Why are "Ice and Water" roof membranes always "peel-and-stick" ???

Page 1 of 2  
Roofers I've talked to say that re-roofing a house that had an ice and water membrane put on it 10 or 15 years ago is a pain. Ripping the old membrane off frequently leads to replacing parts of the plywood deck.
I don't understand why these Ice and Water membranes have to be "peel and stick". Seems they would work just fine if you rolled them out and put a few nails on them to keep them in place before the shingles go down (ie same as tar paper).
Does anyone make an Ice and Water membrane that's NOT peel and stick? (Tamko Nail Fast seems like it but Tamko doesn't exactly call it an Ice and Water shield even though it's made of the same SBS material).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe wrote:>

installed roof system doesn't need any of that stuff. Building codes for your area could possibly spec some type of underlayment to extend at least 3 feet beyond the inside walls of the house, or even the entire deck. Depending on the pitch, the sticky stuff can be dangerous enough for a roofer to walk on, moreso with just a few nails holding it on. Tom Work at your leisure!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.comEDY (Tom) wrote:

Well I guess that is just end of discussion, huh?
In reality, many of us have roofs that have, well, less than ideal designs. Mine is 50 years old, rather flimsy, cape-cod style. Many existing roofs are very hard to insulate and ventilate properly. Due to cost, historic building restriction, aesthetics, and many other reasons, many of us just have to find a way to keep our houses leak-free, despite a poorly designed roof system. It is always an uphill battle, of course.
Tarpaper is next to useless when it comes to ice and water buildup. I'd personally love some ice-and-water peel and stick on our roof. When we redo, we'll put some down. Nails will leak sooner than adhesive. You really want something that is water proof, not just something that uses gravity to direct water down the roof. Our house, for instance, can get ice dams (if we are not very attentive, and let things go) about 10" to 14" thick, which leads to a pool of water as much as several feet back from the edge. This will submerge the nailed edge of whatever you have down, and leak. The sticky tape will do a better job, hopefully.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kevwalsh wrote:>In reality, many of us have roofs that have, well, less than ideal

builder. Historic building restrictions? Would that apply to the attic insulation, too? I'd love an historic roof, especially cedar shingles over scabboards. Of course, it doesn't get very close to ice dam situations here in Southern AZ, at my altitude. How do you attend to your ice dams to keep 'em down? I've chopped at them, but it's dicey. Too easy to damage the shingles. Tom Work at your leisure!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I see my main point (or question) has been missed.
Some here are arguing that you don't need any sort of advanced underlayment under the shingles - even over the eaves where flowing water can freeze and/or back up and get under the shingles on low-slope roofs. If you feel that ice/water membranes are a gimic or aren't needed, fine. You don't have to follow this thread.
For those (like me) that think an ice/water membrane (as opposed to tar paper) is the smart thing to put over the eaves, all I'm wondering is why the membrane has to be peel-and-stick instead of just being nailed down. It is the FUTURE situation of dealing with the membrane being stuck to the deck that I'm wonding about (and apparently IS causing problems in re-roofing situations).
Look. They used to "glue" 2 sheets of 15-lb felt tar paper together and use that over the eaves. But even in that case the resulting sheet was never "glued" to the wood deck - it was nailed.
Again, it's NOT the membrane (water-impervious-ness) that I'm questioning. I just don't see why it has to have an adhesive surface and become essentially glued to the plywood deck. If it was just nailed down, with the shingles put on top, then I don't see how water would EVER get under the membrane and contact the wood.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15 Oct 2004 18:38:52 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comEDY (Tom) wrote (with possible editing):

Well, I respectfully disagree. If that were so, then ice dams wouldn't form on unheated buildings and they do. Not being an expert, I can only guess that it's got to do with the color of the roof, the pitch and its direction, along with the amount of direct sunlight to which the roof is exposed.
--
Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14 Oct 2004 22:25:48 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Joe) wrote (with possible editing):

