Session & Speaker Details

Knowledge Level: Intermediate (5–15 years)
Session Topic: BECx
Session Subtopics: Case Studies (CST), Codes & Standards (CS), Moisture/Thermal Analyses (MTA)
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH.
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge:

• Basic comprehension of prevailing building enclosure code requirements under IECC and ASHRAE 90.1.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Explain the new thermal bridging derating requirements found in ASHRAE 90.1 2022/IECC 2024 and their implications for state level energy code compliance.
• Compare the new thermal‑bridging requirements with legacy detailing practices, demonstrating how previously-acceptable interface conditions no longer satisfy prescriptive or baseline energy code requirements. 
• Develop practical strategies for compliance, including detail review, modeling approaches, and whole building enclosure testing workflows that reduce risk and improve project performance.
• Through exploration of real project case studies, explain how design teams can revise enclosure details to meet the new thermal bridging compliance thresholds.

Description
ASHRAE 90.1-2022 introduces the most consequential changes to building enclosure performance requirements in more than a decade. The expanded mandate of factoring thermal bridging risks alongside whole building air leakage testing pathways represents a fundamental shift toward quantifiable, enclosure driven energy compliance down to the architectural detail.  Unlike voluntary programs such as Passive House or ordinances like NYCECC or 2017 DCECC, which address thermal‑bridge derating at the municipal level, the new ASHRAE90.1-2022 framework embeds thermal performance metrics directly into the enforceable code structure at the state level, nationwide. This elevates high performance enclosure objectives from a design aspiration to a regulated requirement affecting detailing, specification, and energy modeling workflows. For practitioners, the transition presents both challenges—ranging from coordination of thermal break strategies in conventional enclosure assemblies, to the integration of derating assessment into project design and delivery schedules—and significant opportunities to improve enclosure reliability and enclosure thermal integrity. This presentation overviews technical implications of 90.1 2022 for building enclosure consultants, architects, engineers, and commissioning providers, clarifies compliance pathways, and proposes practical strategies for embedding thermal bridging evaluation and enclosure testing into standard design and construction project delivery.
 

Knowledge Level: Advanced (15+ years)
Session Topic: EW
Session Subtopics: CS, FI, RS
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH.

Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge:

• A basic understanding of how masonry facades are constructed, how they age, and common signs of distress. Some familiarity with historic versus modern materials, general facade inspection methods, and the basics of building code considerations for existing structures will be helpful to follow the session effectively.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Explain the key sources of uncertainty in existing masonry facade repairs, including original construction, material aging, distress mechanisms, and code applicability.
• Differentiate between modern and historical code pathways for masonry facade repair.
• Determine when engineering judgment should take precedence over formal analysis.
• Describe how critical judgment skills are transferred to emerging practitioners by hands-on training methods.

Description
While design and construction of new building facades are typically guided by well-defined building codes and industry standards, repair of existing facades, particularly historic masonry systems, rarely benefits from such clarity. Engineers and architects are often left navigating layers of ambiguity: Do we know enough about the original facade composition? How have the materials aged? Which historical construction methods or support systems were used? What assumptions are reasonable? How do we interpret distress when documentation is limited? Is formal analysis necessary, and what if its results don’t match observed behavior? Which code(s) should apply: modern, historical, or a combination? In these contexts, engineering judgment becomes a critical element of the repair design process, often dependent on the experience of those who came before us. It requires a nuanced understanding of how these systems were built, how they behave, and where “on paper” analysis diverges from decades of serviceable performance. It also raises the question of how we effectively transfer this knowledge to the next generation. Through masonry case studies, this session will demonstrate how engineering judgment shaped successful repair solutions and highlight how critical thinking can be passed on through hands-on learning at in-house workshops. 

Knowledge Level: Intermediate (5–15 years)
Session Topic: EW
Session Subtopics: CST, FI
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH. 
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge: 

• Prior experience with facade investigations and restoration projects, familiarity with condition mapping, field photography, and repair documentation practices, and a basic working proficiency with PDF-based digital markup tools commonly used in building enclosure diagnostics and assessments. Experience reviewing or preparing repair drawings and quantity takeoffs for exterior wall restoration projects is beneficial but not required.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Identify common sources of inconsistency in facade field documentation, including photo labeling, markup conventions, condition mapping, and quantity takeoff practices.
• Describe a standardized digital workflow for capturing facade conditions, including condition mapping, photo referencing, repair coding, and quantity extraction.
• Apply a repeatable documentation framework to convert field observations into consistent condition maps, repair drawings, and bid-level repair quantities.
• Evaluate how standardized digital documentation improves internal QA/QC efficiency, peer-review consistency, and clarity during contractor pricing and construction administration.
• Recognize how consistent, side-by-side comparison of field photographs can be used to verify repair completion and support post-construction documentation.

