determination of resistance to root damage to flexible ...€¦ · the fll method involves all...

Test Report

Determination of resistance to root damage to flexible sheets and coatings

for roof planting according to FLL

Product name:

Protan G

Principal/Manufacturer:

Protan AS P. O. Box 420

Brakerøya N-3002 Drammen

Norway

The report comprises 32 pages and is only allowed to be used unabridged.

The report has a 10 years period of validity.

Date: 2010-10-12

Test institute: Institut für Gartenbau, Hochschule Weihenstephan-Triesdorf (Report 27/10) Principal: Protan AS Product name: Protan G

The report comprises 32 pages

2

Information given by Protan AS concerning data and characteristics

of the flexible sheet Protan G

• Name of the product: Protan G

• Scope: Resistance to root penetration

• Material designation: PVC-P (Plasticized PVC)

• Thickness (excluding bond): 1.5mm

• Equipment/structure: PVC-P with an core of glass felt

• Delivery form: Rolls of membrane

• Manufacturing technique: Calandering and coating

• Product standards: EN 13956

• Test certificates: SINTEF approval 2008 and 2010. ETA 06-0251ee,

BBA 00/3755

• Year of manufacture: 2008

• Layer resisting to perforation: Whole membrane

• Installation method at the test site:

Overlap: 6 – 13 cm

Jointing technique: Hot air welding

Jointing agent: None

Type of joint seal: None

Wall corner joint reinforcing: With hand made parts using material of the

sheet

• Addition of biocides incl. concentration: Fungicide



3

1 Problem task

In order to prevent damage, protection sheets and coatings are required to per-

form permanent resistance against penetration or perforation by plant roots and

plant rhizomes (subterranean sprouts).

It is well known that rhizomes as well as roots may damage protection sheets

and coatings. So methods on testing protection sheets and coatings should con-

sider both roots and rhizomes. Using Couch Grass (Agropyron repens) besides

Firethorn (Pyracantha coccinea) as test plants, the long-established and ap-

proved FLL method takes rhizomes into account. According to the European

standard EN 13948, which is derived from the FLL method, the test is being car-

ried out without couch grass. Consequently, no impact of rhizomes can be de-

tected. Thus the FLL method is more extensive and is considered to be more

significant compared with EN 13948.

In this test the resistance to root and rhizome damage of the flexible sheet Pro-

tan G manufactured by Protan AS, Brakerøya, N-3002 Drammen, Norway was

determined according to FLL method.

2 Test facility and procedure

The 2 year-long test was carried out in accordance with the ”Method of testing

resistance to root damage to flexible sheets and coatings of roof planting“ (FLL,

2008). The complete description of the FLL test procedure can be found in an-

nex 3 of this report.

The test was carried out between October 2008 and October 2010 comprising

8 containers equipped with the sheet to be tested. Another 3 containers without

sheet were serving as control that allows to compare the plant development in

the different containers. The sheet was installed in the containers at the test site

of the Institute of Horticulture, Weihenstephan-Triesdorf University of Applied

Science by Protan AS. The containers were installed in a climate-controlled glass

house. A check sample of the flexible sheet was taken and stored at the testing

institute.



4

3 Data given by the manufacturer of the flexible sheet

The test of resistance against root and rhizome perforation refers to the data and

material characteristics of the tested sheet and to the applied manufacturing

technique. The data given by Protan AS concerning the flexible sheet Protan G

are listed on page 2 of this report.

4 Results

4.1 Plant development

The plants, Firethorn and Coach Grass, performed well during the whole test

period. Growth of the test plants in the control containers (without sheet) was

on average not differing from plant growth in the test containers covered by the

flexible sheet Protan G. The required minimum vigorousness of Firethorn in the

test containers (80 % of the average vigorousness of growth in the control con-

tainers) was clearly exceeded (97-101 %).

Coach Grass performed from the first interim evaluation (April 2009) during the

whole test period a high density of stand. At the periodic evaluations in the 8

test containers on average 58 to 68 % of the substrate surface was covered

with Coach Grass (nominal value ≥ 40 %).

Detailed information concerning vigorousness of growth are given in annex 2.