Just a suggestion from an amateur: perhaps you could leave the paper backing on? (never tried it)
We used Grace Ice and Water Shield over the entire roof along with shingles guaranteed for 30 years. We did this because even though the roof is properly insulated and vented with proper vent, soffit and ridge vents, we have eyeballs (recessed lights) in the cathedral ceilings and found that the heat from them was enough to melt snow above them which would run down a bit and then freeze. Eventually this would cause ice dams, pooling, etc. and water would leak between the sheathing and the finished ceiling. Of course, if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't use eyeballs.
--
Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I've been told that the first membrane sheets that came out for Ice/Water had a smooth top side (10 to 15 years ago). That's why you're seeing smooth membranes now in re-roofing jobs because your seeing these original membrane sheets.
The membranes now are coated (sanded, granular) and I think it's because roofers were slipping on the smooth membranes so the granules make it non-slip. These have been available for maybe 10 years now and the odd job is coming across these membranes.
I don't buy the argument that the granules are there to be able to un-roll it (the peel-away backing will prevent it sticking while rolled up). In theory, the granules serve NO purpose to help the membrane shed water and actually make it hard for the shingles to bond to the membrane when the granules are in the way of making a good bond.
It is said that the asphalt (in the membrane) softens when heated and migrates around the granules and adheres to the underside of the shingles. Why go through all that hassle? Seems the granules are more trouble than they're worth if you need this heating/asphalt migration thing to happen.
So basically the use of a granular-top-coated peel-and-stick IS a pain in the butt when it comes to re-roofing and that you can't tear off old shingles WITHOUT ripping the membrane to hell (yes?) and even more - that you can expect to destroy or pull up the wood decking. Seems like a VERY high price to pay - and I'm not sure what the benefit is (to using THAT kind of membrane).
If I understand this correctly:
If you put on a granular-top-coated peel-and-stick membrane now, then in 15 or 20 years (when you need to re-roof) that:
(1) the shinges won't release easily from the membrane (because the membrane NEEDS an asphalt layer to flow through the granules and bond to the underside of the shingles!)
(2) the membrane won't release easily from the deck
(3) you've essentially got a sandwitch of shingles/membrane/deck that can't be separated without lots of effort and destruction of the surface of the wood deck so much so that it becomes more cost effective to rip the plywood deck off and replace.
Have I got that right?
If so, then the solution is
(a) use a membrane with a smooth top surface with no asphalt layer to become permanently bonded to the shingles (does anyone make such a membrane ?)
(b) use a membrane (with a granular top layer or not) but without a peel-and-stick bottom side (so that you can rip it off later without messing up the wood deck). Again, does anyone make a NON peel-and-stick membrane? (seems not).
(c) use a peel-and-stick membrane BUT leave the release sheet on. Unroll the membrane and nail it down. Then in 10 or 15 years it will come off easily.
I'm thinking that accidents, law suits, and product liability issues have played a LARGE role in the design of the currently-available ice/water membranes.
Think about it - peel-and-stick underside, granular coated top side - both serve basically ONE purpose - to prevent the roofer from sliping and falling off the roof. Neither the adhesive underside or the granular coated top side help AT ALL in helping the membrane perform it's function of preventing water that gets under the shingles from making contact with the wood deck.
However, both the peel-and-stick bottom side and granular/asphalt-coated top side are a MAJOR pain when it comes to re-roofing.
Comments?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe wrote:>Think about it - peel-and-stick underside, granular coated top side -

covered in my original reply to the OP, BTW). The membrane doesn't NEED to be stuck down to the deck to perform it's function, but only to the drip edge and any neighboring pieces of i&w shield. You can get away with a 3 inch lap. And yes, it's hell to tear off old i&w shield. Tom Work at your leisure!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

Ok, my stupid question: couldn't one just stick a new layer of the same stuff over the old (assuming the old isn't all torn up)? Just wondering since I'm planning to use some of this under my concrete roof tile...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.comEDY (Tom) wrote in message

