GBA Logo horizontal Facebook LinkedIn Email Pinterest Twitter Instagram YouTube Icon Navigation Search Icon Main Search Icon Video Play Icon Audio Play Icon Headphones Icon Plus Icon Minus Icon Check Icon Print Icon Picture icon Single Arrow Icon Double Arrow Icon Hamburger Icon TV Icon Close Icon Sorted Hamburger/Search Icon
Musings of an Energy Nerd

A Backyard Test of Peel-and-Stick Flashings

A 12-year-old historical artifact provides evidence of the tenacity of 21 brands of peel-and-stick flashing

A wooden trough used to test whether peel-and-stick flashing samples are watertight. This homemade wooden "bathtub" contains 24 holes. Each hole was patched with a different brand of peel-and-stick.
Image Credit: All photos: Martin Holladay
View Gallery 6 images
A wooden trough used to test whether peel-and-stick flashing samples are watertight. This homemade wooden "bathtub" contains 24 holes. Each hole was patched with a different brand of peel-and-stick.
Image Credit: All photos: Martin Holladay
I filled the test rig with water to see if the peel-and-stick samples sealing the holes would leak. About 45 minutes into the test, I got my first and only leak. Water was leaking through the caps between the end cap and the 4x4 trough. This photo shows Side 1 of the test rig. I used a black marker to re-number the samples. The numbers I wrote in 2001 had faded away. This photo shows Side 2 of the test rig. Sample #14 is MFM Building Products Window Wrap, a product with an "aluminized" facing. After 12 years, almost all traces of the "aluminization" process had disappeared. (Although it looks shiny in the photo, the light is reflecting off a thin layer of transparent plastic, not aluminum.) Other foil-faced products — including Samples #15 and #16 — were still intact; their facings were made from real aluminum. This closeup photo of the 12-year-old sample of MFM Building Products Window Wrap shows that the so-called "aluminized" facing is really cheap plastic. Almost no trace of the "aluminum" color is left.

More than 12 years ago, I wrote an article on peel-and-stick window flashing. The article, “Choosing Flexible Flashings,” appeared in the June 2001 issue of The Journal of Light Construction (JLC).

My article surveyed a variety of peel-and-stick products, including products with butyl adhesive as well as products made from rubberized asphalt. As part of my research, I interviewed industry experts to find out more about the strengths and weaknesses of these materials. I also interviewed builders about their job-site experiences with these products.

Back in 2001, I obtained samples of 21 brands of peel-and-stick flashing and performed a backyard test. First, I built a small wooden “bathtub.” Then I drilled a series of 7/16-inch holes in the bathtub and patched each hole with a sample of peel-and-stick. All of the samples were numbered. Fourteen hours later, I filled the bathtub with water.

I hoped that this backyard test would tell me whether peel-and-stick flashing is really waterproof.

So what were the results? One minute into the test, the first of the 21 brands of peel-and-stick showed signs of leakage. Six minutes into the test, four more products began leaking. After 20 minutes, 12 of the 21 tested products were leaking; then the situation stabilized. The 12 leaky products continued to leak, while the remaining nine products appeared to stay watertight. After 45 minutes, I discontinued the test. (For the record, the nine tapes that didn’t leak were Sealtight Air Shield, Dur-O-Wall Polytite PolyBarrier, Vycor Plus Self-Adhered Flashing, NEI AC Homeseal Self-Adhesive Membrane, MFM Building Products Sub Seal 40, Protecto Wrap BT20XL Building Tape, Ridglass Kwikwrap, Sandell Presto-Seal, and International Diamond Systems Tape Flashing.)

I discussed the results of the test with my JLC editor, who decided that the test wasn’t scientific enough to report. In the published article, I alluded to the test without reporting the individual results: “In an informal JLC test, 21 different peel-and-stick flashings were bonded to wood for 14 hours. About half [actually, 57%] of them failed to make a waterproof seal. Although further curing might have resulted in a waterproof bond, the test shows the need for caution when depending on an adhesive alone to seal out water.”

