Jim Katen Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Well, the builder won't replace the J channel with step flashing, he will only perform minor repairs to the roof flashing - such as repairing the flashing in the picture with the valley. One concern that came up with the shingles directly over the lip of the J channel flashing is the possibility of the shingles breaking in the Houston heat as they expand and contract. Are there any minor changes that can be made to keep this from happening? No, there aren't. Not that it's a real risk. Look, in other parts of the country, that detail would be considered absurdly wrong. In my area, for instance, all of the other roofers would laugh at it and call your roofer mean names. But in your part of the country, that's just the way that they do it. It's not ideal, but it seems to work. You're not going to make it better by trying to get him to do something that he doesn't know how to do. It wouldn't work and it would end badly. Think of it this way: people in your part of the country talk funny. If I were to say, "You know, Buster, I can't understand most of what you say. From now on, could you please talk with a northern accent," that would not end well either. You're asking your builder to build with a northern accent when he only knows how to build with a southern accent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster_houston Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 True about accents, but also keep in mind that my inspector comes from the same locale as the builder. I would believe my inspector over the builder, but here I maybe at the mercy of the latest low cost building practices. The builder sent me a bunch of documents yesterday showing where there are clauses in the code which allow for alternate flashing methods, if they're installed 'properly' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 True about accents, but also keep in mind that my inspector comes from the same locale as the builder. I would believe my inspector over the builder, but here I maybe at the mercy of the latest low cost building practices. Dang uppity inspectors. The builder sent me a bunch of documents yesterday showing where there are clauses in the code which allow for alternate flashing methods, if they're installed 'properly' Please post that information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster_houston Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Ok , I'll post excerpts from the IRC - but probably can't post the other letters without EWP from the builder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Ok , I'll post excerpts from the IRC - but probably can't post the other letters without EWP from the builder You don't have to post the actual excerpts or the letters, just the numbered sections that he's citing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster_houston Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 I THINK. 104.10 and .11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillip Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Which year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillip Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 R104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment. The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code. Compliance with the specific performance-based provisions of the International Codes in lieu of specific requirements of this code shall also be permitted as an alternate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillip Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 They have change the code R905.2.8.3 Sidewall flashing. Base flashing against a vertical sidewall shall be continuous or step flashing and shall be a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) in height and 4 inches (102 mm) in width and shall direct water away from the vertical sidewall onto the roof and/or into the gutter. Where siding is provided on the vertical sidewall, the vertical leg of the flashing shall be continuous under the siding. Where anchored masonry veneer is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and counterflashing shall be provided in accordance with Section R703.7.2.2. Where exterior plaster or adhered masonry veneer is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and Section R703.6.3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Kibbel Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Thanks Phillip. That's a significant change from the 2009 version I hadn't found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Whitmore Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Oregon's code omitted the the word "continuous" from this section, and still requires step flashing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Raymond Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Oregon's code omitted the the word "continuous" from this section, and still requires step flashing. That was a wise decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 They have change the code R905.2.8.3 Sidewall flashing. Base flashing against a vertical sidewall shall be continuous or step flashing and shall be a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) in height and 4 inches (102 mm) in width and shall direct water away from the vertical sidewall onto the roof and/or into the gutter. Where siding is provided on the vertical sidewall, the vertical leg of the flashing shall be continuous under the siding. Where anchored masonry veneer is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and counterflashing shall be provided in accordance with Section R703.7.2.2. Where exterior plaster or adhered masonry veneer is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and Section R703.6.3. Of course, all of that is superceded by this: 905.1 . . . Roof assemblies shall be applied in accordance with this chapter and the manufacturer's installation instructions. . . " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 They have change the code R905.2.8.3 Sidewall flashing. Base flashing against a vertical sidewall shall be continuous or step flashing and shall be a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) in height and 4 inches (102 mm) in width and shall direct water away from the vertical sidewall onto the roof and/or into the gutter. Where siding is provided on the vertical sidewall, the vertical leg of the flashing shall be continuous under the siding. Where anchored masonry veneer is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and counterflashing shall be provided in accordance with Section R703.7.2.2. Where exterior plaster or adhered masonry veneer is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and Section R703.6.3. Of course, all of that is superceded by this: 905.1 . . . Roof assemblies shall be applied in accordance with this chapter and the manufacturer's installation instructions. . . " Doesn't it make a difference that it says roof assemblies instead of roof covering? Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillip Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 They have change the code R905.2.8.3 Sidewall flashing. Base flashing against a vertical sidewall shall be continuous or step flashing and shall be a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) in height and 4 inches (102 mm) in width and shall direct water away from the vertical sidewall onto the roof and/or into the gutter. Where siding is provided on the vertical sidewall, the vertical leg of the flashing shall be continuous under the siding. Where anchored masonry veneer is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and counterflashing shall be provided in accordance with Section R703.7.2.2. Where exterior plaster or adhered masonry veneer is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and Section R703.6.3. Of course, all of that is superceded by this: 905.1 . . . Roof assemblies shall be applied in accordance with this chapter and the manufacturer's installation instructions. . . " Jim, How many AHJs reads the manufacturer's installation instructions. Very few do. Most builders are not going to do more than what the AHJ makes them do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 They have change the code R905.2.8.3 Sidewall flashing. Base flashing against a vertical sidewall shall be continuous or step flashing and shall be a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) in height and 4 inches (102 mm) in width and shall direct water away from the vertical sidewall onto the roof and/or into the gutter. Where siding is provided on the vertical sidewall, the vertical leg of the flashing shall be continuous under the siding. Where anchored masonry veneer is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and counterflashing shall be provided in accordance with Section R703.7.2.2. Where exterior plaster or adhered masonry veneer is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and Section R703.6.3. Of course, all of that is superceded by this: 905.1 . . . Roof assemblies shall be applied in accordance with this chapter and the manufacturer's installation instructions. . . " Doesn't it make a difference that it says roof assemblies instead of roof covering? Marc "Assembly" encompasses all parts of the roof installation, including the shingles. The shingles come with installation instructions that call for step flashing, not continuous flashing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 . . . Jim, How many AHJs reads the manufacturer's installation instructions. Very few do. Most builders are not going to do more than what the AHJ makes them do. Very true. And that might have a effect on the way that a home inspector reports on this stuff. However, it doesn't change the actual requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted November 21, 2012 Report Share Posted November 21, 2012 Oregon's code omitted the the word "continuous" from this section, and still requires step flashing. Just to clarify, Oregon hasn't yet adopted the 2012 IRC. Our present version is from the 2009 IRC, which didn't mention continuous flashing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Whitmore Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 Just to clarify, Oregon hasn't yet adopted the 2012 IRC. Our present version is from the 2009 IRC, which didn't mention continuous flashing. I don't have access to the IRC, just the ORSC. Do some states adopt the 2012 IRC as soon as it comes out? Did the continuous flashing wording just get slapped in w/ the 2012 IRC? If so, I wonder what made them add that crap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillip Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 Brandon/ Here you go. now you have access to the IRC http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Whitmore Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 Thanks Phillip, You wouldn't happen to have a list showing which states use which code cycle would you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 Brandon/ Here you go. now you have access to the IRC http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/ Best link ever in my two years on the forum! Thanks Phillip. Jeez! How did I come this far without knowing about this? Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Kienitz Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 Thanks Phillip, You wouldn't happen to have a list showing which states use which code cycle would you? Brandon, Try this URL ... www.iccsafe.org/gr/pages/adoptions.aspx The link seems to go "high & dry" from inside this post (at least on my 'puter) ... dunno why. Just copy/paste into a new browser tab. If you right click on the URL just click on 'open in a new tab' and you should be good to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Whitmore Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 Thanks Nolan. After a quick glance at the states, I don't see any that have adopted the 2012 yet. It looks like TX is still under the 2000 version of the IRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Kienitz Posted November 23, 2012 Report Share Posted November 23, 2012 Thanks Nolan. After a quick glance at the states, I don't see any that have adopted the 2012 yet. It looks like TX is still under the 2000 version of the IRC. Brandon, I believe that is incorrect as the Texas State Legislature handles such every other year and two years ago (if I recall correctly) they adopted the 2006 for the "state". I'll dig into that and see if I can refresh my gray matter. Of course each AHJ does their own thing and most are at the 2006 or 2009 version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.