Disaster Safety Review 2013 Vol. 2

Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety • 2013 • Volume 2

After a devastating tornado ripped through Joplin, Missouri, in May 2011, senior offi-cials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decided there had to be a way to finally break the cycle of destruc-tion that repeatedly plays out across the United States every year.

“The cycle looks like this,” explained Julie Rochman, president and CEO of the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS), “a catastrophe, usually an extreme weather event, strikes a commu-nity. Residents are devastated by the trag-ic loss of life and tremendous amount of property damage,” she continued.

“Local and state officials vow to rebuild the area as quickly as possible so people can return to ‘normal.’ Sadly, this results in rebuilding and repairing structures in the same ways, in the same places that are subject to the same extreme weather events again and again and again.”

“Given that most people are not able to move out of the way to escape Mother Nature’s fury, what else can be done to help communities better withstand the devastating disasters that will continue to plague our nation?” asked Rochman. “If we cannot move structures out of harm’s way, the only alternative is to strengthen them in the face of natural hazards.”

DHS has developed a new program to do just that by helping create safer, stron-ger communities that can withstand the destructive forces of nature. Called Resilience STAR™, the program is mod-eled after the very successful, ubiquitous ENERGY STAR program. In the same way ENERGY STAR assigns a relative rating to appliances that meet certain energy effi-ciency standards, Resilience STAR will as-sign a certain number of stars to homes that meet specific resilience standards.

After two years of thorough vetting, IBHS’ FORTIFIED Home™ (hazard-specific retro-fits) and FORTIFIED for Safer Living® (all-hazard, new construction) standards were selected as the sole construction and building criteria for the Resilience STAR pilot project.

Pilot communities featuring new con-struction and retrofitted homes will be selected on both the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts later this fall. The process was de-layed somewhat by the shutdown of the federal government in early October. Eventually, DHS envisions Resilience STAR designations being applicable to build-ings of all types; during the pilot phase, however, only single-family homes will be eligible for designation.

Upon selecting IBHS’ FORTIFIED standards for the pilot, DHS senior officials said:

The unparalleled value of the IBHS FORTIFIED program is that it includes easy-to-use design guides for homebuilders and third-party evaluators, which are based on the same peer-reviewed, accredited, scientifically sound standards used in FEMA guidance documents. DHS has gathered a wealth of evidence through two years of discussions with subject matter experts and thought leaders in the field of structural resilience, including IBHS, the International Code Council, FEMA, National Institute for Building Sciences, National Institute for Standards and Technology, and Habitat for Humanity, along with actively participating in conferences, symposia, and workshops on structural resilience. The evidence points unambiguously to the conclusion that the FORTIFIED program offers resources that cannot be found in any other resilience programs.

This public-private initiative will demon-strate how DHS can enhance national re-silience by leveraging and integrating ef-forts that already exist. The pilot adds a designation and a licensing scheme to ex-isting industry-tested standards and pro-grams, packaged in a compelling busi-ness case for building resilient homes.

Engineering Resilience: The Resilence Star™ Home Pilot Program

2 Disaster Safety Review | 2013

While the scale of the initial pilot is mod-est, the potential benefits of a successful program would be tremendous. The pilot advances the program by testing the ex-tent to which participants are incentivized to seek designations and by providing a platform for evaluating the Resilience STAR concept as a DHS program.

“In addition to assisting in the devel-opment and implementation of the pi-lot project, IBHS also is actively working with DHS to accelerate and expand cre-ation of significant, non-insurance finan-cial incentives for disaster-resistant build-ings. Incentives tied to mortgages, taxes, building permits, and other financial in-struments are critical to widespread ac-ceptance and adoption of resilient build-ing standards for both new and existing structures,” Rochman emphasized.

This ground-breaking use and promotion of IBHS’ FORTIFIED standards by DHS is unprecedented and comes at a fortuitous time. IBHS will soon publicly announce that it is scaling up the FORTIFIED Home program by partnering with firms that will greatly expand the number of desig-nations that can be made while reducing the amount of time required to do so, and streamlining the entire process.

