window type 

(i.e., wood) should be generated. This list 

may include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• Building name/number 

• Window material type 

• Window designation number 

• Window operability type 

• Window glazing type 

• Window components and characteristics 

• Hardware types 

• Defect codes related to materials 

including wood, glazing putty, paint, 

etc. Defect codes are typically a 

numbered rating system, such as a 

zero to four (0-4), where 0 is “good 

condition” or “no repairs required,” 

and 4 is “major decay and substantial 

replacement parts” or “entire 

window is required.” If the window 

is blocked or concealed in some way, 

then it should be noted that the unit 

is not visible (NV) and could not be 

evaluated. 

• Window elevation sketch to show 


appearance, dimensions, and location 

of defects 

An example of a window defect checklist 

for a wood window is referenced in Figure 1. 

ACCESS METHODS TO EVALUATE 

WINDOWS 

One of the most important aspects 

of performing window assessments is the 

field evaluation. After compiling the existing 

architectural and historical data and 

establishing a documentation system, field 

evaluations are performed. Often, the exteriors 

of windows are not easily accessible due 

to adjacent buildings, site limitations, or 

height restrictions. Due to historical window 

complexities and potentially unique characteristics, 

it is critical to have “hand reach” 

access from the interior and exterior of each 

window to establish accurate restoration 

methods. There are several access methods 

that may be utilized to reach difficult areas: 

• Aerial Lifts – Aerial lifts, which 

generally range in height from 30 

to 150 feet, provide access and an 

observation platform with the ability 

to articulate to precise locations on 

the building façade. Note that flat 

and accessible grounds adjacent to 

the building are required for the use 

of an aerial lift. 

• Swing Staging – Swing staging 

offers a suitable platform for observation 

and testing but is more suitable 

for straight vertical drops with 

a flat building geometry. Roof access 

is required to set up and move 

the swing staging, which can have 

high cost implications and extensive 

down time. 

• Ground Observation – Ground 

observation using high-powered binoculars 

is useful to spot potential 

problematic areas or simply to verify 

or acquire quantities of components. 

High-powered binoculars and 

vantage points—such as adjacent 

buildings or roof levels—will help to 

improve the field data collected. 

• Rope Access – Rope access allows for 

close-up observation of an elevation 

when other access (i.e., aerial lifts 

and swing staging) is too restrictive. 

Rope access must be performed by 

a qualified, properly trained person. 

It is also necessary to provide safety 

tie-offs and anchor points, which can 

be limited on historical facilities. 

Figure 1 – Window defect checklist. 

HISTORICAL WOOD WINDOW 

CONSTRUCTION 

Typically, historical wood windows were 

manufactured using old-growth wood. Oldgrowth 

wood, commonly used until approximately 

60 years ago, is significantly more 

durable than the new-growth wood generally 

used today. Furthermore, the joints of 

historical windows are typically mortise and 

tenon, which is more durable than the com- 


Figure 2 – Anatomy of a double-hung window. 

mon mitered and glued joint used today. 

The material quality of the windows and the 

ability of these windows to be disassembled 

are critical factors to achieve a fully restored 

window, which will result in a reduction of 

air leakage through the window sashes. Air 

leakage is the primary cause of thermal loss 

through an existing wood window, and a 

common complaint of building occupants 

with historical wood windows. 

In general, wood windows consist of a 

sash and frame. For the sake of simplicity, 

the typical components of a double-hung 

wood window will be described below. 

The sash (also known as the operable 

portion of the window) is typically constructed 

of side stiles and rails at the top 

and bottom. The stiles (right/left) and rails 

(top/bottom) frame and secure the glass, 

and are typically joined with a mortise and 

tenon joint with an added fastener in the 

form of a wood peg or wire nail. The sash 

stiles and rails are then rabbeted on the 

exterior face in order to receive glass and 

glazing putty. 

A divided-lite sash is constructed in a 

similar manner with the addition of bars and 

muntins. The rails are mortised in order to 

receive the bars, and 

the muntins are then 

installed between the 

bars. A double-hung 

sash requires meeting 

rails at the top of the 

lower sash and at the 

bottom of the upper 

sash. The meeting 

rails typically have a 

beveled surface that 

fits together when the 

window is closed. For 

ease of operability, 

double-hung windows 

incorporate a parting 

bead, which is a 

pressure-fitted piece 

of wood that sits within 

the frame groove in 

order to separate the 

upper and lower sash 

when opening and 

closing the window. 

