Document QkQkG6mkVEEneK8VO9NwLdvB5
BIRD INCORPORATED
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT BIR-I008
Memo To: R. C. Maloof - BBP
Subject: BBH HISTORY OF LIGHTWEIGHT MAT SHINGLES
From: V. Roelofs - BBH Date: October 24, 1984
As per your memo of October 10 to Jim Jackson, I have reviewed available test data on lightweight mat shingles. We have never made a controlled study on a commodity shingle lower than 1.8# mat. We did make a Firebird at FW on a 1.45# mat. We have also tested competitors on mats as low as 1.5#. References and summaries are given below, with data tables attached.
#l| . From these .limited samples, it appears that a shingle on ^ 1.8# mat is not significantly lower in physical properties than'a 2.6# mat shingle. A shingle on 1.6# mat is definitely lower- in-physical.properties, more prone to tearing on application, and more.prone to blow-offs.
From the October 11 Technical Meeting, projects are underway to study FW laminated shingles with 2.0, 1.8, and 1.6# mat; plus FO and FK commodity shingles with 1.9# mat, and.FM ply sheet with 1.95# Type IV mat.
Of course, w'eatherability of- these lightweight mat shingles will not be known for several years. We have not yet correlated lab physical or chemical testing with field performance on weathering. Lab physical data is well correlated for application problems and blow-off resistance.
1. May 1983 FM Mill Trial, Report #007-7, 7/15/83, V. Roelofs, Summary presented at management meeting.
A. Total tear for 1.8# mat 11% lower than standard 2.1# mat.
B. Except for Handling Index at 63%, 1.8# mat consistently gives a slightly weaker shingle than the 2.1# mat. The data is an average of 3ix samples across the weight and backcoating range.
BIRD 014326
BBH HISTORY" OF LIGHTWEIGHT MAT SHINGLES October 24, 1984
Page 2
C. All of these samples have physical properties below an FB W/S 80 or F0 F/S. In other words, even though there was not much difference
between 1.8 and 2.1# mat, both samples were below the physical properties of a "good" fiberglass shingle.
2. April 1983 Trial on FM Firelines. Reports #009-85, 6/1/83, R. Jagacki and #007-12, 5/23/83, C. Patenaude.
A. Random samples of 1.8# mat equal in physical properties to 2.0# mat, 13% less total tear than 2.2# mat, 23% less total tear than 2.4# mat.
B. 2.2# mat shingle had the highest Handling Index. In toughness (ASTM Tear) the 1.8# mat and 2.0# shingles were about equal, but well below the 2.2# mat shingles and 2.4# mat shingles.
3. June 1983 Trial on FW Firebird, Report #007-15, 9/20/83, C. Patenaude
A. JM 1.45# mat had 24% less total tear than Bird 2.0# mat.
B. Firebird shingles showed dramatically less . physical properties for 1.45# mat. Both samples passed the BBH U/L Type Class A Burning Brand Test.
C. Wind Tunnel testing confirmed much less toughness, nail pull, and wind resistance for the 1.45# mat Firebird.
4. June 1984 Trial on FK Firescreen, Reports #4026-6, 7/2/84 and #4026-8, 8/7/84, R. Jagocki.
A. Random samples of FK 1.85# and 2.0# mat had equal physical properties.
B. There is no significant difference in physical properties between the FK F/S with 1.85# mat and 2.0# mat.
C. Samples are being exposed on test roofs in Florida and Massachusetts, as well as the test decks in Shreveport.
5. 1983 Competitive Survey - FK & FS, Report #4040-3, 7/26/84, V. Roelofs.
BIRD 014327
BBH HISTORY OF LIGHTWEIGHT MAT SHINGLES October 24, 1984
Page 3
A. Elk Sunseal (3 samples) had 1.5-1.6# mat with
61-64% filler versus FS F/S with 2.0-2.3# mat and, 53-57% filler.
B. Handling Index and toughness (ASTM tear) was much lower for the Elk shingles. Unfortunate ly we do not have Nail Pull data for the Elk samples,
C. It was reported that Elk suffered significant blow-offs of their high filler, light mat products.
6. Rind Tunnel Test, Report #4072-2, 6/7/84, C. Patenaude.
A. In terms of physical tests, the Elk products . were well below a typical FK F/S or FB W/S 80.
B.. 1.6-1.7# mat shingles cannot be as strong in Nail Pull or Toughness (ASTM Tear) as a 1.9-2.2# mat shingle. The Handling Index and Relative Wind Tunnel Failure also show this, but not to, the same degree.
C. In the laminated products, the Elk Prestique II had very poor performance in the Wind Tunnel. A single layer of 1.5-1.6# mat, 64-66% filler Prestique II has about half the toughness (ASTM tear) of a single layer of a typical FK or FW Arch. 80.
7. 1984 FW Competitive Survey, Report #4040-5, 9/26/84,. V. Roelofs.