My shingles are going up next week (IKO Chateau).
The installer knows I'm concerned about the "peel-and-stick" part of the membrane installation. I'm probably going to have to replace quite a bit of the old eave decking as it is (and they charge $$$ for doing it). It would piss me off to think that the peel-and-stick part of the membrane will mean the investment in the new decking will be lost when the wood gets torn up in 20 years when I re-roof.
Should I stick to my guns and tell them to leave the release membrane ON and nail the membrane down?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe wrote: >Should I stick to my guns and tell them to leave the release membrane

The roofers might find that to be a PITA, especially if they need to traverse it often. And it'll still need to be adhered at the edges. I say skip the I&W shield, and a good 30# felting will do. Tom Work at your leisure!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Joe) wrote:

No, let them do the job right. IMHO from watching the roofers on Monday, the peel and stick is more for holding it down during the install. It was kinda unweildy for them, until it was stuck down, then it was like part of the decking, as the underlayment and shingles were installed.
The next re-roof should be another layer of shingles, without a tear off, so you shouldn't have to tear it off for 30-40 years, at which time the shield has done its job, and the roof needs to be torn down to the sheathing, for inspection and repair.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We just had our roof torn off and re-shingled. The old Ice & Water shield was well bonded to the plywood and cannot be removed. They simply installed another layer bonded over the first layer to achieve the seal needed.
(Tom) wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your old I/W shield probably had a smooth top surface.
The kind they use today have a granular top surface.
Does anyone have any observations of roofers laying new I/W shield over top of old GRANULAR I/W ???
Again, I think that both the sticky underside and the granular top side of these membranes is only for product liability. Any roofer walking on a properly applied granular-top-coated I/W membrane will have plenty of grip.
That's nice if you make these membranes, and I'm sure it's nice for roofers working on the high-sloped mansions that are all the rage now aday's, but it means SQUAT for the low-slope home owner that has to deal with tearing the hell out of his decking in 20 years because of friggin sticky-back membrane. (!)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The purpose of an I/W membrane is to keep out the ice dams which often GROW from the bottom up. If you don't have the membrane adhered to the substrate, the ice can grow between the substrate and the membrane, making the whole thing useless. Even with proper drip flashing, this could be a problem. With the adhered membrane, you can't get any water between it and the substrate, thus making it an effective system. Nailing it down is as effective as having felt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:49:52 -0600, "3D Peruna"
===============Snip===============>> That's nice if you make these membranes, and I'm sure it's nice for

Nope, common sense over rules here.
where the heck do you think the nails for the shingles go though? so nailing down would not compromise I/W membrane.
the reason you have ice shield is so that the melted water penetrating the roof surface (top layer of shingles) does not reach the decking.
the ice would build up and when the snow/ice continues to melt, the resulting water would never reach the top edge of the I/W, because of the roofs' pitch. The ice dam that is there would also melt as the melting snow. so the water would be carried away over the top of the ice.
my guess again why its has an adhesive backing is. for the ultimate protection. the manufactures doesn't give a rats ass about the guy doing the reroof 20 to 40 years down the road.
you do not need to stick the shit down. the bond is not that good and certainly not strong enough to stop the expansion of ice. which btw is never the problem. the problem is ice on the surface not below the ice shield.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
sal wrote:

What common sense?

The membrane is quite flexible and will seal around nails very nicely. Just like having an o-ring.

Yep, you are with the program so far.

The adhesive gives one more layer of protection by keeping any water than happens to get under the shield from migrating between the membrane and the roof sheathing.

If the bond isn't that good, then why are you complaining about the tear-off of this stuff?
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:07:57 -0500, Matt Whiting

re read my post. I'm not complaining. also re read, your reply doesn't make sense on certain, if not all points.
but then why bother, you just doing your thing, trolling
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes...it does. Come and look at my gutters in Minnesota about January and tell me that I don't need my I/W glued to the plywood. Common sense tells me that I should wrap the I&W over the fascia, too, before installing any drip edge, flashing or fascia. Water, in the form of ice, will make its way uphill and can cause all sorts of problems. That's why we want it glued down tight.
{
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.