The window sash 

is set into the frame 

and held in place with 

the parting bead and 

sash stops. The head 

and jamb section of 

a window frame are 

typically constructed of a sash channel, 

blind stop, and casings. Within this pocket, 

created by these components, are the sash 

weights and chords or chains. The bottom 

rail typically sits over the sill and adjacent 

to the interior stool. Depending on the 

existing wall construction of the building, 

additional decorative trim, molding, and 

casings may be present. Figure 2, taken 

from The Old House Journal, presents the 

typical “anatomy” of a double-hung window. 

Additionally, wood windows come in various 

configurations and operability classifications, 

including, but not limited to, fixed, 

awning, casement, pivots, and project in/ 

out windows. These typical types are represented 

in Figure 3. 

IN-DEPTH FIELD ASSESSMENT 

In order to establish the proper restoration 

techniques, identification and accurate 

documentation of defective components 

are required. As previously noted, the exterior 

and interior conditions of each window 

are documented through a specific evaluation 

process. Certain defective characteristics 

are more suitably determined from 

either the interior or exterior of the window. 

For example, operability should be tested 

from the interior. Ropes and pulleys of wood 

windows are reviewed from the interior once 

exposed in the window pocket. Glazing 

putty conditions are more easily observed 

and assessed from the exterior. 

A typical assessment plan would include 

the following: Every accessible window of 

the building will be evaluated at arm’s 

length on the exterior and interior. Aerial 

lifts, swing staging, or rope access will be 

utilized to evaluate windows above the 

ground level on the exterior. Study team 

members will complete checklists for each 

window by sketching the window elevation, 

measuring the rough opening, sketching 

significant details, noting all window 

characteristics and deficiencies, and taking 

photographic documentation. To maximize 

the data cataloged, it is recommended that 

each checklist, sketch, and other notes be 

completed for the exterior and the interior 

of every window. Photographic documentation 

will include an overall photo of each 

window from the exterior and interior, along 

with any notable defects or characteristics, 

such as brick molds, muntins profiles, wood 

joinery, sash profiles, and hardware. 

Document and detect both interior and 

exterior components for the following: 

Figure 3 – Typical window types. Note that 

these diagrams are to show operability 

types only and do not reflect the typical 

multi-light glazings and decorative muntins 

of historical wood windows. 


• Wood components 

• Hardware 

• Paint 

• Glazing 

• Sealants 

• Operability 

Documentation on field checklist and 

window elevation should contain the following: 

• Defect numerical rating system 

• Defect symbols for repairs (i.e., 

rotted, checked, or cracked wood; 

peeled paint; failed sealant; wood 

gouge; cracked glass) 

In the above-mentioned spreadsheet, 

note that each window component has a 

level of defect “code” pertaining to each 

item. For example, the wood of each parting 

bead may be in satisfactory condition, 

with no splitting or rotting. However, the 

parting bead paint may be missing or failed. 

Therefore, an appropriate restoration technique 

for this particular component would 

likely be to salvage the existing parting 

bead, which will be prepared, primed, and 

painted for reinstallation. 

Glazing putty and paint deterioration 

can be accurately represented as a percentage 

or visually shown on the window elevation 

sketch. Based on the cost of repairs 

and economies of scale, it is considered 

reasonable to assume that a 30% or greater 

failure of a component may warrant complete 

removal and restoration. For example, 

glazing putty that is approximately 50% 

deteriorated is significant enough to call 

for removal and replacement. This will keep 

all glazing putties at similar installation 

periods and help reduce the potential for 

yearly failures as older putties left in place 

start to deteriorate. Replacing all provides 

a more consistent and predictable maintenance 

schedule. 

IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

It is important to note that historical 

windows identified for restoration may 

have received previous repairs or undergone 

repainting campaigns prior to 1978, when 

the use of lead paint became prohibited. 

Therefore, prior to removing the existing 

paint, the material must be sampled and 

tested for lead. Often, a full restoration 

of the existing windows initiates with the 

abatement of the existing lead paint, which 

requires stripping the windows down to 

bare wood. Window sealants and putties 

could also incorporate hazardous materials, 

such as asbestos or polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs), which must also be removed 

prior to any restorations. It is not necessary 

to test for the presence of hazardous materials 

to complete an evaluation. If the primary 

requirement of the evaluation is to just 

note the current condition of the windows, 

then it may not be necessary for hazardous 

material testing at that time. If budgeting 

is part of your report, then testing should 

be performed, since it can significantly 

increase the cost of the restoration, especially 

if PCBs are present. PCBs have been 

known to leach into porous substrates, 

including wood and masonry. Since testing 

for these materials will add cost to the initial 

evaluation, they should be discussed prior 

to arriving on site. It is recommended that 

persons trained in sampling and testing be 

responsible for collecting the materials. 

