Elastomeric Roof Coatings

The Use of Elastomeric Acrylic Roof Coatings to Reduce the Air Conditioning Load of Low-Slope-Roof Buildings

Abstract
In 1991, the Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine published a report titled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming. One mitigation option in their findings was the use of white surfaces to reduce air conditioning use and the urban heat island effect by 25% through planting vegetation and painting roofs white at 50% of U.S. residences. Dow Construction Chemicals has been investigating the use of white acrylic roof coatings to reduce air conditioning demand since 1981. Early bird house experiments conducted by Rohm and Haas Company (now a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company) clearly demonstrated that white elastomeric acrylic coatings could reduce the internal temperature of uninsulated and poorly ventilated buildings significantly. Moreover, these coatings could prolong the life of a roof by protecting the asphalt roofing material below from degradation by heat, sunlight, water and thermal shock. It became readily apparent that the degree of dirt pickup resistance had a dramatic effect on the solar reflective and, ultimately, the air conditioning energy demand.

Simply stated: The longer the roof coating retained its white appearance, the better its effect in reducing the building heat load. To quantify this, a novel laboratory technique was developed to predict the relative dirt pickup of typical reflective coatings. In cooperation with Mississippi Power Company and the University of Southern Mississippi, we conducted a series of comprehensive full-scale studies on actual buildings to quantify the effect of these elastomeric coatings on reducing air conditioning demand. A secondary objective was to determine the energy penalty associated with heating a thermally reflective coated building versus a similar building covered with a conventional black asphalt roof. The study showed that the coating reduced the peak air conditioning energy demand by 25%. The cost of coating and labor could be amortized in approximately two years. The energy penalty was minimal in this study. The then-current (1994) laboratory specifications for acrylic roof coatings and a technique for assessing surface reflectivity and dirt pickup resistance are also documented here.

TECHNICAL PAPER: FIELD STUDY

Excerpts from a presentation by William A. Kirn RRC At the Cool Building and Paving Materials Conference/Workshop July 11-12, 1994 Gaithersburg, MD

Early Reflectivity Experiments

In 1981, our researchers began investigating the potential benefits for solar reflective coatings to increase the albedo of the roofing membrane composite. Early primitive experiments included the use of bird houses roofed with asphalt shingles and coated with reflective elastomeric acrylic roof coatings. Common meat thermometers were inserted into the closed interior, and the inside air temperature was measured as a function of solar radiation. Similarly, although slightly more scientific, an infrared thermometer was used to measure the surface temperature of light and dark surfaced roofing materials. As predicted, white reflective acrylic roof coatings greatly reduced the surface temperatures of roofing membranes and subsequently reduced the air temperature inside the bird houses.

The Bird House Test

Inside Thermometer

White model buildings were made with a black roof and a white roof, then put out in the sun to compare heat development. Outside Conditions: 87F and Sunny
Black Roof 135F 128F 110F 97F

Inside Thermometer

White Roof

Outside Roof Temperature Inside Temperature

University of Southern Mississippi Study1

Based on the encouraging results of these rather simplistic experiments, we participated in a cooperative research project with the University of Southern Mississippi and Mississippi Power Company to quantify the effects of white reflective acrylic roof coatings when applied to actual full-scale roofs. Three similar buildings were constructed in the Hattiesburg campus of the University of Southern Mississippi. Two buildings were of similar design using construction techniques and insulation guidelines prevalent in the 1970s. The third building was constructed using revised and upgraded insulation guidelines from the 1980s, consistent with the Good Cents program espoused by the Mississippi Power Company. This program encouraged the use of increased insulation in the foundation, walls and ceiling, and installation of glass windows and airtight weatherstripping.

Each building was individually heated and cooled with a heat pump. Telemetry data were acquired for outside and inside air temperature, solar radiation, time, inside and outside relative humidity, wind velocity and watt-hours consumed. Data were recorded every 15 minutes for one year the duration of the study. Inside air temperature was kept constant at 24C. Our building (RH-ERC) and the Control building were similarly constructed using minimal insulation. The RH-ERC building was coated with a Rhoplex EC acrylic-based elastomeric roof coating over the smooth surface black asphalt built-up roof. The Mississippi Power Company Good Cents building was heavily insulated, but also was covered with a smooth surface black asphalt builtup roof.
continued on page 3