Description
Building enclosure investigations rely heavily on field documentation to translate observed conditions into repair scopes, drawings, and bid quantities. Despite the technical nature of facade diagnostics, documentation practices across the industry remain inconsistent and largely dependent on individual consultant habits. Variations in photo labeling, markup symbols, color usage, condition mapping conventions, and quantity takeoff methods often lead to unclear deliverables, increased peer-review effort, and confusion during contractor pricing and construction administration. These issues are particularly pronounced in facade restoration projects involving complex conditions and limited access.

This session introduces a standardized digital workflow for field documentation in building enclosure diagnostics, focused on facade restoration work. It presents a structured, end-to-end documentation workflow that integrates condition mapping, photo referencing, repair coding, quantity extraction, and post-construction verification within a unified framework using commonly available PDF-based markup tools. The framework emphasizes consistency, traceability, and continuity across project phases, enabling field observations to be systematically translated into accurate field markups and defensible quantities, with post-construction verification through consistent, side-by-side comparison of field photographs. Representative case examples illustrate how standardized documentation reduces interpretive ambiguity, improves internal QA/QC, and supports clearer coordination with contractors. 

The session is intended for enclosure consultants, forensic investigators, and restoration professionals responsible for documenting facade conditions and developing repair scopes.

Author/Speaker:

Faris Khan
Enclosure Consultant I
Walter P Moore

Knowledge Level: Advanced (15+ years)
Session Topic: R
Session Subtopics: DC, RT, RS
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH.
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge: 

• Working familiarity with commercial roofing and building envelope systems 
• Basic understanding of how roofs are designed, constructed, and replaced. 
• Familiarity with construction drawings, roof assemblies, and common reroofing terminology, including concepts such as roof decks, insulation, membranes, and attachment methods. 
• General awareness of structural behavior and moisture control in buildings is expected, including how loads are transferred through roof systems and how water and vapor affect roof performance. 
• While detailed structural or materials engineering expertise is not required, attendees should have sufficient background to interpret testing results, code references, and design implications presented during the session. 

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Identify legacy lightweight concrete roof decks over wire mesh and formboard using field and construction indicators.
• Evaluate structural, moisture, and attachment risks associated with reroofing over these deck systems.
• Apply testing and code-based criteria to determine whether existing decks can be reused, reinforced, or replaced.
• Compare reroofing strategies using cost-versus-risk frameworks to support informed owner and design decisions.

Description
This session will address risk management in reroofing over legacy lightweight concrete roof decks constructed over wire mesh and formboard systems. Using field documentation, laboratory testing, and case-study evidence, the program demonstrates how mid-century deck systems, originally designed as lightweight composite substrates, present challenge as attachment platforms for modern roofing systems and extend building service life. The intended audience includes architects, engineers, building-enclosure consultants, and building owners responsible for designing, specifying, funding, or approving reroofing projects. The session links these technical findings to code compliance requirements, demonstrating how testing establishes a defensible, project-specific basis for determining whether a deck can be reused for re-roofing and perform, requires structural augmentation, or must be replaced. The information is directly applicable to capital-planning, forensic evaluation, construction documents, and permitting, helping project teams reduce liability, improve durability, and avoid costly reroofing failures driven by assumption-based design..

Author/Presenter:
Rupesh Gulati, AIA, RBEC, LEED AP, CxA+BE, BECxP, CBECxP
Director of Building Envelope
Raymond Global Inc.

Presenter:
Guido X. Salas, RRC, RRO, Assoc. AIA
Vice President
Raymond Global Inc.

Knowledge Level: Intermediate (5–15 years)
Session Topic: R
Session Subtopics: DC, MTA, RT
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH.
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge: 

• General knowledge of how residential attics and steep-slope roofing systems are constructed and the components that make up these assemblies.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Discuss the varying types of steep-slope roofing systems available. 
• Identify the range of roofing features that impact their energy performance and durability.
• Explain the benefits of both attic and above-sheathing ventilation.
• Utilize available data to help define the energy performance of the various types of residential steep-slope roofing assemblies.