PLANNING FOR REPAIRS 

Once the condition assessment of the 

windows is complete, the designer is in a 

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, 














Why are we still debating 

the merits of cool roofs? 

Thermoplastic white roofs have proven 

performance in all climates. Bust the myths: 

vinylroofs.org/cool-roofing-myths 


Photo 3 – Epoxy repair of checked 

wood with resin. 

Photo 4 –Dutchman repair of 

wood sash corner. 

position to consider the scope of repairs/ 

rehabilitation. Depending on the goal and 

budget of the project, the scale of repairs 

may vary from stabilization of the windows 

to reduce further deterioration, to wholesale 

restoration of the sashes and frames, to 

thermal upgrades such as the addition of 

weatherstripping or storm windows. The 

levels of repairs for wood windows are best 

classified by “Technical Preservation Brief 

9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows,” 

published by the National Park Service 

(NPS), and are as follows: 

• Routine maintenance 

• Stabilization 

• Splices and parts replacement 

• Energy-efficiency improvements 

through weatherstrippings, interior/ 

exterior storms, and/or double glazing 

REPAIR METHODS 

While many of the wood windows surveyed 

could appear to an untrained eye 

to be in failed condition, the majority of 

the deterioration may be occurring on the 

exterior surfaces and be limited to failed 

sealants, paint coatings, and putties. 

The proper repair of wood windows is an 

involved and intricate process and requires 

a skilled tradesman. Improper materials 

and/or repairs can have a detrimental effect 

on historical window renovations, which 

can reduce, instead of extend, their service 

life. Complete restoration of the windows 

includes the removal of the existing sashes 

and repair of the existing frames in place. At 

the sashes, weatherstripping 

can be 

replaced or added, 

defective muntins 

replaced, damaged 

wood repaired 

and repainted, 

and putties and 

damaged glazing 

units replaced. At 

the frames, parting 

beads and balances can be replaced, 

wood components repaired, weatherstripping 

added, all components repainted, and 

perimeter sealants replaced. If thermal 

upgrades are desired, options—including 

the addition of insulated glazing or a storm 

window—can be considered. All of these 

techniques are further described below. 

One of the most elementary and critical 

steps for the stabilization of the existing 

windows is the maintenance of the paint 

coatings. Failed paint coatings can result in 

damage of the wood components, resulting 

in extensive repairs in order to return the 

systems to proper operation. Proper repainting 

of operable units involves removing the 

existing sashes and painting the frames and 

sashes separately. Painting the sashes while 

they are in place can result in a buildup of 

paint at the frame-to-sash interface, which 

may cause the sashes to be stuck in place 

and the windows to be inoperable. In addition, 

painting would not be able to extend 

within the sash channel, leaving portions of 

the wood sash untreated. Proper painting 

should also consist of scraping off loose or 

chipped paint to limit the buildup of paint 

layers. For components that are removable—such 

as existing sashes—one means 

of removing paint is via infrared heating. 

For components that remain in place, such 

as the frame, chemical strippers are often 

utilized. Both methods are typically used in 

combination with hand-scraping and sanding. 

Note that all paint removal methods 

need to be done in accordance with proper 

lead-abatement procedures if lead-based 

materials have been identified. 

Another key component of window stabilization 

is the replacement of the existing 

window putties. As previously mentioned, 

the putties may be a hazardous material 

and need to be tested prior to the work. If 

the putties are found to contain asbestos 

or lead (from being painted over with leadbased 

paint), abatement of this material is 

required. The replacement of putties both 

weatherizes the windows and allows for 

access to the glazing units to replace any 

cracked glass pieces. Perimeter sealants 

should be replaced in a similar method and 

may also contain lead, asbestos, or PCBs. 


In addition to paint and putty replacement, 

many historical windows may also 

require additional wood repairs. There are 

two main types of wood repairs: epoxy and 

dutchman. 

Epoxy repairs consist of using an epoxy 

resin or paste to fill in cracks, gauges, and 

rot (after removing the existing rotted wood) 

to stabilize the wood. Epoxy repairs are 

often required at sash corners where the 

joinery has failed. Epoxy repairs require 

significant preparation of the existing wood 

and may need several applications of epoxy 

to completely fill the damaged area. Epoxy 

requires time to set, and the repairs need to 

be sculpted and shaved to match the profile 

of the surrounding wood finishes. 