“IBHS looks forward to the day when many thousands, and ultimately millions of homes around the country are built and retrofitted using resilient standards based on the FORTIFIED construction cri-teria,” said Rochman. “Residents will be able to stay in their homes following ca-tastrophes and make necessary repairs, as opposed to rebuilding the entire house. Businesses will return to normal opera-tions quickly once a storm has passed. Both of these outcomes will help main-tain the local tax base, and communities will no longer be rocked to the core when Mother Nature roars,” Rochman stated. “We could not be prouder to be partner-ing with DHS on this exciting journey.”

Strength isn’t always obvious.

DisasterSafety.org/FORTIFIED

3Disaster Safety Review | 2013

Since its creation in 2000, the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety’s FORTIFIED for Safer Living® program has provided builders and residents with an opportunity to create stronger, more re-silient homes in the face of natural and man-made disasters. The program’s en-gineering-based, code-plus standards for new construction have been em-braced by homeowners and builders in high-risk areas around the country. As the human and financial costs associ-ated with severe weather events have continued to mount during the past decade, attention has focused on how those losses can be reduced.

“Most communities do not have the op-tion of moving out of Mother Nature’s way” said Fred Malik, IBHS FORTIFIED program manager. “As a result, the clear option for most communities is to make themselves more resilient in the face of disasters. The question is how this can be accomplished in an effective, afford-able way. The answer is to build, retro-fit, renovate and repair buildings us-ing FORTIFIED construction standards,” Malik stated.

More than 200 homes have received the FORTIFIED for Safer Living® desig-nation. It is a challenge, however, for a home to meet all standards for every hazard as required by the FORTIFIED for Safer Living® program. Given these steep requirements, coupled with the downturn in the economy and hous-ing market in 2008, IBHS developed a new program based on a single hazard – FORTIFIED Home™ — Hurricane.

“This program quickly exceeded the number of homes designated under the original program, but its growth was impeded because almost every element was handled manually. With

public policymakers, builders, contrac-tors, and homeowners all seeking help in creating safer, stronger homes, IBHS made significant investments to scale up the FORTIFIED Home™ — Hurricane program as the first of several single hazard programs. Specifically, IBHS has invested in new technology partner-ing with top companies in their fields to improve and streamline the desig-nation process, as well as augment the training capabilities of the program,” Malik explained.

The FORTIFIED Home™—Hurricane program – available for both new construction and retrofitting exist-ing homes – includes three levels of designation: bronze, silver and gold. Homeowners can work with builders and contractors to decide which level best suits their budget and resilience requirements. The new web-based platform offers individualized portals for homeowners, evaluators and ad-ministrators; a simple, seamless on-line designation process; and avail-ability from any mobile device. IBHS is completing the final testing of the new evaluation platform and we’ve started training evaluators through the updated FORTIFIED Home Evaluator Certification course.

“By scaling up the FORTIFIED Home™ — Hurricane program and making it avail-able to more homeowners, communi-ties will be stronger and more resilient against the devastating power of hur-ricanes and tropical storms. More lives will be saved, property damage will be reduced, and the amount of govern-ment disaster aid needed following a catastrophic event will be decreased,” said Malik.

Some coastal states, such as Alabama,

Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina, have recognized these benefits and oth-ers of FORTIFIED homes. Each of them has implemented different programs to provide insurance and other financial incentives to lower the cost of a home’s property insurance wind premium and retrofitting expenses if IBHS’ FORTIFIED Home™ building standards are used.

The new, streamlined version of the FORTIFIED Home™ — Hurricane pro-gram will be launched publicly in January 2014.

For more information about IBHS’ FORTIFED programs, visit www.DisasterSafety.org/FORTIFIED.

THE RIGHT PROGRAM AT THE RIGHT TIME


A fairly widely held misperception about building or retrofitting homes to make them more disas-ter-resistant is that it is too costly for most homeowners or builders. The Insurance Institute for

Business & Home Safety (IBHS) recently joined with Habitat for Humanity International and the Travelers Foundation, the charitable division of The Travelers Companies, Inc., to help tangi-

bly demonstrate that affordable housing and wind-resistant construction are not mutually exclusive.

