Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

[CCMC 10475-R] CCMC Canadian code compliance evaluation

From: National Research Council Canada

In most jurisdictions this document is sufficient evidence for approval by Canadian authorities.

Learn more about CCMC recognition Look for the trusted CCMC mark on products to verify compliance.

Code compliance opinion

It is the opinion of the Canadian Construction Materials Centre that the evaluated products, when used as a metal roofing system in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this evaluation, comply with the following code:

National Building Code of Canada 2015

ID Code provision Solution type
09-26-01-02-00-0-009.26.1.2.(1) Roofs shall be protected with roofing, i ...Acceptable
09-26-02-00-00-0-009.26.2. Roofing MaterialsAlternative
09-26-13-01-00-0-009.26.13.1. ThicknessAcceptable

The above opinion is based on the evaluation by the CCMC of technical evidence provided by the evaluation holder, and is bound by the stated conditions and limitations. For the benefit of the user, a summary of the technical information that forms the basis of this evaluation has been included.

Product information

Product names

  • Interlock® Cedar
  • Interlock® Slate

Product description

Each product is a 265-mm × 460-mm shingle formed from 0.48-mm-thick pre-coated aluminum sheets coated with a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) coating. The surface of the shingle is embossed with a wood shake or a slate pattern. The products are to be installed over solid sheathing with aluminum fasteners.

The products have an interlocking system on all four sides. The interlocking system along the sides of each shingle panel consists of a 16-mm flat lock seam. Along the top of each panel, there is a screw strip formed by folding the base material over the top of itself into a 35-mm clip. The bottom edge of the panel is formed into a hook that snaps into the screw strip of the panel below.

The system includes accessories such as ridge and hip caps, drip edges, valley flashing and starter flashing. A typical slate panel and cedar panel are shown in Figure 1 below.

detail line drawing of the "product"

Figure 1. Interlock® Slate (left) and Interlock® Cedar (right) profiles

Manufacturing plant

This evaluation is valid only for products produced at the following plant:

Product namesManufacturing plant
Delta, BC, CA
Interlock® CedarProduct evaluated by the CCMC
Interlock® SlateProduct evaluated by the CCMC

Product evaluated by the CCMC Indicates that the product from this manufacturing facility has been evaluated by the CCMC

  Conditions and limitations

The CCMC’s compliance opinion is bound by this product being used in accordance with the conditions and limitations set out below.

  • The products must be installed on roofs having a minimum slope of 1 in 4.
  • The products are limited to installations where no fire-resistance rating is required.
  • The products are limited to installations where the specified wind pressure (factored) does not exceed those indicated in the wind uplift tables.
  • The products must be installed over solid sheathing in compliance with the requirements of Subsection 9.23.16., Roof Sheathing, of Division B of the NBC 2015.
  • An underlayment consisting of two layers of Type 15 organic felt or one layer of Type 30 organic felt must be used in conjunction with the shingles.
  • Flashing must be installed in compliance with the requirements of Subsection 9.26.4., Flashing at Intersections, of Division B of the NBC 2015.
  • The products must be installed with eave protection in compliance with the requirements of Subsection 9.26.5., Eave Protection for Shingles and Shakes, of Division B of the NBC 2015.
  • Only aluminum nails may be used in conjunction with these products.
  • The products are for use in locations where access is limited to maintenance or repair purposes.
  • The products must be installed by authorized installers in strict conformance to the manufacturer’s current instructions.
  • The products or their packaging must be clearly identified with the phrase “CCMC 10475-R.”

  Technical information

This evaluation is based on demonstrated conformance with the following criteria:

Evaluation requirements
Criteria number Criteria name
CCMC-TG-074113-15BCCMC Technical Guide for Metal Roof Panels

The evaluation holder has submitted technical documentation for the CCMC’s evaluation. Testing was conducted at laboratories recognized by the CCMC.  The corresponding technical evidence for these products is summarized below.  