Dutchman repairs involve repairing 

existing areas of rotted or missing wood 

with new wood. Ideally, the new wood 

should match the species of the original 

wood. If the species of the original wood 

cannot be matched, the new wood should 

be mahogany, cedar, or oak in order to be 

as similar as possible to the density of the 

original old-growth wood. With a dutchman 

repair, the area of rotted wood is cut out, 

and the replacement wood (dutchman) cut 

to match the opening. The dutchman is set 

into the opening with a resin. Dutchman 

repairs are most suitable for large-area 

repairs. See Photos 3 and 4. 

Other wood window stabilization repairs 

include replacing broken or missing hardware, 

sash lifts (if present), balances, and— 

in isolated instances—weights. The main 

factor of these repairs is locating appropriate 

materials. For example, the original 

windows are likely to use brass, bronze, and 

steel for hardware. Balances are typically 

supported or connected by rope or metal 

chain and use metal tape pulleys. Most 

historical weights are brass, but steel is 

not unusual. Sometimes these replacement 

materials are difficult to locate and require 

searching in specialty restoration sites or 

salvage yards. 

Once the window has been stabilized, 

its performance can be further improved 

with the addition of weatherstripping to the 

existing frame and/or sash components. 

Weatherstripping can be metal, pile type, 

or neoprene. Sheet metal weatherstripping, 

which is composed of copper or brass, can 

sometimes be found in the original window 

assembly, nailed to the sash along the base 

and at the meeting rail (two joints through 

which air leakage can occur). If in good condition, 

this may be salvageable. If not, it can 

be replaced in kind, or alternative forms of 

weatherstripping can be considered. Other 

commonly used techniques include the 

addition of metal weatherstripping to the 

jamb tracks and integral pile weatherstripping 

set into the sash stops (at the interface 

of the stop and sash). 

While the previously described repairs 

both stabilize and weatherize the existing 

wood windows, there are several options for 

further improvements to the window’s thermal 

performance. The first option, which 

may be considered the most common and 

the least invasive (since it does not alter the 

existing window fabric), is the addition of 

a storm window. A storm window provides 

a second seal, which acts like a secondary 

glazing. The dead space between the window 

and storm increases thermal resistance 

for the assembly and reduces air leakage. 

Furthermore, a low-emissivity (low-e) 

glass storm window will provide additional 

thermal performance to the existing singleglazed 

unit, making it comparable to a 

double-glazed replacement system. Storm 

19 years of vegetated roof experience... 

brought to life in one app. 

American Hydrotech introduces the Garden Roof ® 

Planning Guide iPad ® app – a first-of-its-kind digital 

brochure that helps design professionals take a vegetated 

roof from initial concept to completion. 

Packed with photography, technical information and 

videos, design professionals can explore assembly 

options and components, growing media and vegetation, 

and learn about topics such as design considerations, 

economic and sustainable benefits, installation and 

maintenance, and much more. 

Download your copy today at 

hydrotechusa.com/GRPG 

American Hydrotech, Inc. 

303 East Ohio | Chicago, IL 60611 | 800.877.6125 | www.hydrotechusa.com 

© 2015 Garden Roof is a registered trademark of American Hydrotech, Inc. 


Figure 4 – Wood window restoration details: stabilization repairs at the sash and frame, as well as 

the addition of weatherstripping and exterior storm windows. 

windows can have a metal or wood frame 

(aluminum is most common) and can be 

installed on the exterior or interior of the 

existing window unit. Properly installed 

storm windows are continuously sealed 

around the perimeter with weeps left at 

the bottom to allow air and condensation 

to escape to limit the potential of condensation 

between the window and storm. See 

Figure 4. 

Another means of thermal improvement 

of the sash is replacing the existing single 

glazing with insulated glazing panes. This 

option is partially dependent on the configuration 

of the existing sash—whether the 

current wood is sufficiently thick and durable 

to accommodate the much thicker and 

heavier insulated glazing unit in lieu of the 

original single glazing. For operable sashes, 

the result of the added glass weight will also 

likely require the replacement of the existing 

sash pocket weights to accommodate the 

heavier sashes. 

If the addition of insulated glazing to 

a window is feasible, there are still several 

factors that should be considered from both 

an aesthetic and a performance standpoint. 

From an aesthetic and historical perspective, 

it is important to note that the insulated 

glazing will impact the existing muntin 

profiles and change shadow lines. The other 

main consideration is the amount of thermal 

improvement that can be achieved and 

if alternate means (such as storm windows) 

may provide a more feasible option. 