Numerous Habitat homes in the coastal regions of Alabama and Mississippi have been built to IBHS’ FORTIFIED Home™ Hurricane standards as part of this partnership. During the Travelers-IBHS-Habitat project, the Travelers

Foundation provided funds to cover the differential cost required to meet the FORTIFIED Home™ Hurricane standards.

Since these homes were built in states that have mandatory FORTIFIED financial incentives, they will have a lower total cost of ownership.

In addition, these stronger, safer, more hurricane-resistant homes should suffer less property damage, and the disruption to the

homeowners’ lives that can occur in the event of a disaster could be eliminated.

“If we can furnish a family a new home that exceeds codes and is safer for them, we feel like we certainly

should do that,” said Russ Griffith, HFHI construc-tion expert. “A lot of the areas already have good

codes, so the step up to FORTIFIED is not a huge one.”

Griffith says the next phase of the program will extend it to areas along the Atlantic Coast and make the design criteria available to all Habitat affiliate chapters.

“We have enjoyed our relationship with IBHS,” he said. ”I’m looking forward to that partner-ship to continue for years to come.”

BUILDSFORTIFIED


IBHS RESEARCH

C O M P O N E N T M A T E R I A L S E V A L U A T I O N T E S T I N G


The first phase of IBHS research into wind resistance of asphalt shingle products has produced a number of clear takeaways. It also is providing direction for the next phase of re-search as IBHS seeks to improve wind resistance and ensure enhanced per-formance throughout the shingle’s life expectancy. Phase I has focused on three tab shingles because they are widely represented in the mar-ketplace, and existing test methods and rating systems are fairly simple. Researchers have explored a number of issues with these products, since it is possible to focus on the relatively small area of a single exposed shingle tab as opposed to the entire exposed length of an architectural shingle.

Two test methods are currently be-ing used to rate the wind resistance of asphalt shingle products. The older one is ASTM D 3161, and the newer one that is replacing ASTM D 3161 in the International Building Code and

International Residential Code is ASTM

D 7158. ASTM D 3161 is a pass/fail test that involves blowing wind over an inclined deck (2 on 12 slope) covered with shingles for a pe-riod of two hours. This setup is shown in Figure 1. This test is essentially a long-duration evalu-ation of the uplift re-sistance of the shingle seal strip after sealing under minimal heating conditions.

An ASTM D 7158 rating is achieved through a combination of tests. The first test involves determining an ap-propriate uplift coefficient that can be used to calculate a wind uplift load for any desired wind speed. The wind portion of the test is conduct-ed with the same basic apparatus as the ASTM D 3161 test except that the slope of the specimen is reduced to produce a skimming flow (Figure 2) and a turbulence grid is installed at

the outlet of the jet of wind. This is paired with tests that determine the resistance of the shingle sealing strip to uplift for the purpose of calculat-ing a wind speed necessary to over-come that resistance. The resistance is determined using a universal test-ing machine that pulls the connec-tion apart in a relatively short time (minutes) as opposed to applying the wind load for hours in ASTM D 3161. An ”H” rated shingle product, which

C O M P O N E N T M A T E R I A L S E V A L U A T I O N T E S T I N G

FIGURE 1 (full-page): ASTM D 3161 Test Setup using IBHS’ COMET (Component Materials Evaluation Testing) Apparatus

Figure 2. ASTM D 7158 Test Setup using IBHS’ COMET (Component Materials Evaluation Testing) Apparatus


is the highest rating possible, is rated for 150 mph. Shingles that pass ASTM D 3161 with 110 mph winds almost always also receive an “H” rating using ASTM D 7158.

OBSERVATIONS AND TAKEAWAYS

TEST PROTOCOL

• The ASTM D 3161 test, which subjects shingles to 110 mph winds for a period of two hours, represents a severe test, both because of the constraints on the conditioning of the specimens and because it subjects the shingles and the sealants to a two-hour continuous loading.

