Unvented roof – U.S. vs. Europe – Why such VERY different techniques and guidance?
Hi all, first time poster 🙂
I’m navigating my latest rehab project in Zone 4 (Raleigh, NC) and struggling with a specific Cathedral Ceiling scenario…. more details on that later, but first some context.
I have read nearly every GBA article (multiple times) published over the last decade on the subject of moisture management, rot, open/closed cell insulation, vented / un-vented roof assemblies, fiberglass / dense packed cellulose, etc. and must admit when paired with expert opinions available outside GBA, the degree of “certainty” on this general theme is anything but certain!
Enter my latest “pause”… a VERY expert forensic roof inspector routinely sought in litigation for rot issues involving spray foam (both closed and open cell foam) warmed me to NEVER put foam on the underside of roof decking and waxed on at length about the dubious science on the subject.
This gave me pause because I had determined from reading all the GBA guidance that a fully conditioned attic with open cell foam on the underside of the roof deck was a proven and virtually risk free implementation. This expert indicated that his experience with homes in the Carolina’s is that any foam on the underside of the roof deck is a roll of the dice, including those that are fully conditioned… with 90%+ positive outcomes, but that the other 10% experienced deep regret and great expense. His personal “expert” opinion was that no one yet truly understands the physics of moisture migration well enough to be certain of a risk free approach to attic encapsulation and un-vented roof assemblies.
This disconcerting encounter than drove me to research other approaches… Enter Gutex (from Germany) and their line of products design to be “earth friendly” and to “embrace” water vapor absorption / dispersion friendly materials. After consuming every technical document I could find on the European “findings” of Gutex products I’m now thoroughly perplexed. Why? Because they claim their earth-friendly, vapor friendly materials and membranes solves for the “ping-pong” moisture migration reality that happens based on time of year and micro-climate. Moreover, they aggressively advocate a cellulose, un-vented roof assembly so long s it’s paired with their vapor migration membrane called Intello Plus. Again, the opposite of GBA guidance on unvented, dense pack cellulose cathedral ceilings.
Now to my Cathedral Ceiling challenge…
My rafters are only 7.25″ deep (originally 5.5 inches before building them up). The shingles are brand new (installed by the immediate previous owner) and I really don’t have the budget to remove and install Poly ISO on the outside. Furring out the depth is also not ideal due to a relatively low side wall height (7 feet-8 inches). My roof is currently vented…
Enter my intrigue with Gutex. The Gutex folks appear staunch advocates of using dense packed cellulose in an un-vented roof assembly so long as their moisture management membrane Intello Plus is used to the inside of a building envelope.
So… I am keen to hear from those up on the “science” behind the Gutex approach to un-vented roof assemblies as well as their earth-friendly materials approach to embrace an absorb / disperse vapor solution vs an approach here in the States which seems built more on “make damn sure the moisture can’t get in”, and just in case, be sure to condition the air.
Thanks in advance for input / guidance.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part