shingle fasteners

[Marc]

Original quote by Jim:

We can't yet reliably condemn every nailgun-installed shingle, but is there any agreement on staple-installed shingles? Does ANYONE consider this a legitimate installation method? If so, why?

I write up every gun nailed architectural shingle I see. I'm don't yet write up 3-tabs that are gun nailed because I haven't seen enough failures to be comfortable with it. I do not break the adhesive bond between successive courses of shingles during an inspection to see what kind of fastener is there, but if I do somehow confirm it, it's written up.

It's legitimate because the codes say so, but that shouldn't prevent us home inspectors from having a different opinion. To me, there's no suitable alternative on architectural (laminated strip) shingle roofs to hammer-driven hot dipped roofing nails. I know that a lot of roofing professionals and builders are going to be on the opposite side of the table from me on this issue, but...so what? I don't mind standing alone. I represent the buyer, not them.

Marc

[Phillip]

With out looking under the shingles you cannot make finds like theses

Most roof in my area have shingles that not stuck to each other and can be blown off.

Click to Enlarge

130.3 KB

Missing nails and nailed too high.

Click to Enlarge

128.96 KB

And in this case missing the felt paper.

Click to Enlarge

90.41 KB

[Brandon Whitmore]

The ICC may allow them but I don't know of any manufacturers that do.

I've called technical rep's for a couple of manufacturers in this area. While their packages do not specify staples as an option, they have told me that they won't void their warranty if staples are used; getting that in writing is another matter. Their concerns with them are that they are most often improperly applied.

PS: I'd rather see a stapled arch. comp. roof than a nailed 3 tab.......

Should a HI be lifting and looking under asphalt shingles in order to determine proper nailing?

On every roof inspection for sure. Even when a roof inspection looks good, it most often has installation errors that can only be found by pulling up shingles. I just won't put a picture of me doing so in a report any more. I doubt you need to ask why.

If an HI decides to lift and look, what method would keep the possibility of shingle damage to a minimum?

I lift shingles up in areas where wind won't catch that shingle and rip all the ones above it up as well. Most often I'll just walk around lightly pulling until I find loose ones- there's typically loose ones.

I pull up fewer shingles on older roofs. They probably won't seal back down, unlike newer ones. Also, they are weaker and can tear easier. There's usually a bunch of loose/ poorly adhered shingles on older roofs.

What would be some obvious signs that doing so is worth the risk of damage to the shingles?

As you go around pulling shingles up, you'll just get a feel for it. Just make sure you lightly pull up, pull at the right angle, and don't pull in an area where a slight tear will cause a problem.

I write up every gun nailed architectural shingle I see.

Marc,

What do you write?

I don't see many issues with electro- galvanized nails around here, as long as they are properly placed. On second thought, on lower sloped roofs that have moss build up, I do see rusty nails when properly placed, but this is on older roofs nearing the end of their useful life.

Does ANYONE consider this a legitimate installation method? If so, why?

Legitimate- no. They flat out are not allowed by code, nor are they allowed by many of the manufacturers per their installation instructions.

My dad just had his roof replaced due to storm damage. He asked me to come up and inspect the installation before he paid the guy. I lifted up the first shingle to see that the friggin' roofer stapled the roof down; I was irritated to say the least. The roofer showed up while I was there, and we had a good argument/ debate about his use of staples. I had OR's building code as well as the manufacturers installation instructions pulled up on a computer waiting for him. Once he argued with me, I made him read the code and instructions. He still adamantly refused to accept the fact that staples were not allowed, and argued that staples performed better?? I went on to tell him that he would still be paid, but that it woudl be wise not use staples on any jobs that I would be inspecting-- he may very well have to replace the roof.

So yes, I think staples will work fine, buttttt...... Only on a single layer roof where staples are properly placed and driven. The only reason I accepted his installation was that he placed every staple perfectly, and none of them were over or under- driven. I'd rather see properly driven staples than improperly driven electro- galvanized nails.

How many of you working here in the northwest know when and where CertainTeed says nails shorter than 1-inch are permissable but staples are prohibited and under what conditions?

Mike,

I haven't checked their instructions lately, but common sense tells me you don't want unsightly blow through at the eaves.

Crap, it looks like I have too much time on my hands today.

[hausdok]

How many of you working here in the northwest know when and where CertainTeed says nails shorter than 1-inch are permissable but staples are prohibited and under what conditions?

Mike,

I haven't checked their instructions lately, but common sense tells me you don't want unsightly blow through at the eaves.

