Sill sealer and wood rot in residential wooden framing

I don't buy it. Millions of houses have been constructed without it and they manage just fine.

Hi, thank you for your reply. Here is a link explaining stud rot. May not happen in 5 10 years. In the long run it will. But should not be a reason to leave out the sill sealer. Thoughts?

Everything fails eventually. If you’d like to bring suit against your builder, then hire a a construction defect attorney, first. Often, these matters have very little to do with technical truths and boil down to optics.

Don’t call what you read online as a layperson “research;” it cheapens the research that’s actually done, like the kind that went into proving your house works.

I have never used it and the only times I have seen the base of wall rotted as shown in the sales stuff on sill sealers was masonite siding with a gap between the backside of the siding and the wall that sets on a concrete slab. It looked like to me the water came up between the siding and wood framing and NOT from under the sill plate.

A lot of garages and unheated outbuildings have no wall insulation and get the rot noted in the sales brochures. And for those not familiar with companies like Jim Walter's Homes, they placed 1 layer of 15 lb tar paper on the exterior walls before putting on the siding. When constructed on concrete, you can get the same rot and it was not from under the sole plate (rat sill), it come up the side. I don't think sill sealer would have prevented nor minimized it.

Thank you all for your reply!

umm. Ok. May be last question on this. If you were building a home and the builder missed the sill sealer, what would you do? Do you accept? Don't Care?

If it was in the contract, pay me some money or I am swapping it for something I want of similar value. And it is not the amount that would have been paid if had been installed, it is something greater since they cannot correct it in without tearing down something. If the code does not require it, and it was not specified in the contract or drawings, then I find it hard to complain about it. I never let them give me less without me paying them less. It sets up a bad precedent.

Man the US is like the wild west, why are you guys so forgiving of shit construction??
If the builder missed the damp proof separation layer between the bottom plate and the foundation in my house they would be in for a very expensive and sad time

ravinan123 said:

My builder didn't install a sill sealer under a PT sill plate.

Click to expand...

What circumstances on your project would have told the builder to install the strip? I do not think the building code requires it unless you are going for some high-end energy rating. I can understand your contract or drawings requiring it and if there is a code that the builder was to adhere to requiring it, but beyond that what else is there?

Just because there is some product on the market that is touted as being "better", is not a reason it has to be installed.

Greenalleycat said:

Man the US is like the wild west, why are you guys so forgiving of shit construction??
If the builder missed the damp proof separation layer between the bottom plate and the foundation in my house they would be in for a very expensive and sad time

Click to expand...

From the posts, it appears that NZ and AU codes have legal ramifications included in the code. That makes your situation much easier than ours. Our code conventions have every industry vying for more use of their product. You MUST use this for that. The one thing that none of them are vying for is responsibility when their industry fails to supply what they specifically argued for. Or as I like to say it, "The American Way". It is hard to drag someone into even small claims court let alone higher courts. The only non-court alternative is the building inspectors but alas, in many areas, they are only concerned with "Safe and Sanitary". Beyond that, they generally will not weigh in. You can put the windows in upside down and they do not care unless the lowest sash will no open in a bedroom.

The code requires a sill sealer when a non-pt sill plate is used. right? why does it require? because moisture wicking up the concrete will rot the sill plate.
Now does wood wickup moisture as well? yes it does.

So with that said, even if a PT sill plate is used, moisture will reach the studs sitting on it. isn't it?
So, is there a reason not to use sill sealer to prevent stud rot?

May be your experience says "studs will not rot". How can I leave that to a chance.

I am not sure I win the argument with the builder, but fact cannot be denied.

I appreciate all for your response and the discussion on it.

ravinan123 said:

So with that said, even if a PT sill plate is used, moisture will reach the studs sitting on it. isn't it?

Click to expand...

I have been in over 5000 crawlspaces and have never seen this to be an issue. I would put my energy elsewhere.

Right or wrong doesn't really matter here, it all comes down to what leverage you have.

If it's on the plans, and you have a contract that says to follow the plans, you just withhold payment until the conditions are met. If you can find a code violation (this isn't one), and your contract says that they have to follow code, you can withhold payment. If you withhold payment for something that was not contractually specified, the builder can just put a lien on the property to get their money.

If you have a really vague contract they printed off the internet somewhere and those items are not specified, it doesn't matter what is right to do or good practice, you are just out of luck. The contractor will start ignoring your phone calls, and if you try to chase him he will simply change his LLC so you can't get any money if you sue him. Even good contractors have bad clients that they handle this way, and bad contractors are really good at it.

