Thread: roof to wall flashing

New house/ tile roof / stucco frame second floor / problem area is where the lanai roof connects to the second story. I noted faint water staining coming down the inside wall of the lani in two locations. It appears that wind driven rain is getting up under the counter flashing somehow and running down the attic wall below the roof wall connection.

The gap between the tile and the vertical wall where the flashing is located varies to 3.5 inches or so. The tiles appear to have slid do to improper adhesive I guess. They were not nailed I am assuming to keep from penetrating the flashing. My question is whether the gap is helping create a trap for wind driven rain and are there any codes requiring that gap to be mortared etc and what do you think is the best repair for this. Or am i off completely?

Oh and they forgat to add any attic venting. No soffit venting or anything. I am sure the building dept caught this
Thanks!
Jerome

Similar Threads:

• Fastener type for flashing
• Roof flashing
• Crack in the wall
• Staining on exterior wall near A/C
• Chimney Flashing

Originally Posted by Jerome W. Young

... I am sure the building dept caught this Thanks!
Jerome

And how can you be sure the building department caught this?

Jerome,

Yep - classic "sliding roof".

They forgot to back nail (or otherwise secure) the 90 lb tile underlayment down, probably used the wrong asphalt too (or overheated it), resulting in the weight of the tiles and gravity pulling the tile underlayment down toward the ground (at least as far as it has gone so far).

When the 90 lb slides like that, it leaves voids at its top / flashing joint which can allow water in.

Did you look at the eave and see if the 90 lb was also overhanging the drip edge? If it is, then the entire roof is sliding, not just the top.

Either way, the only repair is to tear it off and replace it ... *IF* only the top is sliding (highly unlikely), then they may be able to get by with just replacing the top 3-4 feet of the roof. If the roof is a small roof, might as well do the entire roof. *IF* there is evidence of sliding at the eave drip edge, the entire roof will need to be replaced.

By 'entire roof' and am referring to 'that roof area', not 'the entire roof of the house' ... unless, of course, there is slippage on the rest of the roof (and why wouldn't there be?).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Jerome,


... *IF* only the top is sliding (highly unlikely),

It's not that uncommon to see only the top course of tiles slipping in that roof/wall junction, because they are not secured to anything. The little bit of adhesive used dried up by the time they got the tile down.

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

It's not that uncommon to see only the top course of tiles slipping in that roof/wall junction, because they are not secured to anything.

That is true *if only* the "tile" is slipping (because the tiles are loose - but that's 'loose tiles', not 'slipping tiles').

However, the photo shows that 'the tile underlayment' is also moving and slipping. The tile underlayment should not be slipping or moving.

If the tile underlayment is moving or slipping, it means it was not secured down properly, which typically means it was not back nailed, and they may have used the wrong asphalt or over heated it.

Another reason you often see "slippage" only at the top is that many roofs are "mechanically fastened" down, in which case the tile underlayment cannot slip - the tile is nailed/screwed down through the tile underlayment, which very effectively holds the tile underlayment in place too.

However, when tile is "adhesively set" (i.e. "foamed down") there are not mechanical fasteners to hold everything in place, in those cases, the tile underlayment is entirely held in place by the hot mop asphalt and the back nailing (provided they back nailed the tile underlayment). If they did not back nail the tile underlayment, the hot mop asphalt tends to soften slightly on hot days, the tile is foamed to the tile underlayment (years ago the tile was mortared to the tile underlayment) and gravity, being as it *always* is pulling things downward, wins over time when put up against something which 'softens' under heat.

The steeper the slope, the more gravity wins.

Back nailing the tile underlayment offsets gravity and results in roofs which stay in place. That roof (in the photo) did not look very steep, maybe 4:12 of 5:12.

I've seen sliding roofs on 3:12 sloped roofs when they used the wrong asphalt ... AND they backed nailed the tile underlayment on that roof, but it slid anyway - because they had used the wrong asphalt.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

However, the photo shows that 'the tile underlayment' is also moving and slipping.

