Structural attachments and substrate assessment
Why a tested roof-edge system still depends on its nailer and anchors, how wood density, moisture and fastener type change what a nailer holds, and a designer workflow from tested system to anchored nailer, with the defects to look for.
4 lessons · about 51 min · 12 diagrams · 3 videos
Version 1.0.0
Builds on these modules
Related Academy lessons
Lessons
0 of 4 complete
Lesson 1 · 11 min · 10 slides · 8 questions
Structural attachments and substrate assessment: principles and terminology
Why a tested edge system still depends on its nailer and anchors, what the ES-1 test does and does not cover, the words designers use for the substrate, and who designs which link.
You will be able to: Name the links in a roof-edge attachment chain, tell what an ES-1 test covers from what it leaves to the engineer of record, define substrate, nailer, pull-out and pull-through, and state the safety boundaries of assessing a roof edge.
Not startedStart →Lesson 2 · 14 min · 12 slides · 11 questions
Structural attachments and substrate assessment: materials, standards and design constraints
The IBC and SPRI path by edition, the wood properties that set withdrawal resistance, treated wood and fastener metals, and why masonry anchor capacity is product-specific data.
You will be able to: Name the code path and standards that govern roof-edge attachment by edition, explain how wood density, moisture, grain and fastener type change what a nailer holds, choose fastener metals for treated wood, and read a masonry anchor evaluation report.
Not startedStart →Lesson 3 · 13 min · 11 slides · 9 questions
Structural attachments and substrate assessment: methods and worked application
A designer workflow for roof-edge attachment, two worked calculations with every input sourced, how the nailer and edge are installed and anchored, and how to read an existing nailer and a submittal.
You will be able to: Follow a documented seven-step workflow from a tested edge system to an anchored nailer, turn a published pressure into a force per foot, work out anchor demand from the ED-1 floor, and review a submittal against the tested assembly.
Not startedStart →Lesson 4 · 13 min · 12 slides · 10 questions
Structural attachments and substrate assessment: defects, verification and case study
Eight designer-level defects from a rating on the wrong substrate to loads nobody counted, a fictional coping case worked from evidence to corrective options, and the record to file.
You will be able to: Diagnose the common attachment and substrate defects at a roof edge, explain a corrective option for each, and assemble the evidence record an engineer or reviewer can check.
Not startedStart →
Practical task
Produce a substrate assessment packet for one roof edge, real or invented: name the edge system and its published test value, record what the documents say and do not say about the tested substrate, specify the nailer, set out the anchor demand, and list the checks for the roof and for the submittal.
Hand in
- A decision rationale: the edge system chosen, the published value and whose it is, the cleat gauge it depends on, and the edition of the code and of SPRI ED-1 the project follows
- A marked-up section of the parapet or edge showing the cover, cleat, nailer or nailers, anchors and substrate, with the links an ES-1 test covers bracketed apart from those the engineer of record designs
- An assumptions sheet with units: wood species and specific gravity, nailer thickness, anchor spacing, load per foot and any added loads, each labelled as from a source, from the engineer or assumed
- A worked calculation: the published pressure turned into a force per foot (F = R x H x 1 ft) and the demand per anchor at two spacings, with every input sourced
- A defect analysis: three of the defects from the lesson that could occur on this edge, how each would be found, and the corrective option
Rubric
| Criterion | Meets the standard when |
|---|---|
| Source and ownership of values | Every value is labelled as a manufacturer value, a standard, a source figure or an assumption, and none is presented as an AFS test result. |
| Tested substrate | The packet records what the documents say about the tested substrate, and where they are silent it asks for the report instead of assuming. |
| Load path | The section shows each link from cover to structure and marks which links an ES-1 test covers and which the engineer of record designs. |
| Calculations | Units are carried, the ED-1 figure is used as a floor with the design load governing if higher, and no per-fastener load is invented from a pressure. |
| Substrate assessment | Wood species, moisture, treatment and fastener metal are checked together, and existing nailers on a re-roof are exposed and inspected. |
| Safety | The packet names fall protection at the roof edge, dust control when drilling masonry, and the limits on powder-actuated fasteners. |