4.2 Penetration and perforation of roots and rhizomes at the end of test period

At the end of the test period (October 2010) the containers were emptied for a

detailed check of the flexible sheet Protan G for root or rhizome penetration and

perforation.

The flexible sheet Protan G did not show any perforations or penetrations

caused by roots or rhizomes after the 2 year test period (see photos in annex 1).



5

5 Summary

In accordance with the “Method of testing resistance to root damage to flexible

sheets and coatings for roof planting“ (FLL, 2008) a two year-long test was car-

ried out with the flexible sheet Protan G.

The flexible sheet Protan G did not show any perforations or penetrations

caused by roots and rhizomes after the 2 year test period.

The flexible sheet Protan G is therefore considered to be resistant to roots and

to Couch Grass rhizomes according to FLL standard.

The FLL method involves all relevant elements of the method according to the

European Standard EN 13948. Furthermore the FLL method is more extensive

and is considered to be more significant among experts. So from the technical

point of view the tested flexible sheet Protan G can be regarded as being resis-

tant to root penetrations according EN 13948 as well.

The results of the test relate only to the tested flexible sheet Protan G with its

defined material characteristics and applied manufacturing technique (s. page 2

of this report). An extension of the results to other sheets is not admissible.

Check samples of the tested sheet were taken and are stored at the Institute of

Horticulture, Weihenstephan University of Applied Science.

The test report was compiled in October 2010. The report has a 10 years period

of validity. This report comprises 32 pages and is only allowed to be used un-

abridged.

Person responsible for the test and the report: Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Martin Jauch

2010-10-12

Hochschule Weihenstephan-Triesdorf / Forschungsanstalt für Gartenbau Institut für Gartenbau, Am Staudengarten 14, D-85354 Freising Tel.: +49 (0) 8161 / 71-4413, Fax: +49 (0) 8161 / 71-3348

E-Mail: [email protected]



6

Annex 1 Photos concerning the tested flexible sheet Protan G (October 2010)

Figure 1: Sheet surface (detail)

Figure 2: Sheet surface with T joint



7

Figure 3: Cut through the sheet with joint

Figure 4: Wall corner joint reinforcing



8

Annex 2 Data on plant development

Table 1: Height and trunk diameter of Firethorn in 3 control containers

April 2009

October 2009

April 2010

October 2010

Cont. No.

Plant No.

∅ cm1)

Height cm

∅ cm1)

Height cm

∅ cm1)

Height cm

∅ cm1)

Height cm

K 1 1 1.3 175 1.6 235 1.8 280 2.1 300 2 1.3 180 1.5 235 1.8 265 2.0 325 3 1.4 205 1.6 215 1.8 225 2.1 285 4 1.3 185 1.6 200 1.8 220 2.0 295

K 2 1 1.4 205 1.6 260 1.8 300 2.0 330 2 1.4 200 1.6 215 1.8 240 2.0 295 3 1.2 175 1.4 200 1.7 240 1.9 310 4 1.3 170 1.5 195 1.7 265 2.0 305

K 3 1 1.2 205 1.4 265 1.6 310 1.9 350 2 1.3 155 1.6 190 1.8 225 2.1 280 3 1.3 215 1.6 255 1.8 290 2.1 320 4 1.3 185 1.6 225 1.7 270 1.9 295

1) Trunk diameter measured at 20 cm above substrate surface

Table 2: Average height and trunk diameter of Firethorn in 3 control containers

April 2009

October 2009

April 2010

October 2010

Cont. No.

Plant No.

∅ cm1)

Height cm

∅ cm1)

Height cm

∅ cm1)

Height cm

∅ cm1)

Height cm

K 1- K 3

1-4

1.31

187.9

1.55

224.2

1.76

260.8

2.01

307.5




9

Table 3: Height and trunk diameter of Firethorn in 8 test containers

April 2009

October 2009

April 2010

October 2010

Cont. No.

Plant No.