Exactly. It's only at open overhangs. They prohibit using staples at open overhangs and allow the roofer to use shorter nails that can't be seen from below, as long as the nails penetrate the deck at least 3/8-inch. They also require the roofer to add two extra nails per shingle at the overhang area only.

How many of you have ever seen one of these production roofers use the additional nails at the open overhangs and worry about whether the nails penetrate the deck or not?

I've never seen it done here.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Richard Saunders]

From 2009 IRC:

R905.2.5 Fasteners. Fasteners for asphalt shingles shall be

galvanized steel, stainless steel, aluminum or copper roofing

nails, minimum 12 gage [0.105 inch (3 mm)] shank with a

minimum 3/8-inch (10 mm) diameter head, ASTM F 1667, of

a length to penetrate through the roofingmaterials and a minimum

of 3/4 inch (19 mm) into the roof sheathing. Where the

roof sheathing is less than 3/4 inch (19mm)thick, the fasteners

shall penetrate through the sheathing. Fasteners shall comply

with ASTM F 1667.

As Jeremy states, staples are not allowed. I'm surprised you guys don't know this. It really doesn't matter what the AHJ allows to slide, either you are going by the IRC or you aren't. I have had a few arguments with the building inspectors about this but they are still using staples and I am still calling it out. BTW, I have the same passage from the 2003 IRC. Code trumps manufacturers recommendations every time.

[Tom Raymond]

Back when I did A lot of roofing I nailed by hand. I could do over a square an hour using a 22 oz framing hammer, I never did like the balance of a roofing hatchet, with a gun I might have done an extra bundle or two in a day. It's really hard to misplace nails when you hand nail, then there's the bonus of not tripping over hoses all day or listening to noisy compressors.

Staples suck. If they didn't the manufacturers that allow them wouldn't need the additional requirements to honor their warranties.

Tom

[hausdok]

I'm surprised you guys don't know this. It really doesn't matter what the AHJ allows to slide, either you are going by the IRC or you aren't. I have had a few arguments with the building inspectors about this but they are still using staples and I am still calling it out.

I think it certainly does matter and I think you risk damaging your own credibility when you start arguing with a local code guy about stuff like this - especially if a manufacturer's instructions allow it; because we all know that a manufacturer's instructions trump code.

Sure, a manufacturer's recommendations don't trump code; but if the municipality has decided that they do, then the client needs to know that - not just what the IRC says. We get paid to fully inform clients; not to tell clients only what we want them to know.

When you hang your hat on a code cite that's based strictly on what the IRC states, and you contradict the AHJ and what a manufacturer allows, then it's necessary to ensure that the client understands that, though the IRC might state one thing, individual municipalities have the right to adopt or reject portions of the IRC as they see fit. Then, if you know that the local rules contradict the IRC, it's incumbent upon you to tell the client what the local municipality allows; or, when you don't know, to advise the client to check with the local AHJ before rejecting the house out of hand or demanding corrections.

As an example, Seattle doesn't allow staples but Sammamish has; so, though I agree that stapling is a cheesy way to install a cover, and I routinely have to write up stapled roofs for damage caused by staples that have backed out (as I've had to do with nails as well), I think it would be a disservice and downright dishonest of me to tell a client who is intent on buying a 12-year old home in Sammamish with a perfectly serviceable cover, that's been wearing normally and shows no sign of damage, that the roof installation sucks and the roof needs to be replaced because it wasn't installed IAW the IRC.

In a situation like that, I think it's incumbent upon me to fully explain to the client that a municipality has the right to reject or adopt portions of the IRC as it sees fit, and explain that, notwithstanding my personal preferences, the municipality has allowed the installation in question and point out that the roof has been wearing normally and shows no sign of having been damaged.

I think that if it's a brand new roof I might be able to make the case for why the cover should be replaced or re-nailed, because there won't be any way to predict what will happen with that new cover, but I think that trying to impose my opinion on an older home where no damage has occurred, while hanging my hat on the IRC, just makes it look like I'm hell bent on "winning" at any cost. I think that kind of an attitude can hurt us as a profession.

This thread is a good example of why one can't learn this business strictly online or out of a book.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[mgbinspect]

I'm surprised you guys don't know this. It really doesn't matter what the AHJ allows to slide, either you are going by the IRC or you aren't. I have had a few arguments with the building inspectors about this but they are still using staples and I am still calling it out.

I think it certainly does matter and I think you risk damaging your own credibility when you start arguing with a local code guy about stuff like this - especially if a manufacturer's instructions allow it; because we all know that a manufacturer's instructions trump code.

Sure, a manufacturer's recommendations don't trump code; but if the municipality has decided that they do, then the client needs to know that - not just what the IRC says. We get paid to fully inform clients; not to tell clients only what we want them to know.

When you hang your hat on a code cite that's based strictly on what the IRC states, and you contradict the AHJ and what a manufacturer allows, then it's necessary to ensure that the client understands that, though the IRC might state one thing, individual municipalities have the right to adopt or reject portions of the IRC as they see fit. Then, if you know that the local rules contradict the IRC, it's incumbent upon you to tell the client what the local municipality allows; or, when you don't know, to advise the client to check with the local AHJ before rejecting the house out of hand or demanding corrections.

As an example, Seattle doesn't allow staples but Sammamish has; so, though I agree that stapling is a cheesy way to install a cover, and I routinely have to write up stapled roofs for damage caused by staples that have backed out (as I've had to do with nails as well), I think it would be a disservice and downright dishonest of me to tell a client who is intent on buying a 12-year old home in Sammamish with a perfectly serviceable cover, that's been wearing normally and shows no sign of damage, that the roof installation sucks and the roof needs to be replaced because it wasn't installed IAW the IRC.

In a situation like that, I think it's incumbent upon me to fully explain to the client that a municipality has the right to reject or adopt portions of the IRC as it sees fit, and explain that, notwithstanding my personal preferences, the municipality has allowed the installation in question and point out that the roof has been wearing normally and shows no sign of having been damaged.

I think that if it's a brand new roof I might be able to make the case for why the cover should be replaced or re-nailed, because there won't be any way to predict what will happen with that new cover, but I think that trying to impose my opinion on an older home where no damage has occurred, while hanging my hat on the IRC, just makes it look like I'm hell bent on "winning" at any cost. I think that kind of an attitude can hurt us as a profession.

This thread is a good example of why one can't learn this business strictly online or out of a book.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

I started to respond similarly yesterday, in a much more abbreviated form, but decided... nah...

At any rate, I called the local building department about two weeks ago regarding a concern I had, seeking a supporting code interpretation and, to my surprise, they responded PRECISELY as Mike above suggests they might: Refer to the manufacturer's specs. Imagine that... [^]

[JeremyDP]

...

As an example, Seattle doesn't allow staples but Sammamish has; so, though I agree that stapling is a cheesy way to install a cover, and I routinely have to write up stapled roofs for damage caused by staples that have backed out (as I've had to do with nails as well), I think it would be a disservice and downright dishonest of me to tell a client who is intent on buying a 12-year old home in Sammamish with a perfectly serviceable cover, that's been wearing normally and shows no sign of damage, that the roof installation sucks and the roof needs to be replaced because it wasn't installed IAW the IRC.

In a situation like that, I think it's incumbent upon me to fully explain to the client that a municipality has the right to reject or adopt portions of the IRC as it sees fit, and explain that, notwithstanding my personal preferences, the municipality has allowed the installation in question and point out that the roof has been wearing normally and shows no sign of having been damaged.

...

Really? If the municipality accepts the method of the cover install you tell the client that IRC disagrees? Don't you think that might cause confusion on the client's part? If the municipality accepts it, why mention it? After all, it is installed correctly in that municipality.

I'm just trying to understand reasoning. Thank you!

[Brandon Whitmore]

I'm under the impression that when manufacturer's instructions and code differ, the more restrictive requirement must be met. Am I wrong?

[Tim H]

If an HI decides to lift and look, what method would keep the possibility of shingle damage to a minimum?

I use a brick trowel. I slide it under the shingle and lift carefully. It gives me more surface area to support the shingle and it cuts down on cracked shingles.

Tim

[kurt]

Brick trowel is a good idea. Never thought of that.

I use a Red Devil painters chisel; it's really thin and wide, sharp, with a straight on one end and an angle on the other. I carry a couple; one sharp, the other for general purpose prying and fiddling.

I touch the sharp one to a grinder every couple weeks to keep it useful.

[charlieb]

I use a wonder bar. It's not that thin but it works well here in the south. I do have to be real careful on hot afternoons. It was 30 during this morning's inspection. No problems with that. I'll try the Red Devil when it warms up again.

[charlieb]

Recent finds on a million dollar custom home.

Click to Enlarge

25.64 KB

Click to Enlarge

23.91 KB

Click to Enlarge

22.3 KB

Click to Enlarge

23.89 KB

[Richard Saunders]

I'm under the impression that when manufacturer's instructions and code differ, the more restrictive requirement must be met. Am I wrong?

Absolutely, you are doing your client a disservice not to let them know that stapled shingles are not OK.