CONCLUSION 

The restoration of historical wood windows, 

in lieu of replacement, is both the historically 

appropriate and sustainable option 

when repairs or replacement of existing 

window systems are considered. Too often, 

Steven R. Marshall, 

RRC, CDT, LEED AP 

Steven Marshall 

is a senior project 

manager for 

Gale Associates. 

He specializes in 

site investigations, 

design, administration, 

and coordination 

of roof, 

wall, and window 

projects. Marshall 

has extensive 

experience in evaluation, 

repair, and 

replacement of roof, window, curtain wall, 

storefront, door, and masonry wall projects. 

He has been responsible for the management 

of more than 30 historical window 

projects. 

the choice to replace existing wood 

windows is made by those who do 

not have the appropriate qualifications 

to both review the conditions 

of the existing windows and 

understand that these windows 

were constructed of quality materials 

in a manner that facilitates 

their repair. In many instances, 

the apparent conditions of the 

existing wood windows make them 

an easy target for replacement. 

However, the actual defects may 

only be surface-deep and easily 

repaired by the appropriate 

tradesman by restoring the condition 

of the wood components or 

even thermally improving them 

with the addition of weatherstripping, 

storm windows, and/or 

insulated glazing. 

The appropriate repairs and 

upgrades result in a window unit 

that, with minimal maintenance, 1 

can extend the service life of these 

windows by up to 30 to 50 years, 

which would likely exceed the life of new 

metal or vinyl replacements. 

REFERENCES 

1. Typical maintenance for wood windows 

after a wholesale restoration 

would include painting every five to 

ten years and replacement of failed 

sealants and glazing putties. 

Catherine A. 

Matathia, PE, LEED AP 

Catherine Matathia 

is a past project 

engineer for 

Gale Associates. 

She specializes 

in structural engineering 

and building 

envelope evaluations 

and fieldwork 

for building 

projects, including 

investigations, 

analysis, design, 

coordination, specifications, 

and construction administration. 

She has been responsible for the field evaluation 

and assessment of historical wood 

and steel windows at over 30 historical 

buildings at a National Historic Site. This 

includes field drawings of window details 

and “hands-on” assessments of each window 

component. 


» 

» 

»

industry news 

Desjarlais Receives Marty Hastings 

Award 

André Desjarlais (left) receives award from 

CRRC board member Mike Ennis. Photo 

courtesy of CRRC (www.coolroofs.org). 

André Desjarlais, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

was recently awarded the Marty Hastings 

Award by the Cool Roof Rating Council 

(CRRC). Desjarlais has supported and advocated 

for the CRRC for over 13 years, 

offering leadership, research, and expertise 

as an ex-officio member to the board of 

directors since 2002. His work on the CRRC 

Technical Committee has “helped establish 

fair and unbiased standards and policies 

that have allowed the CRRC to expand 

rating opportunities to numerous roofing 

materials,” according to the CRRC. As part 

of the award, the CRRC made a $500 donation 

in Desjarlais’ name to Danny and Ron’s 

Rescue, a dog rescue in South Carolina. 

Schwetz Receives D08 Plaque 

Joe Schwetz, of Sika Sarnafil, received a 

plaque of appreciation from ASTM’s D08 

Committee for his pivotal role in placing 

ASTM E2777, Standard Guide for Vegetative 

(Green) Roof Systems, under the committee’s 

jurisdiction. 

Kingspan Energy Opens U.S. Operation 

Kingspan Group PLC of Ireland has 

launched a U.S. branch of its solar energy 

solutions provider, Kingspan Energy. The 

company installs solar photovoltaic systems 

and is primarily focused on the 150kW to 

5MW market. 

Ed Williams Roof Consultants Merges 

with FCG 

RCI Life Member Ed Williams, RRC, RRO, 

announced the merger of his company, 

Ed Williams Roof Consultants, with 

Facility Consulting Group (FCG) out of 

Asheboro, North Carolina. The new company 

will become FCG dba Ed Williams Roof 

Consultants. Williams will assume the title 

Manager of Southeast Operations for FCG. 

GB Roofing Sales Represents Metal-Era 

GB Roofing Sales is now representing 

Metal-Era in Louisiana. Since its founding 

in 1999, GB Roofing Sales has represented 

several roofing product lines in the state. 

Metal-Era has been involved in the roofing 

edge metal fabrication business for almost 

35 years. 

Kirby Named ARMA Director 

The Asphalt Roofing 

Manufacturers 

Association (ARMA) 

has named James 

R. Kirby, AIA, as 

director of technical 

services. Kirby 

worked previously 

with the Center 

for Environmental 

Innovation in 

James R. Kirby Roofing (CEIR) 

and the National Roofing Contractors 

Association (NRCA). Kirby holds a master’s 

of architecture and a bachelor’s degree 

from the University of Illinois, as well as a 

graduate certificate in sustainable building 

design and construction from Boston 

Architectural College. 