Description
The energy performance of residential steep-slope roofing assemblies is impacted by numerous variables including insulation, thermal mass, surface radiative properties, radiant surfaces, ventilation (attic and above-sheathing), and climate. Research is needed to understand the interactive effects of roof types, installation methods and reflectance levels have on the energy performance and durability of residential steep-slope roofing assemblies in varying climates seen in North America. To address these issues, the Tile Roofing Energy Cost Saving (TRECS) study was initiated to provide insights into the thermal performance of different residential roofing systems and how they interact with climatic conditions. Initiated in 2024, with a build phase of field test facilities in 10 different climate zones from hot and humid to cold and dry, the project exposes a variety of roofing assemblies to meteorological conditions and monitors the response of these assemblies in place for a period of three years. The project is estimated to complete data collection by the end of 2029 followed by analysis and publication of the data in 2030. This session will present a status report on this project.

Authors/Speakers:
André Desjarlais
Program Manager
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Rick Olson
President and Technical Director
Tile Roofing Industry Alliance

Knowledge Level: Intermediate (5–15 years)
Session Topic: EW
Session Subtopics: CST, FG, MTA
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH. 
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge: 

• Basic understanding of building enclosure concepts related to air leakage, water penetration resistance, thermal performance, and condensation resistance.
• Experience with detailing, design reviews, and field reviews observing storefront installations are helpful.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Identify common sources of inconsistency and failures in storefront window detailing across regions and project teams, while considering thermal bridging.
• Evaluate and quantify storefront-related thermal bridging and the resulting impact on thermal performance and condensation resistance.
• Differentiate consultant and contractor perspectives on storefront constructability, sequencing, and integration with air/water barriers.
• Apply practical detailing strategies that address the structural attachment and thermal performance

Description
Storefront window detailing continues to present challenges across project teams in various geographic regions, resulting in inconsistent design approaches and variable performance outcomes. Based on the authors’ field experience, storefront systems remain among the most failure prone façade components with respect to water intrusion and condensation, often due to design errors and lack of coordination resulting in discontinuity of the air and water control layers. Current industry trends frequently overlook thermal performance and condensation resistance, which are factors that are increasingly critical as energy codes evolve to require design teams account for thermal bridging and as performance expectations rise. This presentation offers insights from both a building enclosure consultant and a contractor’s quality control staff to identify common storefront issues. We will highlight typical design considerations, address common misconceptions, and outline strategies to mitigate performance risks and calculate reductions in assembly thermal performance due to thermal bridging. We will review recent case studies and provide practical guidance for developing storefront details that balance structural attachment, continuity of environmental control layers, and appropriate levels of redundancy. Attendees will gain a clearer understanding of how thoughtful detailing can simplify construction and improve storefront system reliability..

Authors/Speakers:
Rick Ziegler, RRC, RRO, PE
Principal
Stantec

Mark Herrscher
Senior Building Science Manager
Okland Construction

Knowledge Level: Intermediate (5–15 years)
Session Topic: R
Session Subtopics: CST, DC, FI
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH.
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge: 

• While I believe that attendees with less than 15 years of experience on this topic will find value in this topic, I have selected this option since there was no other option to select and it was prohibiting the submission of the abstract.  
• Green roofing system design considerations and assemblies
• Understanding of the basic concepts of electronic leak detection systems functioning principles 
• Various roofing materials used in green roof construction

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Identify the types of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) single-ply roof systems currently being recycled.
• Provide educational tools that are available for incorporating single-ply roof membrane recycling specifications into a cycle renovation bid package.
• Describe acceptable practices and illustrate the steps involved in packaging and bundling the existing roofing membrane for recycling, instead of the landfill.
• Explain how recycled content reduces the carbon footprint of select manufacture products.
• Summarize how green certification systems such as GBI Green Globes, USGBC LEED, and BREEAM specific to recycling or using products with recycled content can add value for building owners.
• Discuss applications that use recycled content PVC roof membrane as feedstock.
• Analyze the quantity of vinyl and PVC single-ply roof membranes recycled each year.

Description
The Eskenazi Sky Farm is an amenity roof on the Eskenazi Hospital, originally built between 2010 and 2013. The original roofing assembly comprised an EPDM vapor barrier on top of a concrete over metal deck structure with extruded polystyrene insulation, a coverboard and conductive wire mesh for electronic leak detection, with a polyvinyl chloride single ply loose laid membrane which was covered by an intensive green roof assembly. Shortly after construction was completed, leakage into the clinic space below the Sky Farm was observed. Numerous attempts to identify and address the leakage, occurred between 2013 and 2020. In 2020, WJE was retained to investigate sources of leakage and in 2025 the green roof and waterproofing was completely replaced. This session will present the case study from the original design and construction, review the factors that contributed to the identified leakage, discuss the challenges with investigating water leakage on a green roof over a hospital clinic, summarize the lessons learned from the identified causes, and review the replacement roofing system design and construction. This session will also cover the use of active leak detection monitoring systems that were utilized in the replacement roofing system as a risk mitigation measure for the hospital.