• Current standards are used to test products pulled from production or inventory at the manufacturing plant. In a way, the conditioning protocol has been designed to reflect “worst case” scenarios for products pulled at the factory. Failure of the product is also simply defined as complete lifting of a shingle tab within the specimen.

• IBHS tests of products included the effects of handling and storage as the shingles moved from the factory to the laboratory. The fact that only one product out of the 11 tested, sealed well enough to pass the ASTM D 3161 test at 110 mph after it was conditioned with temperatures between 135 degrees F and 140 degrees F, as required in the test standards, illustrates the potential sensitivity of the products when conditioning is limited to requirements intended for products pulled at the factory.

• At present, the one-set-of-conditioning-fits-all approach, represented in both the ASTM D 3161 and ASTM D 7158 test standards, does not allow for varying needs that may exist in different climates

with different wind risks. This may lead to unintended consequences. For example, the requirement that specimens be conditioned at temperatures between 135 degrees F and 140 degrees F for a period of 16 hours as a worst case may lead manufacturers to select sealants that have a lower melting point than might be desirable for hot climates where the risks of hurricanes are greatest.

• The newer ASTM D 7158 method for achieving an “H” rated (150 mph rated) shingle is not considered to be as severe a test as subjecting a test panel to an ASTM D 3161 test with winds blowing at 110 mph for two hours.

SHINGLE SEALING

• The sealant strips that are key to keeping the shingle tabs adhered to the shingle below are affected by what happens to the bundles as they pass through the supply chain.

Note how little of the sealant strip was activated at this end of the shingle tab when it was con-ditioned at the conditioning temperature and duration specified in the ASTM standard. It lifted almost immediately as low wind was applied.

Large granules embedded in the adhesive strip prevented this end of the shingle tab from properly sealing at the conditioning temperatures and duration used to prepare the sample – it is possible that it would have never sealed properly and would need hand tabbing to achieve an adequate seal.

© Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety


Most of the effects are detrimental to ensuring robust sealing of the shingle tabs.

• It was invariably difficult to get the shingle tabs to develop a robust seal when the conditioning was limited to the temperature range and exposure time specified for preparing samples to be evaluated using the ASTM D 3161 test.

• More work is needed to ensure that this test protocol produces products that are robust enough to perform their intended function after being subjected to variations that occur as the products progress along the supply chain as well as potential installation imperfections and irregularities that may arise even if the product is installed following the manufacturer’s installation guidance. This should include assessment of likely improvements in initial weak seals that are likely to occur as the shingles are naturally heated to higher temperatures during summer months.

• Large granules embedded in the adhesive strips of some products, fine particles used to keep the shingle ribbon from sticking to rollers in other products and installation issues kept a number of products/samples from developing robust sealing of the entire shingle on a particular test specimen even when the conditioning temperature was increased beyond those specified in ASTM D 3161.

PHYSICAL LIMITS AND REAL-WORLD PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

• When robust seals were produced by conditioning shingles at higher temperatures than specified in the ASTM standards (shingle temperatures that are routinely exceeded during summer months

throughout most of the U.S.) and poor sealing was eliminated for the few shingle tabs that still did not seal well (by surface nailing down the tab along the sealant strip), many of the shingle products were capable of resisting winds in excess of 110 mph for two hours. Several specimens withstood wind speeds, generated using the ASTM D 3161 test method, between 140 and 160 mph for a full two hours.

• Once a robust seal was created, shingle tabs that partially or completely lifted frequently exhibited failures within the shingle itself rather than having the sealant material fail. Some shingles exhibited cracking along the sealant strip where the tip of the shingle tab folded back. These performance observations indicate clear physical limits for these shingles regardless of sealant type, strength or condition. These kinds of limits are not currently recognized in the ASTM performance protocols; but, they would likely be classified as failures in post-event assessments.

• Protocols for verification of shingle sealing and for retrofitting to seal any shingles that remain partially or

completely unsealed after installation on homes and businesses are needed to ensure improved performance of most existing asphalt shingle products in real-world applications.