∅ cm1)

Height cm

∅ cm1)

Height cm

∅ cm1)

Height cm

∅ cm1)

Height cm

P 1 1 1.2 165 1.4 205 1.6 240 1.8 280 2 1.3 160 1.6 160 1.8 215 2.0 270 3 1.4 205 1.6 230 1.8 230 2.1 285 4 1.2 205 1.6 225 1.9 250 2.2 285

P 2 1 1.3 180 1.7 220 1.9 285 2.1 325 2 1.3 195 1.5 205 1.7 225 1.9 280 3 1.4 210 1.6 240 1.9 265 2.1 305 4 1.3 180 1.6 235 1.8 270 2.0 325

P 3 1 1.3 205 1.5 240 1.8 295 2.1 330 2 1.5 220 1.7 250 2.0 285 2.1 350 3 1.3 170 1.6 195 1.8 225 2.0 295 4 1.4 215 1.6 240 1.8 305 2.0 355

P 4 1 1.3 185 1.5 225 1.7 265 2.0 315 2 1.2 205 1.4 250 1.6 295 1.8 325 3 1.4 215 1.6 275 1.8 315 2.0 340 4 1.4 205 1.6 205 1.8 245 2.0 295

P 5 1 1.2 185 1.4 215 1.7 245 2.0 310 2 1.4 210 1.5 250 1.8 305 2.2 350 3 1.3 215 1.6 235 1.8 285 2.3 315 4 1.3 215 1.5 250 1.7 295 2.0 330

P 6 1 1.3 195 1.6 245 1.8 265 2.1 315 2 1.3 170 1.5 220 1.7 270 2.0 305 3 1.4 185 1.6 235 1.8 285 2.1 300 4 1.3 180 1.5 205 1.8 275 2.0 305

P 7 1 1.2 210 1.4 275 1.6 315 1.9 350 2 1.3 155 1.6 180 1.8 230 2.1 280 3 1.2 150 1.4 200 1.6 245 2.0 285 4 1.4 205 1.6 240 1.8 285 1.9 320

P 8 1 1.2 180 1.4 220 1.7 265 2.0 295 2 1.3 195 1.5 225 1.8 250 2.0 275 3 1.2 220 1.4 220 1.6 260 1.8 300 4 1.3 185 1.6 225 1.7 275 1.9 295




10

Table 4: Average height and trunk diameter of Firethorn in 8 test containers

April 2009

October 2009

April 2010

October 2010

Cont. No.

Plant No.

∅ cm1)

Height cm

∅ cm1)

Height cm

∅ cm1)

Height cm

∅ cm1)

Height cm

P 1- P 8

1-4

1.31

193,0

1.53

226.3

1.76

267.5

2.02

309.1


Table 5: Average values of height and trunk diameter of Firethorn in 8 test

containers related to the values of the plants in 3 control containers (data in %, nominal value: ≥ 80 %)

April 2009

October 2009

April 2010

October 2010

Cont. No.

Plant No.

∅ (%)

Height (%)

∅ (%)

Height (%)

∅ (%)

Height (%)

∅ (%))

Height (%)

P 1- P 8

1-4

100

97

101

99

100

98

100

100

Table 6: Classification of the stand density of Coach Grass in 3 control con-

tainers

April 2009

October 2009

April 2010

October 2010

Cont. No.

stand density (in %)




K 1 60 65 65 65 K 2 60 65 75 65 K 3 55 60 65 70 Table 7: Average values of the stand density of Coach Grass in 3 control

containers

April 2009

October 2009

April 2010

October 2010

Cont. No.





K 1- K 3

58.3

63.3

68.3

66.7



11

Table 8: Classification of the stand density of Coach Grass in 8 test containers

April 2009

October 2009

April 2010

October 2010

Cont. No.





P 1 60 60 70 65 P 2 65 65 75 70 P 3 55 65 65 65 P 4 55 65 65 70 P 5 65 75 70 65 P 6 55 65 60 65 P 7 50 60 70 65 P 8 55 60 65 65

Table 9: Average values of the stand density of Coach Grass in 8 test con-

tainers (nominal value: ≥ 40 %)

April 2009

October 2009

April 2010

October 2010

Cont. No.





P 1- P 8

57.5

68.4

67.5

66.3

determination of resistance to root damage to flexible ...€¦ · the fll method involves all...

Documents