Author/Speaker:
Logan Cook, PE
Associate Principal and Unit Manager
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.

Knowledge Level: Intermediate (5–15 years)
Session Topic: BECx
Session Subtopics: BPR, DC
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH. 
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge: 

• It is recommended that attendees have a basic understanding of building enclosure systems, BECx concepts, and common enclosure testing practices.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Identify at least three BECx tasks that directly influence functional performance testing (FTP) outcomes.
• Explain how standards inform FPT and describe technical implications for test planning and evaluation.
• Apply an FPT plan to document performance criteria, test locations, and results, capturing at least three required elements.
• Outline a step-wise FPT procedure that integrates BECx tasks with construction sequencing, and identify one improvement applicable to upcoming projects.

Description
Functional performance testing (FPT) is a critical milestone to evaluate that a building enclosure performs as intended, yet its success depends heavily on the broader building enclosure commissioning (BECx) process that precedes it. Across recent projects, a consistent pattern has emerged: when BECx activities such as commissioning design review, development of clear performance requirements, integrated responsibilities, development of testing plan, and witnessing testing are carried out effectively, FPT produces more reliable, meaningful results. When these steps are overlooked, testing often becomes reactive, inconsistent, or inconclusive. This session discusses a practical framework for integrating BECx activities with technical guidance—such as ASTM E2813, ASTM E2947, and NIBS Guideline 3—while acknowledging the evolving expectations of programs such as LEED v5. Case examples will illustrate how systematic BECx processes help prevent common challenges—including workmanship-dependent design, unclear performance protocol, fragmented responsibilities, incomplete on-site test preparation, and exclusion of FPT witnessing from BECx scope—that frequently undermine FPT outcomes. Attendees will gain a structured understanding of how BECx supports system level performance validation through FPT, ultimately improving enclosure reliability and reducing project risk. The session is intended for commissioning providers, architects, consultants, contractors, and owners seeking to enhance the consistency and effectiveness of enclosure performance testing on their projects.

Author/Speaker:
Yeonhee Kim, PE 
Senior Project Engineer
Intertek

Knowledge Level: Intermediate
Session Topic: EW
Session Subtopics: CST, FG
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH.
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge:

• Knowledge of the components of curtainwalls and storefront systems and familiarity with the quantitative field test for fenestration air leakage, as typically defined by ASTM E783 or AAMA 503, including witnessing or performing the testing.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Describe the acceptable methods for quantitative fenestration air leakage testing defined in ASTM E783 and AAMA 503.
• Identify the common potential air leakage pathways in storefront and curtainwall assemblies.
• Compare the air leakage pathways that the interior tape tare and exterior sheet tare methods of air leakage testing can and cannot measure.
• Assess whether using an interior tape tare could produce valid quantitative air leakage results for the fenestration and field construction conditions.

Description
Testing agencies across the country are increasingly using the “interior tape tare” method for field quantitative testing of fenestration air leakage, which involves sealing the fenestration’s air leakage paths with tape from the interior side to isolate them from extraneous test chamber leakage. While acceptable by ASTM E783, we hypothesize that an interior tape tare cannot isolate air leakage pathways through storefront and curtainwalls as effectively as a sheet covering the exterior side of the fenestration. Therefore, using an interior tape tare could lead to false-passes. Also, testing agencies that use an interior tape tare disrupt the test chamber to remove the tape, violating ASTM E783 procedures and invalidating the test. This session will focus on providing enclosure consultants and field testers insight on what air leakage paths each method can and cannot measure, how removing the interior tape tare can interfere with the test, and how to evaluate whether test results are representative of actual system performance. We will review assumptions and findings from ongoing research by Simpson Gumpertz & Heger (SGH), comparing the quantitative fenestration air leakage results obtained by using the interior tape and exterior sheet tare methods in accordance with ASTM E783 on active projects.