• Polymer modified asphalt composition shingles may be able to survive sealing failure without damage to the shingle that necessitates replacement. This may be an acceptable alternative to ensuring complete robust seals on all shingles provided the assembly is able to keep water out and products are not damaged as a result of the shingles lifting.

CONCLUSIONEnsuring that the tabs on shingles devel-op robust seals to the tops of shingles be-low and are kept well-sealed throughout the time they are on the roof is critical to enhancing the wind performance of most asphalt composition shingles on the mar-ket today. Durable shingles that can sur-vive loss of seal to the shingle below with-out needing to be replaced, and are part of an assembly that ensures water does not enter the building, may provide an at-tractive alternative to requiring complete sealing of all shingles.

Bubbling of the shingle surface at a high wind speed (130 mph) when wind pressure built up under the shingles. Note the fish mouth lifting of the middle of the shingle at the lower RHS of the specimen where the tab had not sealed well for a distance in the middle.

© Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety


IBHS Business Continuity Planning Tool Aids Community ResilienceAs part of its commitment to building greater community resilience in the face of catastrophes, IBHS has launched a new version of its original Open for Business® program called OFB-EZ™ (Open for Business-EZ). This free business continu-ity toolkit is a web-based program, which gives small business owners the conve-nience of developing and storing their continuity plans in a secure, third-party location.

“We believe small business owners will find the new OFB-EZ online toolkit easy to use, administer and implement. With OFB-EZ, small businesses can follow the same disaster planning and recovery pro-cesses used by larger companies – but without a large company budget,” said Gail Moraton, IBHS’ business resiliency manager.

“Users create a free, password-protected account and develop their plans using the toolkit at their convenience. The pro-gram saves all of the user’s information for easy access at any time and from any location,” explained Moraton.

Small businesses are a critical part of the American economy. More than 50 per-cent of the working population (120 mil-lion individuals) is employed in a small business, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Small businesses are essential to the communities they serve, and play a strong role in helping them recover after a disaster. When local businesses reopen more quickly after a disaster, it ensures that those jobs are available for employ-ees to return to, the goods and services provided by the business are available to the community, and the local tax base is preserved.

Research shows that one in four small businesses forced to close due to a di-saster or more than 24 hours do not re-open. This challenge was spotlighted by Hurricane Sandy last year. The storm neg-atively impacted between 60,000 and 100,000 small businesses, according to the U.S. Chamber Foundation’s Business Civic Leadership Center.

One of the reasons for this significant ef-fect on small businesses may be that small business owners do not have the time or resources to create a continuity plan for recovery after an emergency or disaster.

“When a small business experiences a dis-ruption, whether it is caused by natural, man-made or technological forces, it can be costly, and could result in the business’ permanent closure,” Moraton continued. “OFB-EZ Online uses non-technical lan-guage to help business owners create an effective business continuity plan so they are able to keep their doors open and re-turn to normal operations as quickly as possible.”

The new online version of OFB-EZ is avail-able for all IBHS members to help their small commercial policyholders be pre-pared for disasters, large or small. For more information about OFB-EZ, visit www.DisasterSafety.org/ofb-ez.


The most effective way to mobilize after a disaster is to plan ahead. Taking steps to prevent structural damage and under-taking measures to restore essential busi-ness operations fall within the framework of business continuity planning. This has long-term implications for a community’s economy and vitality as it recovers from an extreme event.

IBHS’ OFB-EZ™ business continuity plan-ning program and other similar programs recognize that an important corporate responsibility is to continue providing goods, services, and jobs following a di-saster. However, to achieve the larger goal of community resilience in preparing for and responding to disasters, businesses must reach beyond their own walls and take a more holistic approach to disas-ter planning.

Damage from a natural disaster is like-ly to affect commercial establishments, homes of employees and community infrastructure. Employees often have to make choices between their employ-ment responsibilities and personal obli-gations in the days or weeks following an extreme event.

One way for businesses to avoid down-time is to help assure that their employ-ees are living in homes that can sur-vive the hazards that pose the greatest threat to their communities. IBHS has several resources on its website to guide

employees in making their homes more disaster-resistant at DisasterSafety.org.

