The Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association has completed a technical review of the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety’s “10-Year Wind Performance of Asphalt Shingles” report and identified several areas of technical concern.
IBHS evaluated 14 products from seven manufacturers that were weathered at its regional aging farms. However, ARMA says the report’s broad conclusions are undermined by nonstandard testing protocols, unrepresentative grab sampling and incomplete probabilistic modeling. By changing testing procedures midproject and omitting positive performance outcomes and enhanced manufacturer installation guidelines, the study fails to reflect real-world roof system durability.
Given the report’s technical limitations, ARMA cautions against relying on it for broad market decisions and urges insurance carriers and standards bodies not to use its data to justify arbitrary underwriting limits, market restrictions or product age caps.
Key technical concerns
1. Nonstandard testing and lack of oversight. IBHS set aside recognized ASTM consensus standards in favor of changing internal test methods. In addition, the IBHS research facility operates without independent lab auditing. ARMA says the lack of third-party oversight creates a conflict of interest because the reported results benefit the insurance industry, which makes up IBHS’s membership.
2. Disregard for modern roofing technologies and proper installation. The report does not clearly distinguish among the different types of asphalt shingle technologies. It attributes performance failures such as unsealing and tearing strictly to material aging. It does not account for installation problems such as misaligned nails and nail pops, deck warping, ground moisture affecting test stands elevated 4 feet, or a lack of routine roof maintenance.
3. Flawed material science. The project misapplied pavement oxidation models to roofing asphalt. Unlike paving asphalts, roofing asphalts are oxidized and modified during manufacturing before they are applied in the field. The report also discounts modern factory sealant formulations and region-specific seal-down technologies and it incorrectly links uplift performance to latitude rather than to regional product offerings and material composition.
4. Selective transparency and reporting. IBHS withheld raw testing data, annual observation reports and weather records from industry groups. Rather than offering a balanced evaluation, the report excludes products that passed wind and uplift testing. ARMA says this focus on negative outcomes is designed to influence consumer behavior and state and local legislative and regulatory action.
5. Unrepresentative sampling. IBHS evaluated a fraction of the market without authentic baseline or replicate testing. Within that limited data, one-third of the specimens maintained or increased their wind uplift resistance, yet the report’s conclusions ignored these findings.
ARMA members have advanced asphalt roofing technology for more than 100 years. ARMA works with outside groups to champion high-quality asphalt roofing materials that improve building resilience and protect communities. Because insurers, contractors, homeowners and policymakers rely on this collaboration and performance research, ARMA is sharing this technical context to help stakeholders make informed decisions about asphalt shingles, which cover about 80% of U.S. roofs.
ARMA supports consensus-based codes, standards and proven test methods. The association welcomes open dialogue and collaboration with IBHS and other stakeholders to move the industry forward but will not endorse inaccurate or unproven testing.