Authors/Speakers:
Derek Gupta, PE
Project Consultant
Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger (SGH)

Mark Norten, E.I.T.
Project Consultant
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger 

Knowledge Level: Intermediate (5–15 years) 
Session Topic: R
Session Subtopics: DC, RS, SUS
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH. 
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge:

• Attendees must have general knowledge of low-slope roof components and design principles as well as a working understanding of the relationships amongst roof designers, constructors, building owners and building code officials. Familiarity with codes and regulations and experience with reroofing will enhance understanding of the material presented in this session.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Define key terms used in low-slope roof alterations.
• Summarize issues leading to wasted resources in roof alteration processes.
• Identify design parameters that designers consider when making decisions related to salvaging or replacing roof materials.
• Correlate low-slope roof system types and project locations with corresponding approaches to roof alterations.

Description
To advance sustainable roofing practices, the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction Roofing Materials and Systems Commission (CIB W083) is exploring approaches to salvage and reuse roof components. These efforts are intended to support roof consultants, building owners, contractors, and related professionals.   Salvaging materials is often impractical, and usable components are often discarded to install new roof systems when the roofing layer is replaced. For example, entire roof systems are torn off to boost thermal efficiency of the roof assembly, with little consideration for the environmental or financial impacts of the waste created or the resources needed to replace good materials. CIB W083 representatives will present the following series of interrelated documents to assist with decision-making when altering an existing low-slope roof:  

• Roof Alteration Process (RAP): A decision-support process guideline outlining parameters to consider when altering existing roofs.  
• Roof Alteration Matrix (RAM): A table visually depicting various approaches to roof alteration grouped by low-slope roof system.  
• Roof Alteration Definitions (RAD): A list defining terms for each participating country.  

This work will continue to evolve as more countries share new or updated information. Upcoming versions will feature case studies, an overview of best practices, and appendices.

Knowledge Level: Intermediate (5–15 years)
Session Topic: EW
Session Subtopics: BPR, DC, FI
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH. 
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge: 

• Attendees should be generally familiar with building performance requirements set forth in the 2024 International Building Code, chapters 1 and 14, as well as the 2024 International Residential Code, chapters 1 and 7. 

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Examine and compare the requirements of the 2024 International Building Code and 2024 International Residential Code and various fiber cement siding manufacturers’ installation instructions.
• Identify the safety requirements stipulated by various manufacturers regarding special characteristics of fiber cement siding.
• Explain different fastening methods for fiber cement siding over wood frame and masonry.
• Recognize proper and improper practices in fiber cement siding installation.

Description
Exterior wall cladding trends have seen an increase in the use of fiber cement siding in the US. In some regions, fiber cement siding is overtaking stucco in popularity for residential construction. However, requirements for fiber cement siding application within the 2024 International Building Code and 2024 International Residential Code and their referenced standards are limited in comparison to the regulation of stucco design and installation, and depend heavily on the manufacturer’s instructions for specific detailing. Incorporating code requirements, manufacturer requirements, and commentary on the common trends found in as-built fiber cement cladding conditions that may reasonably affect the cosmetics, longevity, and/or strength of the installation, this presentation provides a comprehensive understanding of fiber cement siding installation considerations, including but not limited to safety concerns, impacts of pneumatic tool use, fastening methods, water management, and site storage. This course is intended for architects, engineers, building designers, contractors, and building department plan reviewers and inspectors.

Author/Speaker:
Thomas Miller, PE/FRSE, SI, CMA, CMR
President
Structural Engineering and Inspections Inc.

Knowledge Level: Intermediate (5–15 years)
Session Topics: EW, R
Session Subtopics: CST, FI, RT
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH. 
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge: 

A basic understanding of building enclosure  systems, insulation performance metrics (R-value, U-value), energy efficiency principles, and fundamental concepts of ROI and life-cycle cost analysis.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Evaluate and apply design strategies for integrating high R-value insulation technologies.
• Explain key updates in enclosure-related energy codes—specifically the 2025 ASHRAE 90.1 and 2027 IECC revisions.
• Discuss the magnitude of transformation needed in building enclosure design and insulation performance to align with the 2030 carbon reduction targets.
• Analyze a real-world case study of an existing building retrofit, identifying challenges, solutions, and evaluating the return on investment (ROI).

Description
As energy codes advance toward 2030 climate goals, exterior wall and roof assemblies are increasingly challenged by the need to deliver higher thermal performance within limited space—particularly in retrofit and existing-building applications. This session examines the use of high R‑value vacuum insulated panels (VIPs) as a thickness‑efficient insulation strategy for building enclosures. Through investigation and real‑world case studies, the session explores how VIPs can be integrated into wall and roof assemblies, including historically constrained structures, while addressing performance benefits, detailing challenges, risks, and best‑practice implementation. 

Authors/Speakers:
Mike Lopez, RA, AIA, NCARB
Director of Technical Services, Building Sciences
Rimkus
 

Benjamin Meyer, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP
Enclosure Business Director
Siplast

Knowledge Level: Advanced (15+ years)
Session Topics: BECx
Session Subtopics: CS, DC, SUS
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH.
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge: 

• Attendees should have prior knowledge of building enclosure commissioning requirements, roles and responsibilities, and specifications. Familiarity with ASTM/AAMA and similar testing procedures is also recommended.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Identify which assemblies, components, intersections, and control layers are key to test, and determine which standard tests to use, during the building enclosure commissioning BECx process.
• Determine when to schedule testing and retesting throughout the project.
• Discuss why and how to select qualitative versus quantitative tests to achieve a specific outcome.
• Explain how to balance the project or team’s common sustainability goals with testing performance goals.

Description
Testing building enclosure systems is a key part of construction quality control, but who determines the testing requirements, frequency, scheduling, and pass/fail criteria? The addition of building enclosure commissioning (BECx) professionals early in the design phase can ensure that customized and “SMART” testing plans are created to meet owner requirements. A well-balanced BECx testing plan requires knowledge of the owner's risk tolerance, budget allowance, sustainability goals, and performance expectations, the design team's technical requirements, and the general contractor/trade's schedules, sequencing, and familiarity with enclosure systems. Far too often, the enclosure testing requirements are buried in a disjointed technical project specification, creating unbalanced, unrealistic, unreasonable, and overall costly testing plans. This presentation builds upon over 25 years of evaluating project specifications and developing testing plans, and presents some new topics such as minimizing on-site water use for a more sustainable testing approach, or testing “active” enclosure systems such as electrochromic glazing. Common mistakes, key requirements for BECx, and qualitative versus quantitative testing will be discussed. In addition, BECx standards such as ASTM E2813 and LEED V5’s new requirements will be explored, including how to use these standards to create a "SMART" BECx testing plan.

Knowledge Level: Intermediate (5–15 years)
Session Topic: R
Session Subtopics: CS, DC, W
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH.
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge:

• Midlevel understanding of low-slope roofing concepts.
• Understanding of the information provided in basic low-slope roofing courses.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Discuss the relevant provisions in the International Building Code (IBC) and International Mechanical Code (IMC) for securing rooftop equipment against wind and seismic forces.
• Recognize common coordination opportunities and minimize gaps between trade scopes of work when specifying rooftop equipment anchoring.
• Identify different anchoring strategies for low-slope roofing systems and associated waterproofing approaches to optimize roof performance and maintain manufacturer guarantees.
• Develop clear and comprehensive specifications and contract documents that ensure code compliance, reduce risk, and improve project outcomes.

Description
Securing rooftop equipment such as photovoltaic (PV) arrays, rooftop units, electrical, plumbing, and signage presents unique challenges when integrated with low-slope roofing systems. The International Building Code (IBC) and International Mechanical Code (IMC) establish requirements to ensure proper attachment and prevent displacement during wind or seismic events. These requirements apply across multiple trades, so responsibility for anchoring is sometimes unclear, leading to gaps in scopes of work and trade coordination issues. This session will review applicable code provisions, highlight common coordination challenges, and share best practices for incorporating anchoring requirements into project specifications. A key focus will be on selecting appropriate anchoring systems for low-slope roofs and implementing waterproofing strategies that preserve roof performance and maintain the manufacturer’s guarantee.

Authors/Speakers:
Rob Hughes, CDT
Senior Technical Representative
Johns Manville

Joanna Mark, CDT, LEED Green Associate
Specifier Services Representative
Johns Manville

Authors:
Paige Witt, CDT
Specifier Services Supervisor
Johns Manville

Melissa Walker
Senior Marketing Manager
Johns Manville

Knowledge Level: Intermediate (5–15 years)
Session Topic: EW
Session Subtopics: CST, FI, S
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH.
Recommended Prerequisites:

• A working knowledge of brick masonry facade construction.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Identify the primary causes of lateral displacement in multiwythe masonry wall assemblies and explain their impact on structural stability.
• Describe at least three innovative stabilization techniques used to secure severely displaced masonry walls in high-rise buildings.
• Outline the step-by-step process for systematic deconstruction of unstable masonry facades while maintaining occupant/technician safety.
• Evaluate the logistical and safety considerations involved in coordinating stabilization and demolition activities in occupied structures.

Description

Lateral displacement of clay brick masonry facades is not unusual. Lateral displacement of both the outer and inner wythes in excess of 6” and complete inner wythe bearing loss, in an occupied high-rise apartment building in an urban area, are far from standard. This session explores a case study to review multiple unique measures implemented to assess, stabilize, and facilitate safe and systematic deconstruction of a multi-wythe brick and concrete masonry unit (CMU) composite wall assembly displaced at the 11th and 12th floors of a steel-framed high rise apartment building.  This session will discuss the causes and the extent of lateral movement of both the inner and outer wythe , and demonstrate how the lateral movement created a highly unstable condition that necessitated a unique and creative stabilization and demolition approach. Assessment, stabilization, and deconstruction were completed with intense focus on safety, including conducting exterior work exclusively from aerial lifts to ensure engineer and technician safety. Stabilization, constructability, and logistics were reviewed and coordinated with the repair contractor; they were designed and installed to facilitate safe deconstruction of the exterior walls, as well as temporary stabilization following each work day. This collaborative and meticulous approach resulted in a pragmatic approach that ensured safe demolition and reconstruction of the exterior wall.

Author/Speaker:
Kenneth Kosteva, PE
Associate Principal
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates Inc.
 

Knowledge Level: Intermediate (5–15 years)
Session Topic: EW
Session Subtopics: FI
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH.
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge:

• A basic knowledge of adhered vs. anchored stone and brick veneer as well as an understanding of the difference between manufactured and natural stone veneer.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Discuss the history of masonry veneer codes and how they have changed.
• Recognize that construction and design industries in many areas have not caught up to the building codes.
• Identify veneer failures and steps to avoid these failures.
• Explain how to design and build within the constraints of the current codes and standards.

Description
The masonry veneer industry standards for the design and installation of adhered and anchored masonry veneer cladding have been a moving target for the past 25 years. The International Building Code, the Masonry Society Standard 402, and other industry standards have changed substantially in recent years. This session will discuss the progression of those code changes and challenges currently faced by designers and constructors who wish to implement natural stone as adhered veneer and the use of exterior drainage mats on the building enclosure. Specific examples of failures, construction errors, and design errors are also discussed. In addition, this session discusses shortcomings in the current industry standards, the risks designers face from noncompliance with those standards,  and how to mitigate those risks.  This session is intended for design professionals and contractors, providing insights on how to avoid failures, legal claims, and best practices to navigate the limitations of these codes.

Author/Speaker
Paul Bennett, MS, PE, CBIE
Basecamp AEC

Knowledge Level: Intermediate (5–15 years)
Session Topic: R
Session Subtopics: CST, CS, DC
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH. | This activity has been approved for 1.0 AIA LU/Elective.
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge:

• Attendees should have an understanding of common roof assemblies and components, as well as knowledge of the functions of air, vapor, and thermal barriers.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Identify thermal performance, ventilation, and thermal barrier building code requirements that impact the design of replacement steep-slope roof assemblies.
• Identify and analyze the performance implications of insulation and ventilation strategies used in steep-slope roof replacements.
• Evaluate insulation and ventilation strategy challenges in project-specific roof replacement scenarios.
• Apply lessons learned from case studies to inform material selection, detailing, and assembly design for durable, code-compliant, steep-slope roof replacements.

Description
Designing replacement steep-slope roofs for existing buildings has become a balancing act, as designers must meet increasingly stringent energy codes while incorporating prescriptive code requirements for ventilation and a thermal barrier, all within the fixed geometry of existing roof profiles. To reconcile these constraints, designers are increasingly turning to split-insulation assemblies with integrated ventilation strategies. These solutions, however, can introduce new risks—particularly related to moisture accumulation, air leakage, and concealed water intrusion—that must be mitigated through careful material selection and detailed design. Steep-slope insulated and ventilated roof replacement designs are highly project-specific, and each design decision carries implications beyond energy performance alone. Designers and building owners must evaluate how insulation and ventilation configurations affect roof moisture management, the location and continuity of air and vapor barriers, cost, constructability, aesthetics, occupant impacts, and other factors to select the best approach for each building.  This session outlines key code requirements and explores critical design considerations for insulated and ventilated steep-slope roof replacements through several case studies, highlighting common challenges, trade-offs, and lessons learned, and by offering designers a practical framework to navigate the evolving complexities of steep-slope roof replacement.

