Document 2R15RON8RQJqrbOD9p8zqMnj5
*
cc: Mr. Arnold Mr. Wood
-BBT -BBP
Mr. Clark
-BBQ
V
Mr. Sutton
-BBH
Mr. Marsh
-MK
w'
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS REPORT Mr. Price
-PKL
__ -88H-
Corporate Technical Center Bird & Son, Inc.
006 Project No..
Report No.. Written by C.J.Patenaude
Date Sept. 24, 1981
Project Title WORK ON ROOFING REQUIREMENTS
Subject:
Architect 80 Shingle
Object: Conclusion:
To compare the fire resistance of the Architect 80 Shingle surfaced with #9 white granules with those surfaced with #11 white granules from the July 1981 FK Architect 80 mill trial.
1. Bird & Son now has Class A approval from Underwriters' Laboratories to produce the Architect 80 shingle with #9 granules.
2. A similar laminated shingle surfaced with #11 white granules failed the U/L Class A sprea'd-of-flame test.
Results:
1. The apparent reason for the Architect 80 shingle surfaced with #11 white granules to just barely fail the U.L. Class A spread-of-flame test with a flame'spread of 6-1/2 feet was probably due to the low filler content present in the second asphalt coating of the #2 component. Shingle analysis indicates that the first coating contained 55% FKW dust while the second coating contained 50% rock dust. ir. the case of the #1 component, the asphalt coating was loaded with almost 52% to 54% rock dust. If the Architect 80 shingle is surfaced with #11 granules, it appears at this time that the asphalt coating should contain at least 55% FKW dust to increase our chances of passing the U/L fire test.
BIRD 013835
SEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS REPORT Project No. 006
Page___ 2
Report No.
2. The laminated glass shingle surfaced with #9 white granules which passed the U.L. Class A spread-of-flame with a flame spread of 5-1/2 feet had a coating that was filled with 53% to 55% FKW dust. Logically, it would appear that slightly less rock dust was needed for the Architect 80 shingle surfaced with #9 granules to pass this fire test.
Recommendation:
Bird & Son should continue with its plan to obtain U/L Class A approval at FK to produce the Architect 80 shingle surfaced with #11 white granules. A filler loading of 55% rock dust or more in the asphalt coating is man
datory.
Discussion:
The Fk Architect 80 mill trial produced acceptable shingle components that were produced under U/L supervision. The components were laminated into the Architect 80 shingle and forwarded to Underwriters' Laboratories located at Northbrook, Illinois for Class A fire tests. Also, samples of both types of Architect 80 shingles were sent to BBH for fire tests and shingle analysis.
Mr. Clark (BBQ) witnessed the Class A spread-of-flame test run on these shingles. The laminated shingle surfaced with #9 white granules passed their fire test. It exhibited a flame spread of 5-1/4 feet and 5-1/2 feet. The laminated shingles surfaced with #11 white granules failed the U.L. fire test. The flame spread was 6-1/2 feet. The maximum spread-offlame allowed by U.L. for a Class A label is 6 feet.
Samples of both types, of Architect 80 shingles were tested for their fire resistance to a Class A burning brand. The procedure followed is described in U.L. 790, "Standard for Tests for Fire Resistance of Roof Covering Materi als". The shingle surfaced with #9 white granules showed good resistance to the Class A burning brand on 1/2 inch thick plywood. The flame spread was 9 inches up from the burnt brand area. However, a similar shingle but surfaced with #11 whi-te granules exhibited excessive flame spread from the burning brand. The burnt area extended beyond the edge of the test deck, over 22 inches. Even though both shingles passed the burning brand test, the best performance was obtained with those shingles surfaced with #9 white granules.
A second fire test was run which is the BBH small scale spread-of-flame test. The results indicate that the laminated shingle surfaced with #9 white granules was marginally more fire resistant than those surfaced with #11 white granules. Testing a competitive laminated shingle surfaced with #11 granules, the GAF Glass Timberline shingle from Fontana, California, we found this shingle to demonstrate outstanding fire resistance. It had the lowest spread-of-flame and the lowest coating flow. The asphalt quickly forms a protective crust. Analysis of this particular shingle showed its coating to contain 56.8% rock dust on the face but only 43.6% in the glass mat. GAF impregnates their
BIRD 013836
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS REPORT
3
Project No.
Report No.
glass mat with a slightly lower filled asphalt followed by coating with a higher filled asphalt that is surfaced with #11 granules. The weight of this product is about 300 lbs./square.
The Architect 80 shingle surfaced with #9 white granules weighed 323 lbs./sq. The components were made with a GAF glass mat that was coated with a single application of filled asphalt. The loading level of the asphalt coating for the #1 component and #2 component was 53% and 55%, respectively.
The Architect 80 shingle surfaced with #11 white granules weighed 321 lbs./ square. The components were made with a GAF glass mat that was coated with a single application of filled asphalt in the case of the #1 component. A double coating was applied to the #2 component. The loading level of the
asphalt coating for the #1 component was 52% to 54%-. But for the #2 component, its first coating contained 55% FKW dust while its second coating contained only 50% FKW dust.
Shingle data and fire test results are summarized in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
References:
Jagocki, R. F.,
Progress Report, 009, 25 dated Aug. 10, 1981, entitled "To Analyze Competitive Glass Shingles by Standard Laboratory Procedures to see how they compare to Bird Glass Shingles".
Patenaude, C. J. Lab Notebook, BBH 384, pp. 14-18 BBH 387, pp. 1-9
Sutton, K.,
Mono dated 6/25/81, "FK Architect 80 Mill Trial (7/6/81)"
Sutton, K.,
Memo dated 7/23/81, "FK Architect 80 Mill Trial, July 1981"
CJP/ac Attach.
TABLE 1
Shingle Analysis ,BBH Class A Burning Brand Fire Test, and U.L. Class A fire Test run
at Northbrook, Illinois
#1 Component
Wt. of exposed portion, #9 granules Wt. of back ctg. & fack surfacing Filler Content, coating Scrub loss
#2 Component
Wt. of exposed portion, #9 granules Wt. of back ctg. & back surfacing Filler content, coating Scrub loss
;||j|>urce of glass mat t$t. of G A F mat
Asphalt S.P. Pen 77F Pliability @ 32F
Shingle net weight
U.L. Class A spread-of-flame
Class A Burning Brand tests on 1/2" thick plywood
Architect 80 Shingle, FK #9 White Granules July, 1981
95.4 lbs/100 ft2 8.9 " " " 53% 0.4 g
97.9 lbs/100 ft2
13.1 " H " 55% 0.4 g
G A F Corp. ? 2.1 lbs/100 ft Exxon Catalyzed 0.225SS 215F
18 165 angle of bend
323 Ibs/square
Passed test (5-1/4 ft., 5-1/2 ft.)
Passed Test
(Spread-of flame
9")
(Length of coating flow 6-1/2")
(Depth of char
1/4")
BIRD 013838
Page 2
TABLE 1 - Cont.
Siring!e Analysis, BBH Class A Burning Brand Fire Test, and U.L. Class A fire test run
at Northbrook, Illinois
#1 Component
Wt. of exposed portion, #11 granules Wt. of back ctg. & back surfacing Filler content, coating Scrub loss
#2 Component
Wt. of exposed portion, double coated and surfaced with #11 granules igpt. of back coating & back surfacing ^Tiller content, first coating Filler content, second coating Scrub loss
Source of glass mat Wt. of G A F mat Asphalt S.P. Pen'@ 77F Pliability <? 32F U.L. Class A spread-of-flame
Class A Burning Brand tested on 1/2" thick plywood
Architect 80 Shingle, FK #11 White Granules July, 1981
86.5 lbs/100 ft^ 15.1 " " " 52% to 54% 0.4 g
127.3 lbs/100 ft? 11.1 lbs/100 ft*
55% 50%
0.6 g
G A F Corp. 2.1 lbs/100 ft* Exxon Catalyzed 0.225% 215F
18 165 angle of bend Failed test (6-1/2 ft., 6-1/2 ft.)
Passed test (Spread-of-flame over 22") (Length of coating flow 9") (Depth of char 3/8")
BIRD 013839
Page 3
TABLE 1 - Cont.