GAF Will Not Build Plant 

GAF has announced that it will no longer 

pursue its plan to build a new asphalt 

shingle manufacturing facility in Moberly, 

Missouri, due to sluggish market conditions 

and unanticipated increase in project and 

operating costs associated with the previously 

planned facility. 

Antis Celebrates a Quarter Century 

Antis Roofing & Waterproofing, a roofing, 

decking, and maintenance solutions company 

that has served more than 1,000 

communities in Orange, Los Angeles, and 

San Bernadino Counties, California, is celebrating 

25 years of service. Antis Roofing & 

Waterproofing has also supported Habitat 

for Humanity of Orange County since 2009, 

donating roofs for every build—half a million 

dollars’ worth. The company is headquartered 

in Irvine. 

Frank Moore Receives D08 Leadership 

Award 

Frank O. Moore Jr., of the Raleigh facility 

of Honeywell International Inc., received 

the ASTM D08 Committee Distinguished 

Leadership Award recently. He was 

acknowledged for 28 years of leadership 

and commitment to the committee and, 

in particular, Subcommittee D08.05 on 

Solvent-Bearing Bituminous Compounds 

for Roofing and Waterproofing, of which he 

was also chair for 21 years. 

Keene Building Products Names 

Regional Manager 

Keene Building Products has hired Richard 

Brand as its new regional manager in the 

Southeast. Brand has 15 years of experience 

in the construction industry as a field 

supervisor and in customer relations, estimating, 

and sales. Prior to joining Keene, 

he worked as a bulk sales representative 

in Alabama and Mississippi. Keene is a 

manufacturer of three-dimensional filament 

products for the building envelope and 

noise control markets. 

Meyers Receives D08 Award of Merit 

Larry Meyers of the Chicago office of Wiss 

Janney Elstner Associates received the 

ASTM International Technical Committee 

D08 on Roofing and Waterproofing Award of 

Merit for outstanding participation in ASTM 

committee activities. Meyers has been a 

D08 member for 25 years, during which 

he provided “strong direction…as an officer 

and subcommittee chairman.” 

To submit an industry news item to Interface, e-mail it to kammerman@rci-online.org or mail it to 

RCI, Interface Journal, 1500 Sunday Drive, Suite 204, Raleigh, NC 27607. 

Note: News must fit journal requirements in order to be published. 


ARMA Names Safety Winners 

The Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers 

Association (ARMA) has named the winners 

of its annual Safety Contest. This year’s 

program recognized 14 manufacturers for 

their achievements in workplace safety and 

low accident incident rates among workers. 

The contest cited 96 individual facilities. 

Top winners were CertainTeed in Shakopee, 

MN; CertainTeed in Wilmington, CA; GAF 

in Minneapolis, MN; and Malarkey Roofing 

Products in Oklahoma City, OK. Other 

top winners across the country included 

the above companies as well as Atlas 

Roofing Corp., Henry Company, Johns 

Manville, Owens Corning, Owens Corning 

(Asphalt), TAMKO Building Products, and 

Tarco. Other companies that demonstrated 

marked improvement were Firestone 

Building Products, IKO Midwest, PABCO 

Roofing Products, and Polyglass USA. 

A D V E R T I S E R S ’ I N D E X 

Advertiser Phone Number Website Page 

American Hydrotech, Inc. ...........(800) 877-6125 ............. hydrotechusa.com................... 35 

Bilco............................................(203) 934-6363...................... bilco.com.......................... 21 

Carlisle Syntec Systems..............(800) 4-SYNTEC.............. carlisle-syntec.com.................. 37 

Chemical Fabric and Film Assoc.....(216) 241-7333........ chemicalfabricsandfilm.com............ 33 

Duro-Last Roofing.......................(800) 248-0280...................duro-last.com...............Cover 3 

Envirospec Incorporated..............(716) 689-8548................envirospecinc.com................... 11 

GAF Materials Corporation..........(800) 555-1852........................gaf.com....................Cover 4 

Johns Manville.....................................................................jm.com/roofing..................... 28 

RM Group, LLC...........................(952) 220-5639.................. sprayrack.com...................... 31 

Roof Monitor................................(844) 492-7646................. roofmonitor.com....................... 3 

Royal Adhesives and Sealants, Inc.. (800) 248-4010...............royaladhesives.com.................. 41 

Seaman Corp...............................(800) 927-8578.................seamancorp.com.................... 17 

