4th Annual International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering (ACE 2016)
Design Determinant to Structural Performance of
Composite Standing Seam Metal Roof System
Chang-Shiou Wu
General Manager Office
Chien Kuo Construction Co., LTD.
Taipei, Taiwan
AbstractComposite standing seam metal roof system is
gradually widely applied for permanent building due to
its various advantages such as light weight, fast installation
and recyclability. After series of tests and analysis based on
ASTM E1592, some determinants like the additional internal or
external fix element, panel width, panel thickness or halter
form are validated to be effective to the structural
performance against wind load. However, the result from
ASTM E1592 is more conservative than the real situation.
When this standard is applied for the composite standing
seam metal roof system, an additional reduction coefficient or
equation should be considered as well. Otherwise another test
method should be proposed for this type of system.
Keywords-composite standing seam metal roof system;
component; structural performance; wind resistance; wind
pressure
I. INTRODUCTION
Standing seam metal roofing system is used to be applied
as illegal or temporary construction in Taiwan. Due to
its advantages like light weight, fast installation and
recyclability, this system is now widely applied in factories,
gymnasiums or stations, which would be permanent
constructed. When it is considered as a part of permanent
construction, not only the material characteristics of the
metal sheet itself, but the other performances like water-
tightness, fire resistance, thermal insulation, structural
performance etc. should also be taken into account. Different
composite metal roof systems will be designed and
proposed under different functional demands.
Structural performance against wind load is one of
the important performances of metal roof systems. In
order to confirm that this performance is complied with its
designed value, different national and international test
methods could be applied for validation. The difference and
applicable scope between these test methods would be then
analyzed, and one of them is chosen to be the standard test
method for this research. Some key determinants to structural
performance of composite standing seam metal roof system
are validated after tests. Additionally, the difference
between test condition and real installation is analyzed, and
the concept for the transfer from
4th Annual International Conference on
Architecture and Civil Engineering (ACE 2016)
Copyright GSTF 2016
ISSN 2301-394X
doi: 10.5176/2301-394X_ACE16.1
597
Shin-Lan Liu
General Manager Office
Chien Kuo Construction Co., LTD.
Taipei, Taiwan
test result for real situation is later proposed as suggestions
for future research.
II. SUMMARY OF WIDELY APPLIED NATIONAL
ANDINTERNATIONAL TEST METHODS
In this section, different characters and applied scopes
of national and international test methods are clarified
and compared. Although there is no completely
applicable test method for the composite metal roof system,
the test method from ASTM is finally adopted for the
following tests considering the objective of this research.
A. Chinese National Standard(CNS)
There is no corresponding standard test method in
Taiwan for composite metal roof systems according to
Chinese National Standard (CNS). Considering that the
characters of composite metal roof system are partially like the
curtain wall system, this roof system can be regarded as
horizontal curtain wall system in certain circumstances.
Therefore the test method for structural performance of curtain
wall (CNS 13972) 1can be applied. The test methods and
standards for curtain wall in CNS are established using
references from American Architectural Manufacturers
Association (AAMA), American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) and Japanese Industrial Standards
(JIS). 2 This method (CNS 13972) is in accordance with
ASTM E330 3 from American Society for Testing and
Materials, which is also widely recognized. During the test, all
components of composite roof system have to be installed
either horizontally or vertically as shown in Fig. 1 or Fig. 2.
The designed wind load would be applied for
measurements if there is any deformation over permissible
values. Therefore the wind load applied represents the
structural performance of entire roof system against wind load.
1 Cf. CNS 13972, A3367: 2006, Method of test for deformation under wind
pressure of building curtain walls and skylights
2 Cf. Yi-Chung Tsai (2007), p.6
3 Cf. ASTM E330: 2014, Standard Test Method for Structural Performance
of Exterior Windows, Doors, Skylights and Curtain Walls by Uniform Static
Air Pressure Difference
2016 GSTF
 4th Annual International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering (ACE 2016)

The reaction of each element in this system is not a issue

for this test method.