I also think it is a disservice to our profession NOT to argue with the AHJ about this or any other issue that they are letting slide or not enforcing.

Did I say replace the roofing? I don't think I did. Did I say it was not acceptable? I did. Will it kill the deal Mike? I don't know, maybe it will. That seems to be a big concern from what I am reading.

Maybe you will be fine, maybe there are not high winds in your area, but then again, maybe you will be taken to task for not mentioning this.

[Inspector37620]

Just wanted to give my experiences with air nailers and staplers, I used air nailers on composition shingles. When tearing off a roof we could put a ladder up to edge and pry the first two shingles up and pull up and it would come off like a zipper all the way to the top of the roof if it was put on with staples, saved a lot of time tearing off. On wood shakes nails would be loose and easier to take off. The staples in wood held when the nails would not. As far as blowing the nail through the shingle there was an adjustment on the nail guns that prevented that and from time to time and depending on shingle had to be adjusted either by the air pressure or the adjustment on the gun. I did have some guys that worked for me that did not do it right and they tore the roof off and I held their hand and paid them their last check from me. I just thought I would share this with everyone. Clarification, the roofs were in Kansas City area.

Dennis

[hausdok]

I'm under the impression that when manufacturer's instructions and code differ, the more restrictive requirement must be met. Am I wrong?

Absolutely, you are doing your client a disservice not to let them know that stapled shingles are not OK.

R101.6 Referenced codes and standards. The codes and standards referenced in this code shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference. Where differences occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code apply. Exception: Where enforcement of a code provision would violate the conditions of the listing of the equipment or appliance, the conditions of the listing and manufacturer's instructions shall apply

I also think it is a disservice to our profession NOT to argue with the AHJ about this or any other issue that they are letting slide or not enforcing.

It is not a function of our profession to argue with the AHJ. We are supposed to be giving the client all of the facts so that the client can make an informed decision. From that point on, what happens is none of our business, unless we've made a call that's going to end up calling into question our credibility and competency.

Did I say replace the roofing? I don't think I did. Did I say it was not acceptable? I did. Will it kill the deal Mike? I don't know, maybe it will. That seems to be a big concern from what I am reading.

I don't give a rip whether a house sells or not. I do absolutely no marketing - none, nadda, zip - and I stay plenty busy without relying on realtors, so why would I?

Maybe you will be fine, maybe there are not high winds in your area, but then again, maybe you will be taken to task for not mentioning this.

For not mentioning what? I didn't say I don't mention it; I said that I give the client all of the information - not half of the information as you seem to want to do. If I'm going to tell someone that something is not allowed by code, while I know that it's allowed by the local municipality as well as the manufacturer, I have a duty to give the client all of that information. Bottom line; the client has a right to be fully informed so that the client can decide what is right for the client.

Say I just do as Jeremy suggests; say nothing because the municipality allows it, and the client buys the home. If five years later the client is selling the home and you inspect it, you're going to start going off about how the roof is an inferior product - even if the roof is doing fine - and the client is going to be ambushed by the buyer. Then the seller, my former client, is going to blame me for not informing him/her that it was a violation of the IRC, despite the fact that the local municipality allows shingles to be stapled, and the manufacturer allows it. If the client puts the house up for sale knowing those facts the client can decide ahead of time how he or she wants to handle it but won't be ambushed.

On the other hand, if I take your approach, just condemn the roof outright because the IRC doesn't allow stapling, and not tell the client that stapling is allowed by the municipality, and perhaps the manufacturer as the CertainTeed instructions demonstrate, the seller ends up yelling at his roofer. If the roofer has done his homework, he or she solicits the help of the local code guy and the code guy tells the client that I'm wrong. Now I've got three people ganging up on me - seller, roofer and code guy - all telling my client that I'm one of those out-of-control cowboy inspectors that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Now my credibility is tarnished - all because I wanted to hang my hat on a strict interpretation of the IRC and didn't want to fully inform the client and let the client decide using all of the facts.

The object isn't to win; the object is to inform the client of all of the facts and allow the client to decide what to do with that information. I have no problem letting the client know what my personal opinion of an installation is, but I'm not going to deprive the client of relevant facts just because I don't care for those facts.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Richard Saunders]

"It is not a function of our profession to argue with the AHJ."

Absolutely correct, It is not our 'function', it is our DUTY to argue with the AHJ when they claim to be enforcing a code and are not.