Material requirements
Table 1. Basic material properties of Interlock® Slate/Cedar
Property Requirement Test method Result
Thickness of base metal ≥ 0.48 mm - 0.52
Coating quality Smooth and uniform, free from cracks, pinholes, blisters and flaking CAN/CGSB-93.1 Passed
Coating thickness (thickness of PVDF) ≥ 25 mm ASTM B 487 25
Coating adhesion – dry adhesion No removal of film ASTM D 3359Table footnote (1) Passed
Coating adhesion – wet adhesion No removal of film ASTM D 3359Table footnote (2) Passed
Coating hardness No rupture ASTM D 3363 Passed
Coating flexibility No flaking or cracking ASTM D 522 Passed
Coating humidity resistance No formation of blisters CAN/CGSB-93.1 Passed
Accelerated weathering (coating durability)

No colour change; No flaking or cracking

 ASTM G 155Table footnote (3) Passed
Salt spray resistance ≥ 7 ratingTable footnote (4) ASTM B 117Table footnote (5) Passed
Impact resistance No visible cracking 

16-mm diameter impact testerTable footnote (6)

 Passed
Performance requirements
Traffic Load
Table 2. Results of traffic load test results of Interlock® Slate/Cedar
Property Requirement Result
Traffic load ≥ 900 N Pass
Wind uplift  
Table 3. Wind uplift test results for Interlock® Slate/Cedar offset by half of a tile, three nails per shingleTable footnote footnote (1)
Pressure (kPa) Requirement Results
0.5 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.0 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.4 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.9 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
2.9 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
3.8 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
4.3 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
4.8 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
8.6 Ultimate load Panels unclipped

 

Table 4. Wind uplift test results for Interlock® Slate/Cedar offset by half of a tile, one nail per shingleTable footnote footnote (1)
Pressure (kPa) Requirement Results
0.5 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.0 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.4 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.9 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
2.9 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
3.8 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
4.3 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
4.8 Ultimate load Panels unclipped

 

Table 5. Wind uplift test results for Interlock® Slate/Cedar offset by 60 mm (2-⅜ in.), one nail per shingleTable footnote footnote (1)
Pressure (kPa) Requirement Results
0.5 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.0 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.4 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.9 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
2.9 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
3.8 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage Panels unclipped and kinked
4.3 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage N/A
4.8 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage N/A

 

Table 6. Wind uplift test results for Interlock® Slate/Cedar offset by 60 mm (2-⅜ in.), two nails per shingleTable footnote footnote (1)
Pressure (kPa) Requirement Results
0.5 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.0 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.4 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.9 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
2.9 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
3.8 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
4.3 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
4.8 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
12.9 Ultimate load Panels unclipped and could not hold any further load

 

Table 7. Wind uplift test results for Interlock® Slate/Cedar offset by 110 mm (4-⅜ in.), two nails per shingleTable footnote footnote (1)
Pressure (kPa) Requirement Results
0.5 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.0 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.4 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
1.9 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
2.9 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
3.8 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
4.3 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
4.8 No evidence of deformation of permanent damage No damage for permanent deformation after pressure released
7.4 Ultimate load Panels unclipped and could not hold any further load
Dynamic pressure water infiltration
Table 8. Dynamic pressure water infiltration test results for Interlock® Slate/Cedar
Wind speed (km/h)Table footnote (1) Duration (min) Requirement ResultsTable footnote (2)
34–59 5 No leakage or damage No sign of any water leakage or damage to roofing product
84–96 5 No leakage or damage No sign of any water leakage or damage to roofing product
104–117  5 No leakage or damage No sign of any water leakage or damage to roofing product
117–144 5 No leakage or damage No sign of any water leakage or damage to roofing product
154–170 5 No leakage or damage No sign of any water leakage or damage to roofing product

Administrative information

Use of Canadian Construction Materials Centre (CCMC) assessments

This assessment must be read in the context of the entire CCMC Registry of Product Assessments, any applicable building code or by-law requirements, and/or any other regulatory requirements (for example, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, etc.).

It is the responsibility of the user to confirm that the assessment they are using is current and has not been withdrawn or superseded by a later version on the CCMC Registry of Product Assessments.

Disclaimer

The National Research Council of Canada (NRC) has evaluated only the characteristics of the specific product described herein. The information and opinions in this evaluation are directed to those who have the appropriate degree of experience to use and apply its contents (such as authorities having jurisdiction, design professionals and specifiers). This evaluation is valid when the product is used as part of permitted construction, respecting all conditions and limitations stated in the evaluation, and in accordance with applicable building codes and by-laws.