Authors/Speakers:
Casey Williams, PE
Associate Principal
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger

Kelsey Dunn, PE
Senior Project Manager
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger

Knowledge Level: Intermediate (5–15 years)
Session Topic: R
Session Subtopics: DC, MTA, RT, CST
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH. 
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge: 

• Intermediate to advanced knowledge of building enclosure assembly construction.
• A general understanding of the challenges of rooftop material selection for high temperature durability

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Identify the key components of an integrated solar‑radiation and heat‑transfer modeling approach used to estimate rooftop and parapet temperature extremes.
• Understand how to improve simulation models with insights from field-measured data.
• Identify how direct, indirect, and reflected solar irradiance affect rooftop temperature extremes.
• Assess how projected climate conditions may influence future rooftop temperature extremes and inform long‑term material selection and enclosure design decisions.

Description
Accurately predicting rooftop surface temperature extremes is critical for selecting membrane and flashing materials capable of long‑term durability. This study presents a simulation methodology developed in 2025 that integrates solar radiation mapping with steady‑state heat‑transfer modeling to estimate peak roof membrane and parapet surface temperatures. The method incorporates typical meteorological year (TMY) weather data and wind‑speed‑dependent convective heat‑transfer correlations to represent realistic environmental conditions. Model results validated against a previously published study will be presented and show strong agreement.
 A new field experiment was conducted in summer 2025 on an existing building at the Colorado School of Mines will be presented. The study evaluated the combined effects of direct, indirect, and reflected solar irradiance, including reflections from parapets, rooftop equipment, and nearby structures, on surface temperature behavior. Details of the assemblies, instrumentation layout, sensor types, and measurement procedures will be described. Measured field data will be compared with simulated temperatures to assess model accuracy and quantify the influence of reflected solar radiation on roof and parapet surfaces. A parametric analysis using future TMY datasets in major North American cities will examine how evolving climatic conditions may affect future rooftop temperature extremes and inform material selection and enclosure design.

Author/Speaker:
Stanley Gatland, MSME
Manager, Building Science and Comfort
Saint-Gobain North America

Authors:
Paulo Cesar Tabares Velasco, PhD
Rowlinson Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering 
Colorado School of Mines

Ahoo Malekafzali Ardakan, PhD
Building Science Manager
Saint Gobain

Andrew Gloor
PhD Student
Colorado School of Mines

Sohaib Sharif
Building Science Engineer (VIE)
CertainTeed (Saint-Gobain North America)

Charlotte Lipari
Student
Colorado School of Mine

Knowledge Level: Advanced (15+ years)
Session Topic: BECx, EW, R
Session Subtopics: BPR, DC, RM
Credits: This activity has been approved for 1.0 IIBEC CEH.
Recommended Prerequisite Knowledge:

• A foundational understanding of building design and construction processes, including familiarity with architectural drawings, specifications, and basic building code concepts. A general awareness of construction sequencing, material selection, and common building systems is recommended. Prior professional experience in architecture, engineering, construction, or facilities management will help participants fully engage with the technical and practical discussions presented in this session.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, the learner will be able to:

• Explain how value engineering decisions made during design and construction can negatively impact long-term building performance, durability, and life-cycle costs.
• Identify common failure mechanisms resulting from material substitutions and scope reductions, particularly in building enclosure and structural systems.
• Analyze how cost-driven design changes can obscure latent defects that emerge during occupancy and throughout a building’s service life.
• Apply best practices for owner due diligence and project oversight to preserve design intent, ensure code compliance, and protect long-term asset value.

Description

Value engineering (VE) is often seen as a responsible design and construction approach that reduces costs without sacrificing quality. In theory, VE allows teams to refine specifications, cut waste, and deliver similar performance at a lower cost. While value engineering is intended to optimize costs without sacrificing quality, it’s often misused to justify cutting essential components or swapping in inferior materials. These decisions may seem sensible on paper, but they can quietly undermine a building’s integrity, leading to hidden defects, premature wear, and repair costs that far exceed the initial savings. This session will use building-science fundamentals to trace how VE-driven substitutions disrupt the building enclosure’s control layers (water, air, vapor, and thermal), increasing risk of moisture intrusion, durability failures, and indoor environment impacts. Attendees will review real-world failure patterns and discuss practical strategies for evaluating VE proposals without compromising performance.

Author/Speaker:

Jorge McCormack, AIA, NCARB
Senior Associate
Thornton Tomasetti