If schools are closed, roads are impass-able, or power is out for a long period of time, employees and customers may be stranded. Businesses should participate in planning and zoning activities to help as-sure that disaster resistance is considered in the construction and maintenance of community infrastructure.

While much of the responsibility for com-munity infrastructure lies with govern-mental entities, experience from a wide range of events makes it clear that par-ticipation by the private sector can help in the planning process. Businesses can

add management expertise, financial ap-titude, and logistical know-how. The re-ward is a community-wide undertaking that can reduce the magnitude or dura-tion of any disruption that would adverse-ly affect businesses and citizens alike.

Disaster planning is a collaborative pro-cess. The faster a community can return to normal operations the better it is for everyone – the local tax bases are pre-served, the amount of government fi-nancial aid is reduced, and local jobs are maintained. Communities that work to-gether and plan how to prepare for and recover from catastrophic events are bet-ter places for people to live and work, and for businesses to survive and thrive.

BUSINESSES — FROM THE SMALL SHOPS ON MAIN STREET TO GLOBAL CONGLOMERATES — PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE IN COMMUNITY RESILIENCE. EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT STRONGER BUSINESSES AND STRONGER COMMUNITIES TRANSLATE INTO STRONGER BOTTOM LINES FOR BOTH THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS.

FEMA Deputy Administrator Richard Serino is shown damaged businesses in Hoboken, New Jersey by Hoboken

Mayor Dawn Zimmer.

Business Continuity Critical to Community Resilience


IBHS ROOF FARMS:EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM AGING

HOW A ROOF FARM ON YOUR CAMPUS CAN REDUCE LOSSESSeveral IBHS closed claims studies have shown that older buildings have higher claim frequencies in a variety of natural disasters. In some cases, this may be due to changes in building codes requiring stronger construction for new buildings. In other instances, it could be due to degradation of building materials or poor maintenance practices for older buildings. Many roofing products are known to degrade over time, with the amount of degradation expected to vary with the local environment. Controlled aging of roofs in various climates coupled with systematic testing for wind and impact resistance will provide needed data to improve vulnerability assessments.

IBHS has initiated a long-term aging program to study performance of aged roofing materials when subjected to high wind or impact tests. Material types, roof pitch, aging lengths, and type of

weathering concerns were prioritized by the Research Advisory Council’s Shingle Roofing Research Task Force, comprised of council members and Lab Founders within the IBHS Residential Committee.

PRIMARY AREAS OF FOCUS

Effect of climate

Length of aging

Directionality of sun exposure

6 x 123-tab asphalt

Architectural asphalt

Control (baseline)5-year

10-year15-year20-year

AGING MATERIAL ROOF SLOPE WEATHERING TYPE

Several IBHS closed claims studies have shown that older buildings have higher claim frequencies in a variety of natural disasters. In some cases, this may be due to changes in building codes requiring stronger construction for new buildings. In other instances, it could be due to degradation of build-ing materials or poor maintenance practices for older buildings. Many roofing products are known to degrade over time, with the amount of degradation expected to vary with the local environment. Controlled aging of roofs in various climates coupled with systematic testing for wind and impact re-sistance will provide needed data to improve vulnerability assessments.

IBHS has initiated a long-term aging program to study performance of aged roofing materials when subjected to high wind or impact tests. Material types, roof pitch, aging lengths, and type of weath-ering concerns were prioritized by the Research Advisory Council’s Shingle Roofing Research Task

Force, comprised of coun-cil members and Lab Founders within the IBHS Residential Committee.

PRIMARY AREAS OF FOCUS

Effect of climate

Length of aging

Directionality of sun exposure

6 x 123-tab asphalt

Architectural asphalt

Control (baseline)5-year

10-year15-year20-year

AGING MATERIAL ROOF SLOPE WEATHERING TYPE


FIVETENFIFTEENTWENTY

ROOF PRODUCTSSELECTED BY:• TYPE• MANUFACTURER• MARKET PREVALENCE• STANDARD TEST RATINGS

The specimens are installed on a post system approximately 3-4 ft. above ground level.