This evaluation is provided without representation, warranty or guarantee of any kind, expressed or implied, and the NRC provides no endorsement for any evaluated product. The NRC accepts no responsibility whatsoever arising in any way from any and all use of or reliance on the information contained herein or the use of any evaluated product. The NRC is not undertaking to render professional or other services on behalf of any person or entity nor to perform any duty owed by any person or entity to another person or entity.

Language

Une version française de ce document est disponible.
In the case of any discrepancy between the English and French version of this document, the English version shall prevail.

Copyright

© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the National Research Council of Canada, 2023

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the CCMC.

CCMC recognition

The Canadian Construction Materials Centre (CCMC) assesses compliance with Canadian building, energy and safety codes. We are the only construction code compliance service supported and operated by the Government of Canada. Trusted by over 6,000 regulators across Canada.

Most Canadian authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) consider CCMC product assessments acceptable as evidence for product approval.

CCMC assessments are recognized by construction authorities across Canada:

The CCMC provides code compliance assessments to Canadian code requirements, consulting nationwide with construction regulators to elicit regional variations in code requirements as well as provincial and local interpretations. Users are advised to review the technical information presented in CCMC assessments when making approval decisions. Learn more about how the CCMC provides a unique service for Canada.

For more information, contact the CCMC by phone at (613) 993-6189 or by email at ccmc@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

Code compliance as an acceptable solution

Code Compliance via Acceptable Solutions

If a building design (e.g. material, component, assembly or system) can be shown to meet all provisions of the applicable acceptable solutions in Division B (e.g. it complies with the applicable provisions of a referenced standard), it is deemed to have satisfied the objectives and functional statements linked to those provisions and thus to have complied with that part of the Code.

National Building Code of Canada, Sentence A-1.2.1.1.(1)(a)

The CCMC has determined that compliance with this provision of the Code has been demonstrated as an Acceptable Solution. The evaluation report provides a summary of the basis of CCMC's compliance opinion.

CCMC's code compliance opinions

All CCMC evaluation reports are opinions of code compliance established in accordance with the National Building Code of Canada, Subsection 1.2.1. "Compliance with this Code," which requires compliance to be achieved by:

  • complying with the applicable acceptable solutions in Division B, or
  • using an alternative solution that will achieve at least the minimum level of performance required by Division B in the areas defined by the objective and functional statements attributed to the applicable acceptable solutions.

The CCMC assesses compliance with Canadian building, energy and safety codes, and is trusted by over 6,000 regulators across Canada.

Code compliance as an alternative solution

Code Compliance via Alternative Solutions

Where a design differs from the acceptable solutions in Division B, then it should be treated as an "alternative solution." A proponent of an alternative solution must demonstrate that the alternative solution addresses the same issues as the applicable acceptable solutions in Division B and their attributed objectives and functional statements. However, because the objectives and functional statements are entirely qualitative, demonstrating compliance with them in isolation is not possible. Therefore, Clause 1.2.1.1.(1)(b) identifies the principle that Division B establishes the quantitative performance targets that alternative solutions must meet. In many cases, these targets are not defined very precisely by the acceptable solutions [...] Nevertheless, Clause 1.2.1.1.(1)(b) makes it clear that an effort must be made to demonstrate that an alternative solution will perform as well as a design that would satisfy the applicable acceptable solutions in Division B—not “well enough” but “as well as.”

National Building Code of Canada, Sentence A-1.2.1.1.(1)(b)

The CCMC has determined that compliance with this provision of the Code has been demonstrated as an Alternative Solution. The evaluation report provides a summary of the basis of CCMC's compliance opinion.

CCMC's code compliance opinions

All CCMC evaluation reports are opinions of code compliance established in accordance with the National Building Code of Canada, Subsection 1.2.1. "Compliance with this Code," which requires compliance to be achieved by:

  • complying with the applicable acceptable solutions in Division B, or
  • using an alternative solution that will achieve at least the minimum level of performance required by Division B in the areas defined by the objective and functional statements attributed to the applicable acceptable solutions.

The CCMC assesses compliance with Canadian building, energy and safety codes, and is trusted by over 6,000 regulators across Canada.

Report a problem on this page
Date modified: