Originally Posted By: dduffy This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The sidewall flashing is not installed correctly, but there could be the original flashing in back of it, hard to tell without being there. Hard to tell what kind of shape it might be in also, if there is old flashing. Somebody installed it for a reason, whether it was for cosmetic issues or not you really cannot be certain.
Anyway, I would sure make note of the fact it is installed wrong regardless of what is in back of it.
Originally Posted By: dduffy This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jeff,
They probably had a leak there at one time before the new roof covering was installed, instead of installing the sidewall and step flashing correctly in back of the stucco they just went over it.
Originally Posted By: jweinberg This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Good Advice…
The flashings are all in great shape. They just look wrong.
Here is what I just put into my report.... Let me know if you have any other suggestions...
Flashings
Monitor: The wall-to-roof flashings should be carefully monitored. The proximity and configuration of this flashing is extremely vulnerable to leakage. The installation of the counter flashing (top portion) appears to be incorrect. Installation of counter flashing that is properly installed is attached under, not on top of, the stucco wall siding.
Originally Posted By: jweinberg This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I would think they had a leak too. But the base flashing appears to be in good shape.
This flashing installation goes around 2 sides of this 4-plex (not just in one area, like a patch) where the second floor connects with the first floor roof. The other two sides of the building don't intersect with with the roof.
Originally Posted By: gbeaumont This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi to all,
maybe I am missing something here, but I fail to see what is wrong with this base and counter flashing, as long as the counter flashing is properly sealed to the stucco it should work just fine.
I would rather see this than the usual Fubar'd attempt to reuse the original flashings.
Originally Posted By: dduffy This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
gbeaumont wrote:
Hi to all,
maybe I am missing something here, but I fail to see what is wrong with this base and counter flashing, as long as the counter flashing is properly sealed to the stucco it should work just fine.
I would rather see this than the usual Fubar'd attempt to reuse the original flashings.
Regards
Gerry
Hi Gerry,
We call it side wall flashing in Arizona, used for the bottom of a parapet wall in which the EPDM is rolled up the wall, the flashing is installed and the roof foamed. Or just asphalt-granular roll roofing material is used with the same objective.
Originally Posted By: jweinberg This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
[quote=Erol Kartal]Although I’ve never seen this type of flashing, it appears this flashing has multiple joints which would allow water to seep behind it. No? [/quote]
The base flashing with multipe joints is not a concern. With proper slope and sufficient overlap (both of which appear to be present) water will not intrude.
The concern with this picture is that the top of the counter (top) flashing is on the outside of the siding. Since Stucco is an irregular (non flat) surface, water running down the wall has the potential to get behind the flashing if it is not properly sealed to the wall.
I've just never seen this before so want to make sure I advise the buyer correctly...
Originally Posted By: Joe DiGiacomo This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
This appears to me to be improperly flashed. If all where new, the leg of the wall flashing should be under the stucco. However since this was a new over old, the stucco should have been kerfed to recieve a short leg of the wall flash and then caulked. This condition shown will bring water into the house sooner or later.
Originally Posted By: ekartal5 This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jweinberg wrote:
The base flashing with multipe joints is not a concern. With proper slope and sufficient overlap (both of which appear to be present) water will not intrude.
That's where I'm confused. If there was counterflashing over the base, we wouldn't see the multiple joints.
Originally Posted By: gbeaumont This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi to all,
Errol, the step flashing being visible is not a problem at all, the only potential issue here is whether the counter flashing is sealed well enough to the stucco to prevent moisture from entering the top of the step flashings.
Each piece of the step flashing is over (and under) locked with the adjacent pieces by 3 inches so the only place moisture should be able to enter is at the top.
In many cases the step flashing SHOULD be visible, especially where wooden trim or siding is acting as the counter flashing, and 1-2 inches of seperation is required.
Originally Posted By: dduffy This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Erol,
If was installed right there would not be any counterflashing.
Up the wall and under the shingles.
Just one continuous peice from the ridge to the eave in back of the stucco.
They must of just covered the old flashing over in Jeff's photo.
Originally Posted By: rmeyers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jeff,
Seen this type of side wall flashing system used over brick in several cases. I assume there is caulk behind the counter flashing to make the seal.
In several of the applications I have seen they used a small 45 degree outward bend at the top edge of the counter flashing strip to actually form a chanel to receive a bead of sealant. (also stiffens the profile) Not the best flashing detail, but I believe when properly done, an acceptable practice for re-roof applications.
This system is dependent on the caulking as opposed to the proper lapping and mechanical shedding of water which is best. The grade of caulk and it's application is critical in achieving a long term seal.
In the case shown, I might recommend a few more mechanical fasteners to help prevent the counter flashing strip from bowing away from the wall and breaking the sealant loose. This is definitely an area to recommend "watching" for ongoing maintenance.
HAVE A GREAT DAY!!!   
Originally Posted By: mcyr This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
What I see here is step flashing installed under the counter flash, which in this case would be more of a termination bar, but is not.
It appears that since the stucco was directly appllied to a cementous product given away by the lead pin anchors, there would not been any conceivable way to have the step flashing behind the stucco.
Termination bars are adequate in flat roofing work, but never seen it used in this application, due the fact I am in Maine. Drivit system is more common here and, yes, the step flashing would have been behind the product.
This termination bar appears to have been fabricated of coated finished 16-18 gauge alluminum and might not be adequate to hold the seal against the stucco.
The real termination bar used in roofing system is much heavier and not as esthetically pleasing.
I would recommend to have a roofing Contractor inspect for it's functional capacity in this installation.
