ARMA says the IBHS study relies on non-standard testing methods, limited sampling and incomplete modeling that undermine its broader conclusions. The association is particularly concerned about the potential use of the research by insurers, standards organizations and resilience programs to establish roof-age limits.

As RC previously reported, the dispute comes as IBHS prepares to change the eligibility requirements for asphalt shingle roofs under its FORTIFIED program. Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, qualifying asphalt shingle roofs can remain eligible for FORTIFIED redesignation for up to 15 years from their initial designation, or from the documented installation date in certain cases.

ARMA specifically argues that the aging research does not scientifically justify a 15-year limit.

In a response to RC, ARMA said it opposes the 15-year FORTIFIED designation limit and warned that the change could have consequences for both homeowners and roofing contractors. The association said homeowners could face higher costs or changes in insurance coverage as roofs reach the eligibility limit, particularly if similar age restrictions spread beyond FORTIFIED. ARMA also raised concerns that contractors who followed FORTIFIED requirements could be put in the position of explaining why a roof no longer qualifies even though the installed materials or roofing system have not necessarily failed.

ARMA Questions Testing Methods

IBHS launched its Roof Aging Farm program in 2013 to study how the wind, hail and fire performance of roof coverings changes through natural aging. Its latest research compared laboratory baseline, five-year and 10-year wind-resistance data from shingles exposed at aging farms in different climates. The 10-year study evaluated 14 products from seven manufacturers, including 18 roof specimens of varying ages.

ARMA argues that the sample represents only a fraction of the asphalt shingle market and questions whether findings from individual production batches can support broader conclusions about shingle performance. The association also objects to IBHS changing its uplift-testing procedure during the research.

IBHS acknowledges that change in its report. Early baseline and five-year specimens were generally tested using a clamp procedure. IBHS later developed a beam procedure after researchers became concerned that cutting and clamping aged shingles could disturb the sealant bond they were trying to measure.

IBHS conducted sensitivity testing using both procedures and found greater variance with the beam method but said it found no systematic bias that would artificially lower median uplift resistance.

ARMA remains critical of the methodology, arguing IBHS should rely on established consensus standards rather than internally developed testing protocols.

IBHS takes the opposite view of existing standardized tests. The institute says current wind tests do not account for aging and poorly predict how asphalt shingles will perform on actual roofs over time.

Not All Shingles Declined

The two organizations also differ on how to interpret the results.

IBHS found that shingle wind performance did not simply decline steadily from installation through year 10. Instead, average uplift resistance increased during the first five years before declining between years five and 10. Even after that decline, average 10-year uplift resistance remained above the laboratory baseline average.

Performance also varied considerably among individual products.

Three of the nine 10-year specimens tested from IBHS's Richburg, S.C., aging farm — Products A, G and I — did not show a decrease in uplift resistance compared with their five-year results.

ARMA highlights that finding in its critique, arguing that one-third of those specimens maintained or increased uplift resistance and that IBHS's conclusions did not adequately reflect the positive results.

IBHS's report discloses the results but interprets them alongside other measures of wind vulnerability, including unsealing and variability in uplift resistance. The institute says some shingles with relatively high average uplift resistance may still be vulnerable if portions of the roof have unsealed gaps or resistance varies substantially from shingle to shingle. The report concludes that different products age differently and cautions against using aggregate asphalt shingle performance to predict an individual product's performance.

Age Isn't the Only Factor

The disagreement is also more nuanced than whether aging affects shingles.

IBHS describes roof age as a crucial factor in asphalt shingle wind performance, but its report also identifies product differences, environmental exposure and installation errors among the factors that can contribute to roof failures.

The research found significant differences by product and climate. At the Richburg aging farm, average uplift resistance declined between years five and 10. At northern aging farms, some of the same products maintained or increased their resistance over that period. IBHS says the findings suggest asphalt shingles may deteriorate more quickly in lower latitudes because of increased thermal and solar exposure.

ARMA argues that installation and roof conditions deserve greater consideration. Its technical review points to issues such as nail placement, backed-out fasteners, deck warping and moisture as variables that can affect roof performance regardless of shingle age.

IBHS itself notes that backed-out fasteners can cause shingles to unseal and acknowledges that multiple factors can contribute to real-world failures.

Why 15 Years?

The biggest practical question is how the aging research relates to the new FORTIFIED eligibility limit.

ARMA argues that the study cannot scientifically justify a 15-year cap, citing its sample size, changing test procedures and differences in individual product performance.

In response to questions from RC, IBHS confirmed that the 10-year aging study contributed to the decision, but said it was only one part of a broader body of evidence used to establish the limit.

“IBHS’s 10-year aging report contributed to a broader body of research, testing and post-storm observations that has improved our understanding of how aging and weathering can affect asphalt shingle performance in high winds,” said Fred Malik, managing director of FORTIFIED at IBHS. “Collectively, that work provided the technical basis for establishing a practical limit on FORTIFIED designation eligibility, which is not meant to suggest that every asphalt shingle roof has the same service life.”

Malik said performance varies from roof to roof and noted that FORTIFIED homes retain resilience features such as a sealed roof deck after the roof covering reaches the eligibility limit.

“Because performance varies from roof to roof, and because FORTIFIED homes continue to benefit from resilience features such as a sealed roof deck, we set 15 years as the outer boundary for continued FORTIFIED designation eligibility,” Malik told RC.

He said the consistent limit gives homeowners, IBHS and program partners a planning horizon as the program moves forward.

The initial impact will be limited. Malik said fewer than 50 homes will reach the 15-year eligibility limit during the next three years.

ARMA, however, remains concerned about what could happen as more roofs reach that boundary and as FORTIFIED requirements influence insurance and regulatory decisions.

In its response to RC, ARMA said the limit could “artificially restrict consumer choice” and affect the long-term cost of homeownership. The association also raised the possibility that age restrictions could eventually influence roofs that do not carry FORTIFIED designations.

For contractors, ARMA said the issue could create difficult conversations with customers who paid for roofs installed under FORTIFIED requirements.

“Contractors who underwent training and followed the FORTIFIED program to install higher-cost roofing systems risk losing credibility with clients after 10 to 15 years, or even sooner, as this recent policy shift from IBHS will impact certain roofs as early as 2027,” ARMA told RC.

ARMA is urging insurers and regulators to reject broad age-based caps and instead rely on consensus-based standards backed by independent third-party auditing.

The disagreement leaves contractors with an important distinction: IBHS is not saying an asphalt shingle roof reaches the end of its service life at 15 years. Instead, the organization says 15 years is a practical outer boundary for continued FORTIFIED designation eligibility based on a broader body of research, testing and post-storm observations.

ARMA argues that even an eligibility cutoff could have broader consequences if roof age becomes a benchmark for insurance, regulation or decisions about when otherwise functioning roofs should be replaced.