TECHNICAL PAPER: FIELD STUDY I

continued from page 2

After one year of continuous monitoring, the Rhoplex EC elastomeric acrylic coated building had 21.9% lower energy consumption in the summer compared to the control building. The white coating also reduced the energy demand by 3.99% in the winter. It was originally theorized that black roofs would absorb heat in the winter, and an energy penalty in the winter would be incurred if the roof was coated with a reflective material. The data from this study demonstrate this is not true. The working hypothesis for this result was, since black bodies are more ideal energy radiators, heat absorbed during the winter daylight would be more easily emitted during the nighttime. The financial payback for coating and labor investment provides a payback period of 2.07 years and a return on investment of 48.3%. One additional benefit for coating is the flexibility of application as the coating can be applied at any time during the life of the building. The more heavily insulated Good Cents house had 29.8% lower energy demand in the summer and 42.1% lower demand in the winter. The payback period for this investment was 3.05 years with a return on investment of 32.8%. One serious limitation of the insulation option is it can only be incorporated during construction or major renovation, unlike the more versatile reflective coating.

Building Specifications
Construction Material Ceiling Walls (Concrete Block) Windows Doors Foundation Roof System Building 1 Control R11 4" Batt Fiberglass No Insulation Single Glass Standard Wood Door Standard No Insulation Built-up Building 2 RH-ERC R11 4" Batt Fiberglass No Insulation Single Glass Standard Wood Door Standard No Insulation Built-up w/RHOPLEX EC Coating Building 3 Good Cents R30 10" Batt Fiberglass Perlite R2.85 1.5 Urethane R11.7 Double Glass Tight Fit Metal Insulation Weatherstrip 1.5" Ins. R11.7 Perimeter Built-up

TECHNICAL PAPER: FIELD STUDY

Performance Criteria for Acrylic Reflective Roof Coatings

High albedo roof coatings have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing air conditioning demand and in lowering energy costs. However, in order to function properly, these coatings must demonstrate field performance in severe exposure conditions. Most notably, roofs are structurally dynamic; i.e., they expand and contract as a result of thermally and seismically induced movement. Thus, roof coatings must tolerate these movement dynamics over a wide range of temperature extremes to function satisfactorily. Additionally, they must adhere to the roofing substrate and tolerate possible long-term contact with standing or ponded water. This water may contain microorganisms, which can adversely affect the coating, so mildew and algae resistance are also required. Most notable from a reflectivity standpoint is the need to maintain high infrared and near infrared reflectivity, and dirt pickup and mildew resistance. A reflective roof coating may possess excellent initial albedo properties, but rapidly become dirty and lose its ability to reflect infrared and near infrared radiation. At the time of this study, two coating specifications existed for elastomeric acrylic roof coatings: the Roof Coatings Manufacturers Association #6 and the Southern Florida Building Code Chapter 34 for acrylic maintenance coatings. These specifications listed minimum laboratory requirements necessary to achieve successful

field performance. Unfortunately, neither specification included a test method for dirt pickup resistance, the key property required for high albedo coatings. In 1994, a task group drafted a specification for acrylic roof coatings in D.08 (Roofing). But it did not include a test for dirt pickup resistance. Also, no test method existed for measuring this property (at that time). In the absence of a specification, our researchers employed a simplistic method for determining the dirt pickup resistance of roof coatings. Simply stated: It involved the application of a brown iron oxide pigment to the surface of the coating (or other reflective membrane), wiping lightly with a cloth and measuring the percent whiteness retained versus the unsoiled area using a Gardner Colorgard II Reflectometer. Details of this methodology are found in the Appendix. A second missing requirement for reflective acrylic roof coatings at the time of this study was a measure of the coatings solar reflectance by ASTM E903 or similar test. At the time, properly formulated acrylic coatings using titanium dioxide and zinc oxide pigments could achieve 83% reflectance and no standard existed for this property. Specialty pigments had been identified, such as barium sulfate, ceramic, borosilicate and polytetrafluoroethylene spheres, which were touted as useful for increasing solar reflectance of conventional coatings.2,3