Sika Corporation – Roofing..........(800) 576-2358............. usa.sarnafil.sika.com................... 7 

Siplast.........................................(800) 922-8800.....................siplast.com........................ 23 

Situra..........................................(888) 474-8872..................... situra.com..................Cover 2 

Haddock Granted Carl Cash Award for Interface Articles 

Rob Haddock, president of the Metal Roof Advisory Group located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, recently received the 2015 Carl 

G. Cash Award from ASTM International Committee D08 on Roofing and Waterproofing. The nomination was submitted for a series 

of publications authored by Rob Haddock on the performance of metal roofing. Rob Haddock is well known in the roofing industry 

and has written extensively on metal roofing in technical journals, conference proceedings 

(including ASTM STPs), and trade publications. Additionally, he has made presentations at 

numerous roofing and metal industry symposia, trade conventions, and educational programs. 

The seven-part series of publications supporting this nomination is: 

Metal Roofing from Aluminum to Zinc 

• Part I: History and Materials: Interface (May 2004) pp. 33-38 

• Part II: Metallic Coatings for Carbon Steel: Interface (July 2004) pp. 12-19 

• Part III: Paint Finishes for Metal: Interface (October 2004) pp. 31-38 

• Part IV: Induced Finishes for Metal: Interface (June/July 2005) pp. 5-7 

• Part V: Profiles & Profiling Equipment: Interface (May/June 2006) pp. 4-8 

• Part VI: Attachment of Metal Panels: Interface (February 2009) pp. 11-17 

• Part VII: Penetrations and Rooftop Equipment: Interface (August 2012) pp. 

14-17, 19-20 

The series was first published in Metalmag. Publishing in Interface exposed the 

series to a myriad of designers and specifiers who provide consulting services to the 

entire roofing industry, thus disseminating the information therein to many outside 

the metal roofing market. Copies of the individual papers are freely available from 

the RCI Technical Articles Library at http://www.rci-online.org/interface-articles.html (search 

Haddock), and also from http://www.metalconstruction.org/index.php/education/technical-resources. 

Haddock’s series of publications initiated in the early 2000s has significantly contributed to the continued growth, acceptance, 

and understanding of metal roofing for both commercial and residential roofing. One consequence of the series was development of a 

course given at METALCON (the metal construction industry’s annual meeting and trade show). The course is titled “Understanding 

Metal Roofing (or Metal Roofing From Aluminum to Zinc).” In the fall of 2012, a feature article in DesignandBuildwithMetal.com 

described this course as “METALCON’s most popular education session.” 


calendar of events 

AUGUST 

7 Region II Meeting Charlotte, NC 

25-26 Roof Technology & Science I Atlanta, GA 

27-28 Roof Technology & Science II Atlanta, GA 

SEPTEMBER 

17-20 RCI Board of Directors Meeting Orlando, FL 

23-24 Professional Building Consulting Columbus, OH 

25 RRC Review Columbus, OH 

27-30 SMACNA Annual Convention Colorado Springs, CO 

Info: smacna.org 

28-30 Construct 2015 and the CSI St. Louis, MO 

Annual Convention 

OCTOBER 

2 Region I Meeting Baltimore, MD 

6-7 Exterior Walls Technology & Science Houston, TX 

8-9 Stucco & Exterior Finish Houston, TX 

Cladding System 

Delivered by RCI Gulf Coast Chapter 

Info: gcrci.com 

10 REWC Exam Houston, TX 

(Applications Due 7/10/15) 

14-16 Metalcon 2015 Tampa, FL 

Info: metalcon.com 

15-16 Leadership Development Workshop Raleigh, NC 

22-23 Waterproofing Chicago, IL 

Delivered by RCI Chicago Area Chapter 

Info: cac-rci.org 

NOVEMBER 

9-10 Symposium on Building Envelope Nashville, TN 

Technology 

11-13 MRCA Convention & Trade Show Kansas City, MO 

Info: mrca.org 

12-13 Stucco & Exterior Finish Toronto, ON 

Cladding Systems 

Delivered by RCI Ontario Chapter 

Info: www.rci-ontariochapter.ca 

12-13 Metal Roofing Charlotte, NC 

Delivered by RCI Carolinas Chapter 

Info: www.rcicarolinas.org 

19-20 Rooftop Quality Assurance Orlando, FL 

Delivered by RCI Florida Chapter 

Info: www.rciflorida.org 

DECEMBER 

TBD Executive Committee Winter Meeting TBD 

1-2 Rooftop Quality Assurance Boston, MA 

Delivered by RCI New England Chapter 

Info: www.rci-ne.org 

1-2 Roof Technology & Science I San Francisco, CA 

3-4 Roof Technology & Science II San Francisco, CA 

Red print: RCI Education or Registration Opportunity 

Blue print: RCI Leadership Event 

Green print: RCI Region or Chapter Meeting 

Black print: Industry Event 

Calendar subject to change without prior notice. 