Figure 3. Structure of installation based on ASTM E1592

Figure 1. Horizontal test installation based on CNS 13972
C. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL)
UL was founded in 1894 and is a global
independent institute, which provides series of test methods
to certify or validate the performance of materials and
products.6 To certify the structural performance of roof
system against wind uplift, UL 580 7 and UL 1897 8 are
both applicable test methods. These two methods are not
specific for metal roof system. Both of them are installed as
shown in Fig. 4. The major difference between these two
standards is the applicable scopes. UL 580 is appropriate for
the structural roof panel installed without fixing to a solid
deck 9 , or for evaluating the structural performance
against wind uplift of total roof system consisting of the roof
Figure 2. Vertical test installation based on CNS 13972 deck and roof covering materials that regarded as a whole
system10. UL 1897 is for evaluating the performance of all
B. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) components of roof covering systems to the roof decks.11
During the test, the applied test pressures and their
Beside national standards in Taiwan, the test methods from corresponded deflections would be recorded. The maximum
ASTM are also widely adopted. In ASTM standard, the static pressure applied in UL 1897 is also recorded.
test method form ASTM E1592 can be used to measure
the structural performance of sheet metal roof.4 This test
method can be applied to single-skin construction or one
sheet metal layer of multiple-skin construction, but cannot
determine the load sharing between composite or
5
multiple-layer construction. During the test, only roof panels
and fix halters need to be installed as shown in Fig. 3, and
the deformation and the maximal wind pressure would be
measured. Therefore, the result represents only the structural
performance of single material and its connection. When the
structural performance of outermost layer needs to be
ensured, this test method is appropriate. 6 Cf. UL official website http://ul.com/aboutul/history/
update on 2015.07.28.
7 Cf. UL 580: 2006, Standard for Tests for Uplift Resistance of
Roof Assemblies
8 Cf. UL 1897: 2012, Standard for Uplift Tests for Roof
Covering Systems
9 ATAS International, Inc., Wind Uplift,
http://www.atas.com/ATAS/files/dc/
4 Cf. ASTM E1592: 2012, Standard Test Method for Structural
dca665ac-077e-4795-803b-e2dbe40adce5.pdfp. 1, update on
Performance of Sheet Metal Roof and Siding Systems by Uniform Static
Air Pressure Difference
2015.07.28
5 ASTM E1592: 2012, Standard Test Method for Structural Performance 10 Cf. UL 580: 2006, Standard for Tests for Uplift Resistance
of Sheet Metal Roof and Siding Systems by Uniform Static Air Pressure of Roof Assemblies, p. 4
Difference, p. 1-2 11 ATAS International, Inc., Wind Uplift,
http://www.atas.com/ATAS/files/dc/
dca665ac-077e-4795-803b-e2dbe40adce5.pdfp. 2, update on
2015.07.28

2016 GSTF

598
 4th Annual International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering (ACE 2016)