TECHNICAL PAPER: FIELD STUDY

Cost/Benefit of Acrylic Roof Coatings

Several comments made during the Proceedings of the Workshop of Cool Building Materials in February 1994 questioned the investment return for coating a roof with a high albedo coating. This study conclusively demonstrated the investment benefit of reflective roof coatings over modestly insulated structures in warm climates. More recent studies have shown the benefit of these coatings decreases as the ceiling or attic insulation is increased, increasing the payback period. However, these findings do not diminish the value of the coatings as they perform their most important function: to protect and prolong the life of the roof. The coatings ability to protect the roofing membrane from attack by the harmful effects of UV radiation was well documented even in 1994. Studies conducted by our researchers and reported at the Third Symposium on Roofing Research and Standards, sponsored by ASTM, defined the fundamental durability-enhancing mechanism of these coatings when applied over conventional roofing substrates.4 The costs and benefits of elastomeric roof coatings continue to be topics of study. While the energy savings associated with these coatings may be ancillary rather than primary, the coatings do help extend roof life and greatly reduce life cycle costs of the roofing composite. Today, there is a heightened focus on sustainable architecture, which describes buildings that can be easily maintained without removing and replacing major components, such as the roof. This approach is certainly more cost effective for building owners and reduces the amount of material going into landfills. A cool roof clearly can help meet the goals of both cool buildings and sustainable architecture.

Monthly Power Consumption of RH-ERC Building

Date 9-85 10-85 11-85 12-85 1-86 2-86 3-86 4-86 5-86 6-86 7-86 8-86 Control Power 479.35 311.04 134.28 784.65 1,006.60 725.37 349.64 91.64 234.20 634.70 810.07 681.70 6,243.24 RH-ERC Power 395.11 256.95 112.88 760.43 971.98 705.95 329.77 91.64 202.61 529.30 676.19 414.66 5,447.47 Power Savings 84.24 54.09 21.40 24.22 34.62 19.42 19.87 0.00 31.59 105.40 133.88 267.04 795.77 BTU/sq.ft. Savings 1,223 786 311 352 503 282 289 0 459 1,531 1,944 3,878 11,557 Cost Saved ($) 6.91 4.44 1.75 1.99 2.84 1.59 1.63 0.00 2.59 8.64 10.98 21.90 $65.25 Percent Saved (%) 17.57 17.39 15.94 3.09 3.44 2.68 5.68 0.00 13.49 16.61 16.53 39.17

Conclusion
Acrylic reflective roof coatings have proven beneficial in increasing the albedo of buildings. Their cost effectiveness is dependent on building design parameters and location, and the ability of the coating to remain reflective. The coatings ability to function successfully is a composite of its initial reflectivity, dirt pickup resistance, mildew resistance and its ability to maintain its functional properties after years of in-field service.

TECHNICAL PAPER: FIELD STUDY

Appendix

Accelerated Dirt Pickup Resistance Test (Iron Oxide Method)

1 Clean the metal panels with MEK or acetone. 2 Roof coatings are cast at 40 wet mils (one coat) on 9" x 3" aluminum panels. 3 Coated panels are dried at ambient conditions three days prior to testing. 4 Test panels are placed outside in the sunlight for three days. 5 Allow test panels to equilibrate two hours in the CTR (Constant Temperature Room) or (75F/50% RH). 6 Iron oxide slurry* is brushed on one half of each panel, then dried one hour at room temperature. 7 Panels are washed under running lukewarm tap water. Use moderate pressure with a cheesecloth pad to wipe off all excess iron oxide. Use a fresh cheesecloth pad for each sample.

Bibliography
1 2

Building for the Future, Boutwell, C.J., et al., 1987

Technical Issues for the Development of Cool Building Materials, Cool Building Materials Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD, 1994, Berdahl, P. Implementation of Solar-Reflective Surfaces: Materials and Utility Program, Bretz, S., et al., 1992
3

The Effects of Acrylic Maintenance Coatings on Reducing Weathering Deterioration of Asphaltic Roofing Materials, Roofing Research and Standards Development: 3rd Volume, 1994, Antrum, R., et al.
4

8 Allow panels to air dry two hours, then measure % reflectance on tested and nontested portions using Gardner Colorgard II Reflectometer** at 45 angle. 9 Report % reflectance retained with 45 head: dirty side reading x 100% = % reflectance retained clean side reading
*Brown Iron Oxide (Mapico 422, from Columbian Chemical Co.) slurry is 56% iron oxide mechanically mixed until smooth in DI water. **Colorgard II Reflectometer Gardner Neotec Division Pacific Scientific

DowConstructionChemicals.com

Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) or an affiliated company of Dow

Form No. 832-00209-0711 BBI