b'I applaud ASTM International and the other participants for conducting the study, as well as FM Approvals for making its facility and staff available. This volunteer effort is no small task and is commendable.ASTM International staff identified some individual results as statistical outliers at the initial 15-psf test increment and continu-ing at the 30-, 45-, 60- and 90-psf test increments. Some individu-al results at 30, 45 and 90 psf were considered statistical outliers to the extent these results were excluded from the analysis by ASTM International staff.Also, 16 of the 24 specimens exhibited failure before complet-ing the 90-psf test increment.Using FM 1-52s acceptance criteria, which provides for a max-imum allowable deflection of half of an inch for this particular assembly configuration, five of the tests results at the 45-psf in-crement and all the tests results at 60, 75 and 90 psf exceeded FM 1-52s maximum allowable deflection.My ThoughtsI applaud ASTM International and the other participants for conducting the study, as well as FM Approvals for making its fa-cility and staff available. This volunteer effort is no small task and is commendable.The studys findings provide useful data and information for evaluating the appropriateness and effectiveness of the field-uplift test method whether that be the withdrawn version of ASTM E907; its newly developed, revised and updated draft version; or FM 1-52.The variability in deflection values derived under controlled laboratory conditions is of concern. Also, because the study in-tentionally did not consider other known variables, such as test chamberplacementrelativetofastenerplacement,insulation board joint locations and deck supports, and operator and other witness movement, the measured variability shown in the data is only a portion of what is likely in field testing.Having 16 of the 24 specimens fail without completing the 90-psf test increment necessary to achieve FM Approvals Class 90 wind-resistance rating is of notable concern. Clearly, there is no correlation between the field-uplift test methods resultseven undercontrolledlaboratoryconditionsandFMApprovals laboratory-derived evaluation uplift-resistance classifications.Also, having all the specimens fail to withstand FM 1-52s maximum allowable deflection criteria is a significant, further in-dication of the lack of correlation between FM 1-52s results and FM Approvals uplift-resistance classification.The ASTM International interlaboratory study clearly illus-trates NRCAs long-standing position that field-uplift testing should not be relied upon as an indicator of an adhered roof assemblys in situ uplift resistance or as a quality-assurance mea-sure of roof assembly installation. Continuing to use it as such is irresponsible.Since the study results were released, NRCAs Technical Op-erations Committee has asked FM Global to immediately discon-tinue use of FM 1-52s field-uplift test as a quality-assurance mea-sure for roof assembly installation.Mark S. Graham is NRCAs vice president of technical services.ORN THE ONLY SOURCE FOR PROFESSIONAL ICI ROOFING CONTRACTORS IN ONTARIO ONTARIO ROOFING NEWSISSUE 4 2023/2419'