Figure 5. Component of composite metal roof system

The reaction of each element in the composite roof system

against wind load is complex and difficult to evaluate with
Figure 4. Structure of installation based on UL 580 and UL 1897
only one method. When only the whole system is taken into
The comparisons between these four test methods are account, the performance of roof panel and its connection
listed below.(see Table ) CNS 13972 and UL 580 evaluate may be ignored due to the complementary effect between
the structural performance of entire roof system, while UL substructure and roof covering, and the failure may occur at
1897 emphasizes on the performance of the upper part of roof this weak point. To avoid this situation, the test method ASTM
system and ASTM E1592 focuses only on the single sheet E1592 would be applied to ensure the outermost sheet of
roof can meet the design requirement. During the test,
panel and its connection.
different variables are adopted and the main design
determinants to the structural performance would be finally
TABLE I. COMPARISON BETWEEN CNS, ASTM AND UL TEST concluded.
METHODS
A. Test Result-Halter Span as Variable
Measured value The maximum wind pressures of test samples with different
Test regarding structural
method
Scope Classification
performance against halter spans as variable are listed in Table . When the halter
wind load span is shorter, the increase of the structural performance
Exterior window, against wind load is neither proportional nor obvious.
Entire system of
CNS door, skylight,
building
1. Test pressure Therefore, the halter span should not be the main design
13972 curtain wall and its 2. Deflection determinant to the structural performance against wind load.
envelope
assemblies
Single-skin
Standing seam, TABLE II. COMPARISON BETWEEN CNS, ASTM AND UL TEST
construction, or 1.Test Load
ASTM trapezoidal, ribbed, METHODS
one sheet layer 2. Deflection
E1592 corrugated metal
of multiple-skin 3. Yield point Test No.
panels 1 2 3
construction Variable
Roof deck, Entire roof Halter Span(mm) 1000 500 250
1. Test pressure
attachment to assemblies
UL 580 2. Deflection Maximum Wind
supports, roof (complete 2.3 2.8 3.6
3. Rating Pressure(kPa)
covering materials system)
Attachment of roof
Roof covering
1.Deflection B. Test Result-Additional External Element as Variable
UL 1897 covering systems to 2.Maximum static
roof decks
(half system)
pressure uplift load
In this series of tests, additional metal cap would be
installed at the ribbed joint to fasten the panel and the halter
more strongly. The test result is listed in Table . When there
is an additional external element applied at the connection joint,
III. TEST RESULTS AND DETERMINANT ANALYSIS it improves the entire wind resistance a lot. However, it would
The applied test sample is based on a real also change the appearance of building and need to
construction project. In order to achieve all performances of communicate with architect earlier at design phase.
the building envelope like fire resistance, water-
tightness, thermal insulation and wind load resistance, the TABLE III. TEST RESULT-ADDITIONAL EXTERNAL ELEMENT
composite metal roof system contains a lower deck, ceramic AS VARIABLE
wools, calcium silicate boards, lower rock wools, L-
Test No.
brackets, RHS-tubes, an upper deck, roof membranes, Variable
1 2
aluminum halters, upper rock wools and an aluminum roof
Additional element - Metal Cap
panel. (see Fig. 5) In this project the maximum positive
wind pressure is +1.50kPa; the maximum negative wind Maximum Wind
2.3 5.17
Pressure(kPa)
pressure is -4.00kPa, and the safety coefficient is 2.5.

2016 GSTF

599
 4th Annual International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering (ACE 2016)

C. Test Result-Panel Width as Variable

The test result with different panel widths is listed in Table
. Through the pair comparison it is beneficial to reduce the
panel width for improving the structural performance. When
the sample is installed with 300mm wide panel and the
distance between halters is reduced to 250mm, the maximum
wind pressure is 6.47kPa, which is still too far from the design
request. If the panel width continues to reduce or the amount of
halter continues to increase, it would be economically
unbeneficial and the installation would be more difficult. Thus
other determinants must be evaluated. Figure 6. Detail of hookclip with double L-angles

TABLE IV. TEST RESULT-PANEL WIDTH AS VARIABLE

TABLE VI. TEST RESULT-HALTER FORM AND PANEL FIX
Test No. CONDITION AS VARIABLE
1 2 3 4
Variable Test No.
1 2
Panel Width(mm) 400 300 350 305 Variable

Halter Span(mm) 250 250 500 500 Panel Thickness(mm) 1.0 1.0

Halter Length(mm) 60 60 120 120 Panel Width(mm) 400 400

Maximum Wind Halter Span(mm) 1000 1000

3.6 6.47 2.65 5.8
Pressure(kPa)
Aluminum Halter Hookclip + double
Halter Form
D. Test Result-Panel Thickness as Variable L=60mm L-angles