An accidental archaeological discovery

So why am I recounting this history? Well, the other day I was cleaning out a pile of old lumber under my wood shed, and I came across my homemade bathtub with its double row of peel-and-stick patches. Flash from the past! (Or perhaps I should say, “Flashing from the past!”)

The test rig has not been treated with any special care. At different times over the last 12 years, it has been stored on the dry gravel under my wood shed, or has been leaned casually against an outdoor wall, exposed to the weather. Most of the time, it has been under cover, but without any protection from drifting snow.

Since I recently conducted a backyard test of air sealing tapes, it occurred to me that I could use this 12-year-old artifact to test the tenacity of elderly peel-and-stick tapes. After all, most of us are curious about how these flashing tapes hold up over time. Here was a rare chance to see how samples of these 21 products hold up after years in the field.

Then I had another idea: why not repeat the water-retention test? After all, some peel-and-stick adhesives get more aggressive with age. Maybe some of the products will actually perform better when they are 12 years old than they did when they were newly installed.

A description of the bathtub

Before I describe my recent test, let me describe my homemade “bathtub” in more detail. The test rig consists of a 54-inch-long pressure-treated 4×4 with a V-shaped trough down the middle. I created the trough by making two long 45° cuts in the 4×4 with my table saw. I capped the ends of the trough with spruce end caps, glued and screwed into place. (I used a waterproof glue — either Gorilla glue or resorcinol.)

Once the bathtub was assembled, I drilled a series of 7/16-inch holes along the sides of the 4×4, angled slightly upward. The holes were all aimed at the bottom of the V-shaped trough; when water was poured into the trough, it drained through all 24 holes.

Each hole was patched on the outside of the “bathtub” with a piece of peel-and-stick flashing measuring 2 1/2 inches square. I drilled 24 holes because I hoped to test 24 products. In the end, I had only 21 products to test, so I covered the three extra holes with a product chosen at random (Sealtight Air Shield).

I tested 21 products

Below is a numbered list of the peel-and-stick products I used to seal the 24 holes.

13 holes were covered with rubberized asphalt products:

  1. 1. W. R. Meadows Sealtight Air Shield, 40 mils. (The same product was also used to cover holes #12, #20, and #23.)
  2. 2. Carlisle CCW-705 Window and Door flashing, 40 mils.
  3. 3. Dur-O-Wal Polytite PolyBarrier, 40 mils.
  4. 4. Grace Construction Products Vycor Plus Self-Adhered Flashing, 25 mils.
  5. 5. Master Wall Weather Stop Flashing Tape (manufactured by Protecto Wrap), unknown mil thickness.
  6. 6. NEI AC Homeseal Self-Adhesive Membrane, 30 mils.
  7. 7. MFM Building Products Sub Seal 40, 40 mils.
  8. 8. Protecto Wrap BT20XL Building Tape, 20 mils.
  9. 9. Ridglass Kwikwrap, 40 mils.
  10. 10. Sandell Presto-Seal, 40 mils.
  11. 11. Tamko Roofing Moisture Wrap, 40 mils.
  12. 12. W. R. Meadows Sealtight Air Shield, 40 mils.
  13. 13. Nervastral Bitu-Rap, unknown mil thickness.

3 holes were covered by rubberized asphalt products with aluminum foil facing:

  1. 14. MFM Building Products Window Wrap, 25 mils.
  2. 15. Ridglass Kwiksilver, unknown mil thickness.
  3. 16. NEI AC FlashSeal, 45 mils.

3 holes were covered by products with butyl adhesive:

  1. 17. DuPont Tyvek FlexWrap.
  2. 18. Tyco Adhesives Polyken 627-20 Window Flashing Tape, 20 mils.
  3. 19. Polyken 626-20 Window Flashing Tape, 20 mils.

3 holes were covered by EPDM flashing products with butyl adhesive:

  1. 21. Avenco Flashing tape (a flashing tape designed for use on EPDM roofing).
  2. 22. Geocel 9906 Flashing Tape (a flashing tape designed for use on EPDM roofing).
  3. 24. International Diamond Systems Tape Flashing (flexible), 70 mils.

How do the samples look?

After 12 years, the flashing samples look like they are in pretty good shape. None of the samples has fallen off, and all of them appear to be well-adhered.

The only odd thing I noticed is that one of the foil-faced products — MFM Building Products Window Wrap — is no longer foil-faced. When I inspected it closely, I realized that the facing was actually made of thin plastic. The manufacturer describes this facing as “aluminized.” I have a different word for it: “worthless.”

In contrast, the aluminum facings on three other products — Ridglass Kwiksilver, NEI AC FlashSeal, and Polyken 626-20 Window Flashing Tape — were still shiny. Close inspection revealed why: these facings were made of real aluminum, not “aluminized” plastic. Caveat emptor.

Repeating the bathtub test

In October 2013, I set my wooden bathtub on an outdoor concrete slab and filled it full of water. All of the 12-year-old peel-and-stick products remained watertight throughout the one-hour test. I was impressed. It seems clear that my original test back in 2001 was performed too soon, when the products had only recently been installed. If I had given the adhesives a few weeks to develop a stronger bond, the products probably would have performed as well as they did when they were 12 years old.

About 45 minutes into my test, a leak developed; one of my glued end caps had failed. The lesson: after 12 years, you can’t depend on a glue joint to remain waterproof. That’s not too surprising. Since the water was leaking out of the bathtub (albeit slowly), I discontinued the test after an hour.

The tenacity test

One day after the bathtub test, I decided to perform a tenacity test. First, I tried to lift each sample by one of its corners, using my fingernails. This proved impossible; they were all too tenacious to be lifted.

Next, I used a putty knife to lift the corner slightly. This, too, was tough. Most of the products stretched before they lifted. Even with a little bit of the corner sticking up, I was mostly unable to peel back the products with my fingers.

There were only two exceptions: Avenco Flashing Tape and Geocel 9906 Flashing Tape. With effort, I was able to peel back these two products. These flashing tapes (also called cover tapes) are designed to be used on EPDM roofing, so they aren’t really designed to be adhered to wood. Moreover, they are quite thick — the thickness of the Geocel product is 70 mils — so it’s possible that the reason that I was able to peel them back was that the thickness of the flashing gave me something sturdy enough to grip well.

In any case, if you are mainly interested in products used to flash windows and doors, the performance of these EPDM flashing tapes is irrelevant.

The results surprised me

The was a limited and unscientific test. The test conditions were not carefully controlled. The test involved only a single substrate (Southern yellow pine lumber), so the results tell us nothing about how well these flashing tapes might stick to housewrap, or vinyl window flanges, or rigid foam. Nevertheless, the results were interesting and even surprising.

Because of my background as a roofer, I’ve always had a keen interest in flashing. I tend to favor flashing solutions that depend on overlapping layers rather than sticky tapes, because “physics trumps chemistry” in the long run.

Before I conducted these recent tests, I would have guessed that some of the 21 products I installed 12 years ago would have failed by now. I would have been wrong.

I salute the manufacturers of these peel-and-stick flashings. They are selling products that appear to improve with age.

Martin Holladay’s previous blog: “Fixing a Wet Basement.”

Click here to follow Martin Holladay on Twitter.

9 Comments

  1. Kevin Dickson, MSME | | #1

    Heating up the tape helps bonding
    If I have a very critical spot where I need the rubberized asphalt tape to stick securely, I've found that heating it to about 120F really increases the tenacity of the bond. So I have a hunch that your test rig saw some bright sunshine and warm temperatures for at least a few days, and the tapes "healed themselves".

    In another experience of mine, I had some cold-applied PW BT20XL just peel itself off a vertical wall made of OSB. The temperature during application was around 50F.

    A roller should be used to help ensure a good seal on wood.

  2. Jin Kazama | | #2

    Nice addition to the tests sifu Martin!
    I've worked with a few ( only a very few ) peel stick tapes in the last 6-7 years.
    I've had to chance to re-work some of the tapes for various reasons. ( remodeling, completion of old works etc.. )

    I can testify that the ones i've used all gain strength with age.
    It is nearly impossible to remove asphalt based peel sticks from epdm,tyvek, aluminium and most dry lumbers after only a few years IF 1 condition is met.
    HEAT .