Shingle Analysis, BBH Class A Burning Brand Fire Test, and U, L. Class A fire test run
at Northbrook, Illinois
#1 Component
Wt. of base, #11 granules Wt. of thick butt, #11 granules
Wt. of back ctg. & back surfacing Filler content, base coating
overlay coating
#2 Component
Wt. of exposed portion, #11 granules Wt. of back ctg. & back surfacing ^g^pller content, coating
Source of glass mat Wt. of Flintkote mat
Asphalt S.P. Pen <? 77F
Shingle net wt.
c
U.L. Class A spread-of flame
Architect 80 shingle, FK Oakwood, FK
March 19-29, 1980
64.4 lbs/100 ft2
116.3 " 6.3 "
49.-8% 50.3%
" "
" "
98.3 lbs/100 ft2
13 "
"
49,3%
FIintkote
-
2.0 lbs/100 ft*
Exxon catalyzed 0.15%
233F
15
279 Ibs/sq.
Failed test (4 minutes over 6 ft. flame spread)
S'
BIRD 013840
Laboratory Spread-Of-Flame Test Failed U.L. Class A Spread-
o f-F l ame
C TcOOJu 5 a
OX
OCL
in
oO
CO
ax
p
c
o
ax
3iin-
o
ax.
a;
co
ra o>
c
1f/7
3
<inU <in11 OO *03-
*-- o u
*o P r- tn (G S fmm r-
OX {-OH* (0 O
ro tn P <11 <U m 07 a -a <ZJ xx a> r- 0) CL -pi tn *r~ -p W s i-- 3 CD CM JO E r*-- tn r-- X O E P s P o U. LtD tn 3 OX 4O P X .0 00 <0 r t/i r
to z: to vo
1I 1
l
m ax Q) ,---
a cl
__ Jr E XJ 3
ax co co 0) CL= OX to t* i--
ax O) *0 -X c OX 'p* r" 2l - 3: = to
P r-- O Cl.
C o r* P rC 07 1--i
in C <17 i- -C
EO c
O *r
CM
r-- 1
00
in 0) -r- JZ
BO c
CO *r-
CM
-- 1
07
0tn7
T- JZ Eo
c
LO -r-
07
fM |
07
t 07
00 07
CM "v. fmmm
1 07
CM r--
| 07
CM
07I
if! c ax r- j
EO c *r-
<3* CO CO
tn
c ax r- JZ
BO c
CO -r-
07
tn c a;
B Or JO c CM i-
tn r- a) E J=
o --
*r*
CM \ r"
1 00
07
c tn
x: <p
3: ax
p p o -c 07 to f-- u
o IL C
a> cj tp
to r-- j--
|
CM CM'
I 00 CO
I 07
7
CM
00 00I
07
00
00
CM Ii d-
i 00
00
07 t
07 tn *" S T3 a; 07 v- o E ax p r-- O r- CO to LL. o *-- o ax
o CO
ax r-- Q. E ra CO
o r---
t
X?
td
ax
^ p CL
u_ . to
:d 0)
O oo
*a O
T3
<
e
03
o ax tn i-- JC 3f r-- tn Li
U ra i 5- <0 <d f-- tf-
<t O U- O o
CO CM
<P 1-- *-- tn * E ra tn ax o o ra S-
rar-- *f" tp
CD r-- f.
u_ ax ra -O 5 p
CEoc r-- S- o
aha li.
o CM
1
XraJ
ax .
-J CL
to
di t/i D
ax
o p ax <
00 i" i-- XX
ra
JZ 3 ax tn r--
3 C tn in li
o ra tn ra i S-Ol L ra i-- H--
=c =n= C3 0.0 o
in r--
ax
p
O *ico x:
3 U p-- L. i-- cC =tfc
BIRD 013841
3 WM 1 1-3
LC _
L'
! ..............-.:
' .
S ' ' !
i t
- i- -'-I........... ' ---- OH " 7-----1 --
00 i
.? 1 : ;
- j
____ _*>i______ ^
; - j- '
......... i
: -jh- - 1
-Q h
BIRD 013842
BIRD 013843