Mike,
It is a code requirement and more importantly, a manufacturers specification that the decking be nailed to something… preferably the trusses.
Eric,
I do not understand what you are trying to tell me.
If the bldg officials are making roofers remove all shiners then we should not risk our as-es crawling all around looking for something that may not exist. I am sure you or I can get it right 95% or better most of the time, even when we cannot see a full shiner.
That is exactly what I am saying. In fact, I was in a discussion with an underwriter from Universal and he said he needs a picture of a “shiner”. I informed him that what he is referring to as a “shiner” isn’t what I was taught.
What he was describing, I informed him, was a code violation as well as a violation of the manufacturers installation instructions.If the roof was installed properly, I shouldn’t be able to give him a picture of what he is asking.
I sent him the APA guidelines for roof deck nailing and asked him to show me where it says “nail the roof decking into thin air”. He had no answer. I then asked him if he had ever crawled an attic and he replied “no”. I said to him in a joking manner, but seriously, “try it some time”.
I have said it before many times, these inspections are a farce. I just had to do a roof certification for a home built in 1994. How long is the roof going to last? How the hell do I know?
All the insurance company needs to know is, does the home have hurricane protection for the windows and doors, and what year was the roof put on.
There the wind mitigation form reduced to one page!
The term Visible and Accessible should get it thru their heads.
The problem is that there are a great number of inspectors going above and beyond and it is causing the idiots to believe they are entitled to more than they are.
If it is NOT visible or ACCESIBLE then a photo is NOT required PERIOD.
Nowhere does it state that then the client does not get the credit they deserve.
Something must be done so our word and opinion is what matters and not some ridiculous pictures.
pictures of zircons on walls and pictures of marks on trusses are not visible items and they mean NOTHING and should not be included in any report.
I recommend that inspectors take and keep such photos for their own benefit so if they are questions they can state yes they verified these things and here is a photo that may help. Trying to photograph a wrap from 20 feet at an angle between trusses and around cardboard shoved into place for insulation is useless.
Before the asinine picture requirements were in effect I carried a monocular to verify what I thought was there.
I do not think we should guess or assume but if we personally verify it to our satisfaction then that damn well should be good enough. After all we are licensed professionals.
I can only hope the majority of the folks reading this finally wake up and smell the coffee before it is to late yet again.
Stick together and DEMAND the rules are changed the the OIR’s mistake is fixed and removed from the form. PLEASE.
Whew!
The latest is that the peel and stick is going over the entire roof. According to the manufacture, it must be rolled with a 50 lb. roller.
When informed of this , the workers asked, “What’s a roller”?
According to the homeowner, they used a 35 lb. roller and now, the roof covering resembles the ocean. Pics coming later on today along with another report.
I suspect I will be recommending that the roof coverings be torn off and we start over!
Is the wood underneath that uneven? that certainly looks wavy for such a thin product.
No, the wood is fine. When they pulled out all the improperly nailed nails, they patched all the slits and then, went over that, with more tar paper.
Now, all of the tin tabs, which more than likely are not nailed properly, are sticking up and the first layer of tar paper is also uneven.
So why the peel and stick now? It is not eligible for a discount.
It will however “Help” to prevent further water intrusion issues.
Why wouldn’t it be eligible for a discount? It is installed, sort of, as per the manufacturers instructions.
It must be stuck directly to the sheathing. as per the oir form. I believe you said that went over the felt and tin tags? Not as per form = no swr credit.
Self adhering polymer modified bitumen roofing underlayment applied directly to the sheathing or foam adhesive SWR barrier (not foamed on insulation) applied as a secondary means to protect the dwelling
from water intrusion.
Then we have a problem, don’t we?
From the manufacturer:
INSTALLATION PROCEDURES:
Deck Type 1: Wood, non-insulated
Base Sheet: One or more plies of ASTM D 226 Type II or ASTM D 2626 or Polyprotector UDL or Polyprotector UDL AS.
Fastening: Nails and tin caps 12" grid, 6" o.c. at laps. (for base sheet only)
Membrane: Polystick membranes self-adhered.
Surfacing: None
Another example of the form being incorrect.
things that make you go hmmmmm. There are those that think it is ok to have it just on the joints but I do not interpret it that way.
Eric,
If they put it over tar paper it will never be flat. Well thats not true, if you look at any roof dried in with tar paper you’ll see it’s nice and tight until the temps change then the same roof will look like an armature put it on. Just a function of the product, it grows and shrinks with the weather and the nailing prevents movement causing the wrinkles.
So no matter what the roofers do if they have tar paper under the peel and stick wrinkles will show through during a particular part of the day. How ever they should not be visible even under shingles and should not cause a problem under tile either.
There are several roofs in my neighborhood that used this product, and none of their roofs looked like this one.
The problem is the way they patched the areas where they had to remove the nails. I’ll put that picture here.
Then, as if that wasn’t bad enough, they added another layer of tar-paper on top of that one. That is what is causing all of the dips in the roof.
The wrinkles in the peel and stick were caused because of what is under it as well as improper installation and now, the peel and stick is not stuck.
Look at the bottom of the picture below to see how they patched the areas that they took apart.
I imagine that when I send in the WM with SWR marked “Yes” I am going to have to send a letter as well as the manufacturers installation instructions and have the owner send a letter from the code official, just to get the credit.
By the by…what does “secondary” mean? :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
I do not believe that will work it they know how it is installed.
To me the reason it is good is because it adheres directly to the wood. without that once a corner or piece comes up pop pop pop goes the tar and tin tags and it all flies away. When it is totally glued to the wood there is virtually no way it will go anywhere unless the wood leaves the structure.
The way I see it is if is no Self adhering polymer modified bitumen roofing underlayment applied directly to the sheathing then it does not and SHOULD not qualify.
The foam stuff from below, NOT INSULATION is even better as it essentially super-glues the deck to the trusses. I have seen folks try to get by with just the seams done and basically caulk the trusses with it and that does not cut it either.
The shingles, tile, metal etc are the “primary” water barrier the peel and stick is the “secondary” or back up for when the primary is lost to the wind, but you knew that.
And (I’m choking having to say this but) I agree with Meeker about it not working as an SWB for wind mit purposes.