36” x 36” panel for use in UL 2218 test methods.

1x

55” x 66” panels for use in ASTM 3161, ASTM 7158, FM 4473, and IBHS original impact test methods.

2x

The specimens are constructed in a grid

with 8 ft. wide roads between them for ease of access and to

reduce shadows.

IBHS is interested in collaborating with partners who are willing to construct and install duplicate

specimens and similar instrumentation systems at their respective locations.

SCOPE

IBHS ROOF FARMS:EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM WEATHERING

CLIMATES & ELEMENTS

Panels on both exposures

The IBHS Roof Farm project scope was developed to ensure consistent designs and focused variability. Specimens are constructed as a “set.” Each set includes new specimens, as well as those that will age for 5, 10, 15, and 20 years. Each individual specimen includes multiple panels to allow for repetition in testing of various wind and hail test standards, and each features north-facing and south-facing panels to examine differences that may occur due to sun exposure.

Each specimen is 15 ft. x 15 ft. with a simple gable roof, 6/12 pitch, and code-required soffit and ridge ventilation. The roof is enclosed on the sides and bottom to create an enclosed ventilated attic. Specimens will be aged for future wind and impact testing. 2,900 sq. ft. (0.07 acres) is required for a “set” of four roof specimens.


110 mph

120 mph

Advancing Stronger Building CodesIBHS CODE PROPOSALS ADOPTED

A major priority for IBHS is to drive bet-ter roof design, installation, repair and re-placement practices – as well as improv-ing roofing material standards – with the goal of “getting the roof right” across the country. The roof is the first line of de-fense against extreme weather events, and it also is the most vulnerable com-ponent on any building. The best, fast-est path to significantly reducing proper-ty losses is by focusing first on roofs. The Institute made important progress on this front in 2013, with adoption of three roof-related model code proposals by the International Code Council (ICC); all three will be included in the 2015 International Residential Code® (IRC).

All three IBHS proposals address roof cover underlayments or recognize meth-ods for sealing the roof deck – an effec-tive way to reduce interior water damage

when roof cover is damaged or lost. The IBHS proposals:

• clarify the installation and use of certain underlayments that can be used as an effective method for sealing roof decks;

• consolidate underlayment requirements for all roof covering types in one section of the code to make them easier to find; and

• lower the wind speed threshold triggering the enhanced underlayment provisions from 120 mph to 110 mph, so that more areas of the country prone to high winds will be covered by the underlayment requirements.

In other action at the ICC this year, IBHS joined several organizations and individ-uals in opposing a proposal that would have undermined a minimum fire safety requirement in the IRC. The proposal

sought to exclude attic vents from the fire separation requirements of the code, which could have allowed vents to be in-stalled too close to property lines and facilitated the spread of fire between houses.

This is the first three-year IRC amendment cycle during which code proposals based on IBHS Research Center laboratory test-ing were proposed. And we believe that their acceptance signals even more suc-cess in the future as we advocate science-based best practices for residential and commercial construction and retrofitting.

MIDTERM UPDATE TO RATING THE STATES REPORTIBHS released a midterm update to its Rating the States report in August, which reviewed the progress that the 18 most hurricane-prone coastal states along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Coast have made in strengthening their resi-dential building codes, since the original report was released in January 2012. In a positive development, the review con-cluded that half (nine) of the states have acted to improve their codes, and most of the states with strong code systems in place at that time of the original report re-main committed to building safety. These states have updated their codes to the most recent model building codes, and in some instances, passed legislation to fur-ther strengthen code protections. Seven states have taken no action, and two have acted to weaken their code systems.

IBHS plans to issue a new report in 2015, which will revise the rating for each state based on actions taken since the original report. To review the Rating the States Midterm Update, visit www.disastersafety.org/building_codes/rating-the-states_ibhs.

All threeIBHS proposals address roofingissues


Disaster Safety Review 2013 Vol. 2

Documents

ibhs fortified standards

specific resilience

resilience star designations

resilience star pilot

ibhs fortified program

way energy star

new construction standards

sound standards