    All tapes that see sun, facing near south or get their temp elevated by being covered with anything dark colored will almost instantly ( 1 year ) gain this magical stickiness.

    So as Kevin pointed out, i now heat ( with electrical heatgun set at low ) and roll ALL of my peel stick tapes. It does work much better with aluminum faced than plastic faced for obvious reasons.

    On a side note,
    The 2 main tapes i've used are cross-poly faced, and both loose their "face" much too quick to my taste. You can easily "peel" the facing material from most of the 4-5 years old + ( no direct sun exposure ) without too much effort, leaving only an unprotected asphalt layer.

    So if you need the tapes to be water tight immediately for some reasons, heat + roll.
    If not, roll and let time do its work ( assuming water and dirt is not going to make way before it all sticks up together )

    Ah yeah, i would put my money on aluminum faced anytime for longevity vs the cheap plastic facings they all use ( if only i could find some locally :p )

  3. User avater GBA Editor
    Martin Holladay | | #3

    Response to Kevin Dickson and Jin Kazama
    Kevin and Jin,
    Thanks for your comments. I certainly agree that these products need heat to bond well.

    In my original 2001 article, I wrote, "Trying to install a peel-and-stick flashing on a cold wall can be frustrating. Both rubberized asphalt and butyl become less sticky as the temperature drops, and below 40ºF some products just won’t stick. ... The minimum application temperatures provided by flashing manufacturers vary from 10ºF to 50ºF ... These recommendations should be taken as a guide, not a guarantee. An installer can push the minimum application temperature somewhat by storing the flashing in a warm location before use."

    It's also a good idea to use a roller. In the 12-year-old article, I wrote, "Many, but not all, manufacturers recommend that their flexible flashing should be installed with a steel or hard-rubber J-roller — the same type of roller used for gluing plastic laminate countertops. Many manufacturers’ reps admit that this recommendation is widely ignored, but doing so carries some risk: When it comes to priming and using a roller, the bottom line is that builders who deviate from a manufacturer’s recommendations can’t expect any support from the manufacturer if something goes wrong."

  4. Dennis Heidner | | #4

    20 year test and 30 years.
    You will keep the "bathtub" and report on the results at 20 years and 30 years right?

    Good story and article.

  5. User avater GBA Editor
    Martin Holladay | | #5

    Response to Dennis Heidner
    Dennis,
    I'll be 76 years old when it's time for the 30-year test. I might just be retired by then. We'll see.

  6. Todd Collins | | #6

    SIGA - Wigluv is a great flashing option
    This is a great article, but some of the products on the market are absolutely terrible especially in extreme temperatures. Please add SIGA Wigluv to your study and test at more extreme temps. SIGA's Wigluv product comes as wide as 9" (specifically for flashing) to include 4" and 6" as well.

  7. User avater GBA Editor
    Martin Holladay | | #7

    Response to Todd Collins
    Todd,
    I have conducted a one-year backyard test of Siga Wigluv, and have written two articles on the results. Here are the links:

    Backyard Tape Test

    Return to the Backyard Tape Test

    For more information on problems with peel-and-stick flashing tapes in very cold temperatures and very warm temperatures, see my article, “Choosing Flexible Flashings.”

  8. Todd Collins | | #8

    Thanks Martin
    I saw the backyard tape test articles - thank you and nice work on that. Thanks also for the "flexible flashings" link. Also helpful.

    Do you plan any tests for window flashing? I am very interested in learning more about liquid applied and Tape products. When referring to Siga Wigluv, I was referring to flashing windows. However, I believe the black Wigluv can be used for roofs. It is better in UV.

    Thanks again, Todd

  9. User avater GBA Editor
    Martin Holladay | | #9

    Response to Todd Collins
    Todd,
    Q. "Do you plan any tests for window flashing?"

    A. Almost all of the products mentioned in this article -- flexible flashing products (peel-and-stick) -- are used as window flashing and are sold by the manufacturers for that purpose.

Log in or create an account to post a comment.

Related

Community

Recent Questions and Replies

  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |