Thread: Is flashing correct at chimney?

I just inspected a new construction single family. the exterior chimney was flashed similiar to a flat roof on an angle, the developer said that membrane flashing was used and that was covered with another flashing. The only industry standard I am aware of, at the chimney, is raking the mortar joint and, counter/step flashing. Is this an acceptable flashing? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks

Similar Threads:

• Chimney questions
• Fastener type for flashing
• Roof flashing
• Satellite Dish Mounted to Chimney
• Chimney Flashing

The flashing is like this.

You cannot see this "membrane" flashing and the metal flashing is incorrect. That is what I would report and then mention the brick flashing detail that you are referring to. If possible, also insert a diagram of proper flashing. Let the builder provide the documentation that says his flashing is correct.

Thank you Gunnar, The developer is yelling "thats how everyone is doing it!" The buyers real estate agent (and sister) sent me a list of developers that use this roofer and how great they are, telling me how she "is not losing this deal over this" and, just wants me to say its O.K. so they can close.
I mean its just her sister?

The house is $1 million+ and I think people think that price tag buys them perfection, no need for an inspection especially, if you find something.

Sometimes they will cut a curf and set the flashing in but that method looks like$hit. Is that real brick or concrete surface. If concrete or brick the flashing should have been set up under and behind before the roof was installed. Mabey Taco was having a bad day.

Leon,

My response in cases like that is that I am not a roofing contractor and I am not up on all of the latest/greatest breakthroughs in roofing technology or whatever is being argued about). If the roofing contractor is willing to provide documentation, then that should be fine. The roofing contractor is the "expert". However, I would be unwilling to "give it my blessing".

That is real brick, and yes, it does look like ....

I would be doubly surprised that the builder would be willing to lose a million dollar sale of his home, and his reputation, if was only required to provide a simple document showing that the roofers technique was valid.
You have done your work and pointed out to your client that a problem may exists. It is certainly within the buyers rights to expect to know the construction technique used is a valid one and will perform as intended. The agent should be standing behind her client, and sister, and use her experience to get the builder to make a simple explanation. Now if I were the builder, I would simply ask that my sub-contractor (the roofer) stand behind his/her work and provide a doctrinal explanation to his/her work. Too easy and everyone is happy.

Now as far at the separation between the hardboard/hardiplank and the roof covering, that's another matter....

That is done a lot around here. I report it and info my clients at the time of the inspection of the type of response they may be getting from the builder and/or roofer. I also show them the difference between what is installed and how step and counter flashing work together. From there, my job is done.

Now, if the builder and/or roofer calls, just ask them where they get that information saying this type of flashing is fine. If they say "that's how everyone does it!", keep asking him the same question. When he goes to look it up to prove you're wrong, he will learn that he is wrong and there is a chance that he will start installing flashing properly.

Originally Posted by Leon Mann

I just inspected a new construction single family. the exterior chimney was flashed similiar to a flat roof on an angle, the developer said that membrane flashing was used and that was covered with another flashing. The only industry standard I am aware of, at the chimney, is raking the mortar joint and, counter/step flashing. Is this an acceptable flashing? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks

Real quick, how's flooding on the North side of Chicago. Munster is getting the worse of it around here which is about 15 blocks from me. What gets me is that this is happening exactly 2 years after our last flood that cost us $57,000 to fix things.

The picture shows one of many bridges around 2 pm yesterday that many people use to get out of town to 80-94 to get to work in Chicago. They are talking about water rising another 2 to 4 feet in the little Calumet river.

Originally Posted by Leon Mann

The developer is yelling "thats how everyone is doing it!"

Man oh man! If I only had a nichol for every time I heard that!

So I guess everybody is doing it wrong then!!!

Like Gunnar said; get the developer to provide documentation.

Explain to them that you have not seen this type of application and all you need is for the developer to provide some kind of documentation showing that this installation will meet the "minimum" code!

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

I would be unwilling to "give it my blessing".

As Gunnar said, I would not say it was okay.

I would tell them it is not like the code says it is supposed to be, and it is not like the BIA says it is supposed to be, and that just because 'that is how that roofer does it for all his roofs' does not 'make it correct' - it really only means that the roofer is admitting that he does it incorrectly at all those other roofs TOO.

Then finish by saying 'If you want to buy the house this way, I have no problem with that, it is your money, not mine, you paid your money to me for my professional opinion, I gave you my professional opinion, nothing say you have to do what I tell you, I am giving "advice", that is what you asked me to do. That is what I did.

Hey Jerry,
do you do inspections in Cedar Falls, Indiana by chance? I have recent client who now wants me to do inspection for his parents summer condo. I am not licensed down there. If not, know anyone?

OOOOOPS! Sorry Jerry!
That was directed to Kevin Luce, thanks. Kevin, let me know

Originally Posted by Leon Mann

OOOOOPS! Sorry Jerry!
That was directed to Kevin Luce, thanks. Kevin, let me know

I think you are thinking of Cedar Lake. I had 4 cancellations today so as long as the house is not flooded I don't have a problem with it. I schedule inspections 9am or 2pm Monday - Saturday and 12 noon on Sunday.

Be glad to do it. Just let me know.

Here are some pictures from the local paper in our area.

http://www.nwitimes.com/packages/sli...oodingaerials/

Pictures 4, 5 & 6 is the subdivision where I grew up. Just sold my parents house a couple of years ago.

Picture 15 is 3 blocks over from where we live now. The river has always flowed West but now flowing East. I was told that we have no control over this.

Holy Coww!!!
Is that Cedar Lake?

No. The pictures are showing Highland, Munster, Dyer, Griffith which are all about a 5 minute drive or less from Highland. Cedar lake is down the road a little.

Google Maps

Click on "Include Large Map" at the top to get a visual.

I did an inspection in Lowell yesterday which is a little South of Cedar Lake and not much flooding occurred there. Cedar Lake is normally the furtherest I inspect.

Kevin,

Would you change your location from "USA" to your city and state?

It sure would help.

I know I've asked before, but guess you did not pay attention to it or simply said 'screw that'. It really would be a help, or, maybe we should just all put down "Planet Earth", that would help us all know we are not from Mars or someplace else.

If you noticed, the home in the first photos all had green around them, indicating that someone paid attention to base flood elevations, and may have even added a design flood elevation freeboard height above BFE.

You will see a couple of houses without that green space around them, those are the ones where the builder save a little bit of money and did not make the houses quite as high as the others, and I am sure the builder also charged their buyers that little bit less for what the builder saved ... NOT!

Many people think BFE and the even higher DFE are "just too costly", those living in the houses will the green space around them will quietly disagree, those living in the houses with water flowing through them will be cursing the builders, the building department, and everyone else for allowing the house to be built "that friggin low".

It sure would have been "cheaper" to have built those houses "higher" at the time of construction.

Jerry; one thing that FEMA has done is implemented (several years ago)that any development within the FP has to be developed at least 1 foot above BFE "if" they want to be able to purchase flood insurance.

The city I work for has ammended that requirement to 2 feet above BFE. Developers cry a little but during the past few flood events these new homeowners sure were smiling where there neighbors that were constructed prior to our adoption of the new ordinance were a little upset.

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

Jerry; one thing that FEMA has done is implemented (several years ago)that any development within the FP has to be developed at least 1 foot above BFE "if" they want to be able to purchase flood insurance.

Wayne,

Normally, FEMA would issue new BFE. The BFE is the Base Flood Elevation, thus, if they want to raise it 1 foot, they would raise the BFE 1 foot and issue a new BFE. Interesting that they did not do that.

The city I work for has ammended that requirement to 2 feet above BFE.

Let's back that to 1 foot above the new FEMA requirement stated above, that extra foot is the DFE, Design Flood Elevation, for the community, and they can, on a house by house basis, reduce that down to the BFE set by FEMA, but not go below the BFE.

That extra foot to the DFE is called "freeboard". Think of it as a boat sitting in water loaded down so the edge of the boat hull is just a tinsy bit above water, not a real safe feeling (a little ripple on the water would overflow the side and sink your boat), now remove enough weight to allow the boat to raise 1 foot, that puts you with a foot of freeboard to spare above the waterline. Now, a little ripple on the water will not sink you ... a 'wave' still would, yes.

The higher you build the house, the safer it becomes during floods.

Developers cry a little but during the past few flood events these new homeowners sure were smiling where there neighbors that were constructed prior to our adoption of the new ordinance were a little upset.

There was a place in South Florida like that, only the difference was dramatic.

The older phase had the houses down at about 8 feet above sea level, the newer phase had the houses are 18 feet above sea level (yes, 10 feet higher, the subdivision looked really weird because of that).

When Hurricane Andrew hit, the higher houses suffered serious wind damage (very serious wind damage to some), but remained high and dry. The lower houses suffered some wind damage, but by the time the winds came, the houses were underwater, so no more wind damage (hey, hurricane protection thought here - flood the houses to protect from wind damage ). For those lower houses to be rebuilt, either the houses had to be raised 10 feet, or, the bottom made into garage/storage only and a new house built above it. They actually lifted many of the concrete block houses and raised them up 10 feet into the air, building a new foundation system below. Most, though, just simply gutted the bottom, made gigantic garages and workshops, then built above.

The place was called Saga Bay, but we all called it Soggy Bay.

This appears to be rolled-formed aluminum coilstock. You can get attachments such as the Tapco Brake Buddy or Van Mark's TrimFormer to roll form various profiles into std. coilstock. You can even roll a crown molding profile with a simple hand roller on your brake. I'll bet they ran ice dam membrane up against the sideall then covered it with coilstock and called it a day. I would refer them to the codes and the NRCA Handbook for the Standard of Care and Stds. of Practice regarding roofing and weatherproofing. Ask the builder is this is "roll-your-own flashing". :-)

the only systems I'm aware of that actually work over time are those employing sheetmetal let into a reglet that is mortared into place. This may be a full thickness lead pan through-flashing or the more common reglet with flashing tuckpointed in--no nalls and no caulk. Goop will eventually fail--ask any engineer. Pookie or caulk is more suitable for stopping air movement but is lousy at stopping water. The best flashing jobs are 100% mechanical and 0% pookie. Don't get me wrong--I love ice dam membrane. I think it is one of the greater inventions for home durability in the last 30 yrs. However, everything has its place. You can run ice dam membrance up side walls but not chimneys because it is combustible.
Bob

As a real roofer here in this thread. Over 24 years now

My first glance at the photo in question

If this flashing correct?

NO!

To me it looks like they didnt use step flashing and manufactured a counter flashing to act as both. Ive seen this sloppy method before and have corrected many of poor counter flashings

This is sure to leak in blowing rains

UNLESS:
They used weather guard from the roof line up the wall

New construction? Unlikely!

Dont feel bad though as it looks a lot better than the flashing's done here in Texas

Take a look for yourself here where I posted some photos and few negative comments on our website:::


Roofing Flashings | Chimney Flashings | Skylight Flashings

You will see what ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION standards for counter flashings look like here in Dallas. Its the worst anywhere in the world that Ive seen and yes. Ive been around the world. Or at least all over Europe and the US

[quote=LR HOME SOLUTIONS;59234]
Take a look for yourself here where I posted some photos and few negative comments on our website:::

To LR Home Solutions,

I have had a look at your website, the before picture was incorrect, but the fancy copper flashing is incorrect as well. If the flashing is to be made as one piece, the vertical rise of it must be in a reglet as well. The before picture had the right idea, the counter flashing was just not long enough. Here is the correct way to flash a chimney.

If the flashing is to be made as one piece, the vertical rise of it must be in a reglet as well. The before picture had the right idea, the counter flashing was just not long enough.

I agree.

Here is the correct way to flash a chimney.

The picture shows how I was taught. Overlapping step flashing and counter flashing but it takes too much time compared to other methods used today.

I see the roofer use step flashing against the brick and the flashing guy come later with a saw that he cuts a groove into the brick and returns the metal into the groove. seals it and is done.
I don't like the look but it sure works. The masons that work tract housing will never do it any other way. And since the performance is acceptable I have no problem.
That flashing detail comes from the same book that shows a lath and plaster detail.
It is perfect but not relevant. Sometimes I see old style work done by craftsmen and I love to see it. I never expect it anymore. The newer methods and materials have a place today.
I just always expect things to change. I like to remember nailing shiplap before plywood , osb ,foam,homosote, thermofibre, and being told not to trust plywood. Go figure

Originally Posted by Richard Pultar

I see the roofer use step flashing against the brick and the flashing guy come later with a saw that he cuts a groove into the brick and returns the metal into the groove. seals it and is done.

This is what's being done out there, but as you said Richard I don't like the look of it, I can't fail it because I don't like the look of it. But I do try change the detail before they build it. The masons can insert the flashing when they build it just as easy.

The flashing on LR Home Solutions Website, however, in my opinion, is incorrect, it looks flashy and the workmanship looks excellent, but it has the potential to leak. And they are out there "fixing" problems?

Frank Suchodolski, High Profile Roof Care Inc.

Source for that diagram:

Installing Chimney Flashing: How To

The detail is usually already on the plan.It's the stock detail.The day I speak polish well enough I might get the traditional install .
I just really look for the correct grade of brick. wall ties in the studs ,and steel ledge support and beam attachment and beam size and support. on these hanging brick veneers,and ledges that drain away.I usually see a permeable brick that soaks up water anyway . I can't figure out why it's done this way. Except that I need to always remember that new tract homes are designed for a thirty year lifespan,as absurd as it is.
My pet peeve is when the valley ends at the wall as if for vinyl and the house get brick that sets the valley back 4 inches .Forcing the runoff to hit the inside edge of the brick first.

Questions? Did they put a cricket in the corner to prevent water flowing into the downhill side wall ? Is that half brick veneer or full brick? If full brick, how is it supported? Are there any weep holes in the brick?

The flashings look improper to me as well.

Been a roofer for 30 years and that is wrong. Needs step and counter along the wall. At the top I would of had a small pan that would extend out past the corner of the wall and folded and ear. Keeps the water flow off the wall.
Also at the bottom of the low pitch porch tucked up under the soffit it needs counter flashing.

Here is another thing to remember:

That is a brick veneer wall, everyone knows water goes through it, then drains down the back side. That is why there is a minimum 1" air space behind the brick veneer (okay, so maybe it 'is not' there, but it 'is required' to be there), then, at the bottom of that brick veneer wall is (is supposed to be) a through-the-wall flashing going from the structure's wall (sheathing/WRB) down and over the shelf angle and out under the brick to the edge of the shelf angle. That means that any water which gets through the brick will ... er ... should if things are done correctly ... weep out the weep holes ... provided the weep holes are installed properly.

Yes, with brick veneer there is a lot which can go wrong and be done wrong, and no, you will not see it after-the-fact. If you are not there watching the brick be laid, you will not know it, other than being able to see missing weep holes. And, yes, many of those things can cause water to collect and overflow the back of the through-the-wall flashing (if it is installed).

Installing that flashing in any manner will help reduce the amount water getting through the brick veneer, installing that flashing in the proper manner *will not* stop the water from getting through the brick veneer. No, I *am not* saying it is okay to install that flashing incorrectly, only making sure that we all understand that *water does go through brick veneer*, so that flashing is not the end all for water penetration.

Well said Jerry. I have come across quite a few instances where all the flashing details were correct (correct enough to keep water out!), and yet there was still quite a severe leak. The brick wall extended from the outside down through the roof onto a header beam, with no such through wall flashing and weep holes. Some brainiac charged the owner (a school district) a ridiculous amount of money to caulk the mortar joints. Needless to say it still leaked.

My suggestion was to install a rain screen over the brick and clad the wall, as short of knocking the wall down, installing the a through wall flashing etc., anything else is temporary.

Frank Suchodolski, High Profile Roof Care Inc.