Visit www.rci-online.org for schedule updates. 

Scan this QR Code to 

sign up directly for 

events at rci-online.org 

Missing Something? 

Have you read tems lately? 

Check your e-mail inbox* around the 20th of each month. 

*Make sure RCI has your current e-mail address. From the RCI home page (rci-online.org), 

click on the “Member Login” link on the right. To log onto your member account for the first 

time, click “Create Account” in order to create a user name and password. Do not create a new 

account, as members already have existing membership records. Under “Personal,” make sure 

you have not marked “exclude e-mail.” Now relax...it’s coming soon. 


CAMERA-READY LOGOTYPE – UL CLASSIFICATION MARK FOR CANADA AND THE U.S. 

These Marks are registered by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. 

The minimum height of the registered trademark symbol ® shall be 3/64 of an inch. When the overall diameter of the 

UL Mark is less than 3/8 of an inch, the trademark symbol may be omitted if it is not legible to the naked eye. 

The font for all letter forms is Helvetica Condensed Black, except for the trademark symbol ®, which is 

Tired of Hot 

Asphalt? 

Millennium One Step TM and Hurricane Force® Adhesives 

from Royal Offer a Clean Solution 

Nauseating smells, open-flame torching, hot kettles, deafening noise, 

uncomfortable full-body protective wear and all-around messy working 

conditions were once considered all-in-a-day’s work for the average roofer. 

But not anymore! 

With the rapidly rising costs of asphalt, ribbon-applied adhesive solutions 

simply make sense. Royal’s insulation and membrane adhesive systems 

offer clean, odorless, essentially VOC-free, application options that require 

no heat or open flames. The end results are lower insurance costs and fewer 

complaints from building occupants. 

Call your local Royal 

Roofing Products 

Representative for 

more information. 

1-800-248-4010 

www.royaladhesives.com 

www.adcocorp.com 

 

 

NOA: 12-1107.06 

MEMBER 

Innovative Designer and Manufacturer of Adhesives, Sealants and Tapes for the Commercial Roofing Industry 

FM 

APPROVED 

Associate Member

would you look at that! 

The roof deck on 

the addition to 

this elementary 

school was too 

high to properly 

torch the roof 

flashings. 

Solution…? 

…The designer said, 

“Let there be… 

darkness!” 

Submitted by 

James “Chris” MacNeil 

Fishburn/Sheridan & Associates Ltd. 

Ottawa, Ontario 

Readers running across situations that would catch the attention of other building envelope consultants are asked to submit representative photographs 

and a maximum 150-word summary to Kristen Ammerman, Director of Publications, “Would You Look at That!” column, RCI, 1500 Sunday Drive, Suite 204, 

Raleigh, NC 27607; or via e-mail to kammerman@rci-online.org. 

4 2 • I n t e r f a c e J u l y 2 0 1 5

What’s under a 

Duro-Last ® roof is protected 

by what’s behind it. 

It’s called the “World’s Best Roof” ® because of its 

superior performance. And it’s the result of the 

philosophy of our founder, John R. Burt … who 

was driven by the adage: 

“If you want it done right, do it yourself.” 

Our Authorized Duro-Last 

contractors have installed more 

than 2 billion square feet of 

Duro-Last roofing … enough to 

circle the earth over 3 times. 

Our newest addition: the world’s 

most technologically advanced 

high-capacity vinyl extruder. 

To meet the diverse needs of 

owners and contractors, Duro-Last 

has developed a number of new 

products — all backed by the 

world’s best roofing warranty. 

Visit duro-last.com or call 800-248-0280 

“Duro-Last,” and the “World’s Best Roof,” are registered marks owned by 

Duro-Last Roofing, Inc. John R. Burt Story_CI_1.30.15_1

(SINCE 1979) 

©2014 GAF 6/14 

For over 30 years, TOPCOAT ® Liquid-Applied Roofing has been 

providing customized premium coating solutions for commercial 

roofs. Whether you have a metal roof, built-up, modified bitumen, 

TPO, PVC, or EPDM roof…TOPCOAT ® has a coating solution for you. 

TOPCOAT 

® 

L I Q U I D-A P P L IED R O O F I N G 

gaf.com

AUGUST 2015

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?