The test result with different panel thickness is listed in Open End Open End
Panel Fix Condition
No Fix Fix with L-angle
Table . The increase of panel thickness does improve the
wind resistance. To comply with the structural performance of Maximum Wind
2.3 6.49
Pressure(kPa)
design, additional element or determinant like metal cap still
has to be applied. F. Test Result-Internal Fix Element as Variable
Based on the test installed in section E, additional silicones
TABLE V. TEST RESULT-PANEL THICKNESS AS VARIABLE with different lengths and spans are applied at the internal side
Test No. of panels to increase the wind resistance as in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8.
1 2 3 In type 1 silicones are applied perpendicular to the seam
Variable
Panel Thickness(mm) 1.0 1.2 1.2 direction (L=60mm@200mm) and at the top of hook-clip
(L=100mm). In type 2 silicones are applied parallel to the seam
Panel Width(mm) 305 305 305 direction (L=100mm@200mm) and at both side of hook-clip
Halter Span(mm) 500 500 500 (L=50mm). The test result is shown in Table . When there is
additional internal fix element applied, the improvement of
Halter Length(mm) 120 120 120
wind resistance is obvious especially when the silicone applied
Additional Element - - Metal Cap is parallel to the seam direction (type 2).It is because this would
Maximum Wind increase more surface area of adhesion than type 1.
5.8 8.46 14.22
Pressure(kPa)
E. Test Result-Halter Form and Panel Fix Condition as
Variable
The test result with different halter forms and panel
conditions
fix is listed in Table . To improve the wind
resistance, the original aluminum halter is replaced with
stainless steel hook-clip and double L-angles as Fig. 6. The
panel edge is also fixed with L-angle. The entire wind
resistance improves more obviously than the other tests
through the change of these design determinants.

Figure 7. Positions of silicone applied: Type 1

2016 GSTF

600
 4th Annual International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering (ACE 2016)

enlarge the volume V within the chamber. (see Fig. 10)

Equation (1) shows the relation between the air pressure and its
volume.

Figure 8. Positions of silicone applied: Type 2
In this test condition, there is no other material
or substructure installed to restrict its deformation except
TABLE VII. TEST RESULT-INTERNAL FIX ELEMENT AS the halter. The deflection of panel is therefore significant
VARIABLE
and the failure occurs mostly due to the disconnection
Test No.
1 2 3 between the panel and the halter.
Variable
Hookclip + Hookclip + Hookclip +
Halter Form
double L-angles double L-angles double L-angles

Open End Open End

Panel Fix Open End
Fix with L- Fix with L-
Condition Fix with L-angle
angle angle

Type 1 Type 2
Internal Fix
- (test after 5 (test after 150
Element
days) days)

Maximum Wind
6.49 8.41 11.75
Pressure(kPa)

Figure 9. Air pressure before testing

From the series of tests followed with ASTM E1592
above, it shows that the additional external or internal
element, the reduce of panel width, the increase of panel
thickness and the halter form are the effective
determinants to increase wind resistance because the
effect of all filling materials or substructure of roof
system are not taken into account. These determinants affect
either the appearance of building or the structural design
and need to be determined earlier at the design stage.
What can be modified at the construction stage like
increase of the amount of halters or change of edge fix
conditions has only limited contribution to the wind
resistance of the roof panel.
Figure 10. Air pressure during testing
IV. ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE
BETWEEN TEST CONDITION AND REAL When considering the real installation on site, it is rare that
INSTALLATION the metal panel and its halter are the only components of
The installation of specimen followed by ASTM E1592 roof system. Most of time other layers like insulation or
is shown as Fig. 9. To ensure the deformation of the water membrane would also be installed and the whole
specimen reflects the pressure difference on both side of the roof is installed as a composite system. Hence the
panels, the air bag is installed in between. Before the test reaction against pressure difference is different from the
pressure is applied, the original air pressure P0 at both test situation. The whole system is installed as shown in
sides of test chamber is identical and is assumed as 1 Fig. 11. When the roof encounters the positive pressure P1,
atm. When test pressure is applied, the pressure within the the internal volume V1 has to be decreased so the internal
test chamber P1 is larger or less than the pressure outside. pressure P1 is equal to the external pressure P1. (see Fig.
In order to reach the balance, the roof panel has to be 12) When the roof encounters the negative pressure P2,
deformed to reduce or to the internal volume V2 has to be