"On the other hand, if I take your approach, just condemn the roof outright because the IRC doesn't allow stapling"

I didn't say that I 'condemn' the roof but I certainly let the client know that it isn't allowed by IRC code and let them know why. I also let them know that I don't know what other items may have been allowed by the AHJ that aren't allowed by code.

To use your words "On the other hand, if I take your approach" I should determine what portions of the code each municapalities accept and don't in my area and just report on them.

To me, code is a minimum requirement. Whether the AHJ accepts or enforces code is not my issue. If others call me a dumb ass, so be it.

[Jim Morrison]

It's our DUTY to argue with an AHJ about whether or no they're doing their job correctly?

Uh, not me. I'm not ordained, deputized, or even interested in that job.

It is not my job to right all of the real and imagined wrongs of the residential homebuying and homebuilding process. I get paid to inspect houses to the State standards.

If I ever see another asphalt shingle stapled to a roof, I will tell my client that those shingles are kite-bound, and rest comfortably in the satisfaction that comes from a job well done.

I don't argue with anyone anymore. I can't recall the last time I got into an argument related to a home inspection, but it was probably during the Clinton administration. I just report the facts, taking extra care to be as correct as I can be for my client. Period.

[John Dirks Jr]

It's our DUTY to argue with an AHJ about whether or no they're doing their job correctly?

Uh, not me. I'm not ordained, deputized, or even interested in that job.

It is not my job to right all of the real and imagined wrongs of the residential homebuying and homebuilding process. I get paid to inspect houses to the State standards.

If I ever see another asphalt shingle stapled to a roof, I will tell my client that those shingles are kite-bound, and rest comfortably in the satisfaction that comes from a job well done.

I don't argue with anyone anymore. I can't recall the last time I got into an argument related to a home inspection, but it was probably during the Clinton administration. I just report the facts, taking extra care to be as correct as I can be for my client. Period.

I've been reading all the posts in this thread. Things started to get a bit complicated. Then Jim comes along with this response and it's all quite simple again.

Whew...relief.

[Marc]

A code inspection is an objective inspection. A home inspection report is a professional opinion report. I don't engage any AHJ for that reason. It's pointless.

When I get a code certification, that'll change.

Marc

[mgbinspect]

I always smile when my clients ask me, "Well, did it pass inspection?" to which I reply, "This isn't a "pass" or "fail" deal. It's about making certain you know what you're buying. All final decisions are up to you."

We're just factual reporters, not judges or referees.

[JeremyDP]

Say I just do as Jeremy suggests; say nothing because the municipality allows it, and the client buys the home. If five years later the client is selling the home and you inspect it, you're going to start going off about how the roof is an inferior product - even if the roof is doing fine - and the client is going to be ambushed by the buyer. Then the seller, my former client, is going to blame me for not informing him/her that it was a violation of the IRC, despite the fact that the local municipality allows shingles to be stapled, and the manufacturer allows it. If the client puts the house up for sale knowing those facts the client can decide ahead of time how he or she wants to handle it but won't be ambushed.

Thank you Mike! That makes perfect sense to me.

And while I'm thanking, Thank you Jim for your post too. As John said, for me these two posts simplifies the whole process.

[Chad Fabry]

When I get a code certification, that'll change.

Really? I'm an AHJ and I have more questions than ever. The other thing is it's one thing to require a raised heel truss to accommodate R38 insulation, it's quite another thing to compel a builder to remove thirty trusses because there's only enough room for R19 over the walls. Life becomes a series of compromises and trades... remove the trusses, or upgrade the windows and doors.

[mgbinspect]

"Life becomes a series of compromises and trades". Well said! And, Amen to that! Such is life. I've always been more akin to Mike, Jimmy's and Chad's demeanor. And frankly, that's no surprise. It's the voice of experience - seasoned vets. When things get crazy, no one wins or ever forgets what happened. And usually when a home inspector starts a war, it's usually more about HIM than it is anyone else involved - a touch of ego. It's a curious fact that beyond a certain point, the more you try to help someone, the more, in the end, they resent and hold it against you.

I can't ever recall being behind an argument. And, when drawn into one, I am always the calming force that insists that everyone involved pump the brakes and begin, again, to reason their way through the situation. It's merely a decision making process through which two parties must agree or agree to disagree and move on.

I don't feel that way because it wins me return customers, although is does. I feel that way because it's the right thing to do. Life is too short to quibble over stupid things that really don't amount to a hill of beans, in the big picture. Like Jimmy eludes to in his last post, a wise inspector will arm clients with enough information to make an educated and intelligent decision and then BOW OUT.

In an imperfect world, isn't it really about helping people discover what level of imperfection they can be comfortable with?