Sorry Charlie, there is no way that small photo conveys that kind of information without seeing the entire roof surface.

Call it out and move on.

As you simply must have the last word in every possible discussion, I'll give you the floor now...

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

Sorry Charlie, there is no way that small photo conveys that kind of information without seeing the entire roof surface.

Guess my eyes are not as bad as yours, then.

Maybe before saying "no way" that adamantly you need to look closer?

As you simply must have the last word in every possible discussion,

Quite untrue ... however, when someone states "no way" to something which is visible in the photo, that statement needs to be addressed.

You've proved my point ...

... and still have not revealed how that photo depicts a widepread failure of the underlayment. Not possible to see without additional facts or photos. You are assuming facts not in evidence.

I dare you not to respond.

Jerry,
What about the gap between the wall and the start of the tile. Even if the tile were a reasonable distance from the wall, should that gap be mortared or does it not really matter?

Originally Posted by Jerome W. Young

What about the gap between the wall and the start of the tile. Even if the tile were a reasonable distance from the wall, should that gap be mortared ...

Jerome,

Yes. And it does matter.

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

You've proved my point ...

... and still have not revealed how that photo depicts a widepread failure of the underlayment. Not possible to see without additional facts or photos. You are assuming facts not in evidence.

I dare you not to respond.

(sigh) My dear blind friend ...

You know I cannot 'not respond' to something that incorrect.

See the attached photo. I am using the word "see" purposefully and hopefully, and, if you need glasses, you can get some magnifier glasses at Walgreen's for about 5-10 bucks.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

My dear blind friend ...

Jerry,

Are you really that obtuse?

I can clearly see the top row is slipping.

The original post mentioned that the top row is slipping.

We already discussed that the top row is slipping.

I offered an opinion about the top row slipping.

Then, you stated "the entire roof is slipping" based only on a photo of the top row.

Which one of us needs glasses????

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

Jerry,

Are you really that obtuse?

I can clearly see the top row is slipping.

Which one of us needs glasses????

Dom,

"Which one of us needs glasses????"

You do.

I didn't circle 'the tile space'. Can you see what IS IN the ellipses?

Jerry,
I think we're on different pages. You seem to miss the point.

Dom.

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

I think we're on different pages.

Could be on different pages - don't you see those separated areas where the membrane as pulled (slid) down from the flashing?

That is NOT "tile", that is "sliding roof". And as I said, " ... the only repair is to tear it off and replace it ... *IF* only the top is sliding (highly unlikely), then they may be able to get by with just replacing the top 3-4 feet of the roof."

I also said "When the 90 lb slides like that, it leaves voids at its top / flashing joint which can allow water in."

What different page are you on?

It's easy to see both sides of this argument...

Dom states that it's hard to tell the "Whole" roof is sliding just by looking at the top course that has slid.

Jerry notes that it is highly ulikely that just the top course would slide, which it has. Which is a very valid point.

But I do concurr that stating, "the whole roof will need to be removed" is pre-mature without additional information by removal of the top several courses (as Jerry stated would need doing).

There is no absolute to be determined from this single photo, in my opinion.

Richard

Doom,

Did you not read this part of my post?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Did you look at the eave and see if the 90 lb was also overhanging the drip edge? If it is, then the entire roof is sliding, not just the top.

Either way, the only repair is to tear it off and replace it ... *IF* only the top is sliding (highly unlikely), then they may be able to get by with just replacing the top 3-4 feet of the roof. If the roof is a small roof, might as well do the entire roof. *IF* there is evidence of sliding at the eave drip edge, the entire roof will need to be replaced.

By 'entire roof' and am referring to 'that roof area', not 'the entire roof of the house' ... unless, of course, there is slippage on the rest of the roof (and why wouldn't there be?).

There are a lot of 'ifs' and 'unlesses' in there to qualify and quantify what is needed.