2016 GSTF

601
 4th Annual International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering (ACE 2016)
increased therefore the internal pressure P2 is equal to the
external pressure P2. (see Fig. 13)
Figure 11. Composite installed roof system
Figure 12. Composite roof system with positive pressure
Figure 13. Composite roof system with negative pressure
However, the deformation of roof panel is unapparent by
real installations. There are two possible explanations. One,
the installation of insulation plays a part of it because it
restricts the room of deformation from the roof panel and the
volume difference V is limited. Another one is the
connected way at each joint of two panels. In this test
condition an air bag is installed to ensure that there is no
pressure leakage in between. Actually, panels are
mechanically fixed with halter and the connected points are
not fully watertight. The wind will flows within the connected
parts and the external wind pressure is approximately equal to
the internal pressure. (See Fig. 14) Because there is no huge
difference of pressure in between, the deformation of roof
panel is thus not necessary.
Figure 14. Wind flow through connected joint
Compared with real installations of roof systems, the
test result from ASTM E1592 is much more conservative
and is appropriate for the single-layer constructed roof
system. When the roof system is constructed with multiple
layers, either the
602
reduced safety coefficient and transfer equation shall
be reconsidered or another test method should also be applied.
V. CONCLUSION
After series of tests and analysis, some results could be
concluded and used as references for further application
of composite metal roof system, both on design stages
and validate stages.
Based on the test results from ASTM E1592, the
factors such as additional internal or external fix element, panel
width, panel thickness and halter form are some effective
design determinants to the structural performance against
wind load for standing seam metal roof panels. The
determinants mentioned above are belong to mostly
architectural and structural design and should be determined
at early stage. At the construction stage, the contractor
could only modify the amount of halters or change the edge
fix condition partially in order not to change the
appearance or the whole structure system.
Additionally, the test result from ASTM E1592 must
be worse than the real condition based on the same roof
system. ASTM E1592 focuses only on the single material
and its connection. Therefore it belongs to the
certification of material performance. The test result is more
conservative and cannot represent the real structural
performance of entire composite metal roof system. If this
test method is applied to validate the structural
performance of roof panel in the multiple-layer
constructed situation, an additional reduction coefficient or
equation should be considered as well, which would need
further research to confirm. Or another test method should be
proposed for the composite metal roof systems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Thanks to the supplier BEMO SYSTEMS GmbH
in Germany and the co-company BOLSTER SYSTEM in
Taiwan. With their support and series of trials, the high
standard of structural performance of composite metal roof
system against wind pressure could finally be achieved.
REFERENCES
[1] Yi-Chung Tsai, Research on the Promotion Policy of the Mock-up Test,
, Taiwan: Architecture and
Building Research Institute, Ministry of the Interior, 2007, pp. 6.
[2] Method of Test for Deformation under Wind Pressure of Building
Curtain Walls and Skylights,
, CNS 13972, A3367-2006.
[3] Standard Test Method for Structural Performance of Exterior Windows,
Doors, Skylights and Curtain Walls by Uniform Static Air Pressure
Difference, ASTM E330-2014.
[4] Standard Test Method for Structural Performance of Sheet Metal Roof
and Siding Systems by Uniform Air Pressure Difference, ASTM
E1592-2012.
[5] Standard for Tests for Uplift Resistance of Roof Assemblies, UL
580-2006.
[6] Standard for Uplift Tests for Roof Covering Systems, UL 1897-2012.
[7] ATAS International, Inc., Wind Uplift [Online]. pp. 1-2. Available:
http://www.atas.com/ATAS/files/dc/dca665ac-077e-4795-803b-
e2dbe40adce5.pdf, update on 2015.07.28
[8] UL Official Website, http://ul.com/aboutul/history/, update on
2015.07.28
2016 GSTF
Copyright of Annual International Conference on Architecture & Civil Engineering is the
property of Global Science & Technology Forum and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.