A. The lightweight mat (1.5-1.7#) shingles from
Celotex had moderate filler, 54-60%. They had
a moderate Handling Index, with a poor ASTM
Tear (Toughness) and Nail Pull. They would
probably have
wind resistance
VR/cm Attachment'
Distribution:
R. J. Carlson J; W. Jackson W. C. Kinsey C. J. Patenaude C. E. Stapley D. R. Suva F. W. Rood
- BBQ - BBH - BRM
- BBH - BRPT - BR - BBP
BIRD 014328
BBH HISIQRY QE LIGHTWEIGHT HAT SHINGLES
IDENTIFICATION
NUMBER UT./SQ.
(Series Dr EH Trial , Average of 6 Saaples, Ut. Hangs 194-243)
(Series A. EH Trial . Average of 6 Saaples, Ht. Range 194-240)
(Series B. EH Trial , Average of 6 Saiples, Ut. Range 193-246)
HAT Z WEIGHT EULER
CALC. HANDLING .INDEX__
NAIL PULL
1.8 51 2.1 51
54 9 56 9
1.8 56 2.1 56
45 8 49 8
1.8 63 2.1 63
46 7 44 7
ASIH IEAR
900 1060
1140 1160
1000 1040
MISCELLANEOUS
EH E/L EH E/L EH E/L EH F/L EH E/L
83-256 83-257 83-259 83-261 83-263
254 274 276 271 283
1.8 41 37 8 1.8 48 42 8 2.0 48 38 9 2.2' 48 51 9 2.4 48 41 9
1340 1660 1540 1860 1920
High Scrub Loss
EU FIREBIRD
83-532
247
EW FIREBIRD
83-533
240
EK E/S
84-407
206
84-406
213
ES E/S (1983 Annual)
Elk Sunseal (1983 Annual)
83-129 83-193 83-194'
83-296 83-297 ' .83-298
218 195 210
200 206 206
1.45
2.0
1.85
2.0
2.3 2.0 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.5
54 (Observed) (Double
1440 Relative Hind Iunnel
25 Thickness) 2580 Eailure - 57 aph
13 (Double)
57 (Observed) (Double
1940 Relative Wind Tunnel
63 Ihickness) 4780 Eailure - 71 aph
27 <[Double)
58 64 (Tape) 16 (Tape) 1040 1 Week. 57 (No Tape) 8 (No tape)
57 (Tape) 14 (Tape) 1230 48 (No Tape) 8 (No Tape)
1 Hcnth
57 63 (Tape) 16 (Tape) 1200 1 Week 58 (No Tape) 9 (No Tape)
56 (Tape) 17 (Tape) 1200 48 (No Tape) 8 (No Tape)
1 Hanth
57 51 (No Iape) 11 53 61 (No Tape) 10 57 48 (Ho Iape) 11
64 49 (No Tape) 61 41 (No Iape) 62 53 (No Tape)
1180 1180 1100
960 . 960 ' 830
HI-52 (Tape) HI-51 (Iape) . HI-49 (Tape)
BIRD 014329
IDENTIFICATION . nuhber
BBH HISTORY DE LIGHTWEIGHT HAT SHIKBLES (Continued)
WI./SQ.
HAI HEIGHI
CALC. % HANDLING FILLER INDEX
NAIL PULL
. Page 2
ASIN TEAR
HISCELLANEQUS
EB i'S
84-111 .
(Hind Tunnel Standard)
224
EK E/S
84-21
221
Elk Sunseal Elk Sunseai
84-234
219
84-235 204
EK Arch 80
83-926
.301
EH'Arch. 80.
83-684
291
Elk Prestique II 84-160
239
84-161
243
84-162
245
2.2 53 75 (Tape) 19 (Tape) 1600 Relative Hind Tunnel
66 (No Tape)
Eailure - 66 aph
average
1.9 53 63 (Tape) 18 (Tape) 1220 Relative Hind Tunnel
59 (No l3pe)
Eailure - 64 ftph
1.6 57 36 (Tape) 14 (Tape) 990 Relative Hind Tunnel
34 (No Tape) 6 (No Tape)
Eailure - 60 aph
1.7 57 42 (Tape) 13 (Tape) 760 Relative Hind Tunnel
41 (No Tape) 7 (No Tape)
Eailure - 51 aph
2.6 59.
20 (Double)
1460 Relative Hind Tunnel' 3080 Eailure ,- 65 aph ' . .(Double)
2.3 5.0
is
(Double)
1640 Relative Hind Tunnel 3340 Eailure - 65 aph (Double)
1.5 '
66
diaestone)
13 (Double)
800 Relative Hind Tunnel 2200 Failure - 43 aph (Double)
1.6 66 (Liaestone)
11 (Double)
- 660 Relative Hind Iunnel 2120 Eailure - 45 aph (Double)
1.6 64 (Liaestone)
13 (Double)
780 Relative Hind Iunnel 1620 Eailure - 53 aph (Double)
Celotex
EA/20 (EH Area)
OR/ca 10/24/84
84-557 . 206
84-558
.200
84-559 ' ' 202
1.7 60 45 (Iape) 12 (No Tape) 1080 38 (No Tape) 8 (No Tape)
2.1 54 52 (Tape) 16 (Tape) 1340 46 (No Iape) .10 (No Tape)
1.5 54 54 (Iape) 14 (Tape) 1200 54 (No Iape) 10 (No Iape)
|
BIRD 014330