Very little moisture will be able to get up to the studs by wicking, and it will be able to dry out without causing damage because a contractor who does not seal his bottom plate is not going to air seal and super insulate enough to prevent the wood from drying. The studs are real wood, not chopped up and glued back together wood, so they wet and dry pretty well without rotting. We used to use real wood to build ships that we sailed all the way around the world in...

Just keep the rain and snow off and you will be fine.

BN4537 said:

Right or wrong doesn't really matter here, it all comes down to what leverage you have.

If it's on the plans, and you have a contract that says to follow the plans, you just withhold payment until the conditions are met. If you can find a code violation (this isn't one), and your contract says that they have to follow code, you can withhold payment. If you withhold payment for something that was not contractually specified, the builder can just put a lien on the property to get their money.

If you have a really vague contract they printed off the internet somewhere and those items are not specified, it doesn't matter what is right to do or good practice, you are just out of luck. The contractor will start ignoring your phone calls, and if you try to chase him he will simply change his LLC so you can't get any money if you sue him. Even good contractors have bad clients that they handle this way, and bad contractors are really good at it.

Very little moisture will be able to get up to the studs by wicking, and it will be able to dry out without causing damage because a contractor who does not seal his bottom plate is not going to air seal and super insulate enough to prevent the wood from drying. The studs are real wood, not chopped up and glued back together wood, so they wet and dry pretty well without rotting. We used to use real wood to build ships that we sailed all the way around the world in...

Just keep the rain and snow off and you will be fine.

Click to expand...

Right or wrong, building a house is all about picking your battles. This is not one i would worry about. There will be a lot more that do matter.

Since the sill is PT-I see no argument and not much need for worry. Similar to other comments, I have seen thousands without any damage and have never seen one with a sill sealer installed that I recall.

ravinan123 said:

I am not sure I win the argument with the builder, but fact cannot be denied.

Click to expand...

Being a fact and actually occurring are 2 different things. Water can travel through most any porous medium but that does not mean all porous mediums are constantly wicking water. If they were, why have so many of us seen so many old houses with no damage? Of the volume of moisture they do wick, can it dry out before doing any damage.

Also, there is not an endless supply of water to wick up. The ones I looked at on the internet had the ground 2" to 3" below top of slab, code says 6". They also had siding. As I stated before, that gives a more likely path for water. Even with a sealer, when the water from under the siding gets above the level of the sill sealer, the situation is the same as no sealer, in fact the sealer makes it harder for the intruded water to back off once the rain is gone.

You have 3 issues, (1) did code require sealer, No it appears it did not; (2) do you need to worry about it not being present; most likely not but if you have other issues like ground elevation or rate of discharge from a roof valley or drain pipe, maybe so (3) what to do with the builder; unless they did something wrong, I don't see where I would try.

Good Luck

XR250 said:

I have been in over 5000 crawlspaces and have never seen this to be an issue. I would put my energy elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Yes, It is a relief to get experts opinion. Probably I don't mind the sill sealer missing.

I had one bad experience with rotting in my current home. Patio wooden post had rotted after 8 years.
Whoever installed missed the steel plate. The builder came and installed a new post with the steel plate.
In this case, I didn't have gutter or anything. Patio surface is may be 2 inches above the ground.

This bad experience is making me push back against the builder. Also, in the same community, he has installed the
sill sealer for all other homes.

ravinan123 said:

This bad experience is making me push back against the builder. Also, in the same community, he has installed the
sill sealer for all other homes.

Click to expand...

Were the other installations required by the contract or drawings? If not, it would bother me more just because I would feel like I got a lesser service, UNLESS I beat him down on price but the others did not.

The neighboritis is real

It's a Building Code violation of the high

Ron247 said:

What circumstances on your project would have told the builder to install the strip? I do not think the building code requires it unless you are going for some high-end energy rating. I can understand your contract or drawings requiring it and if there is a code that the builder was to adhere to requiring it, but beyond that what else is there?

Just because there is some product on the market that is touted as being "better", is not a reason it has to be installed.

From the posts, it appears that NZ and AU codes have legal ramifications included in the code. That makes your situation much easier than ours. Our code conventions have every industry vying for more use of their product. You MUST use this for that. The one thing that none of them are vying for is responsibility when their industry fails to supply what they specifically argued for. Or as I like to say it, "The American Way". It is hard to drag someone into even small claims court let alone higher courts. The only non-court alternative is the building inspectors but alas, in many areas, they are only concerned with "Safe and Sanitary". Beyond that, they generally will not weigh in. You can put the windows in upside down and they do not care unless the lowest sash will no open in a bedroom.

Click to expand...

Yes there would be multiple avenues of recourse here

1/ Consumer Guarantees Act means you can't contract out of many things with private individuals (e.g. homeowners) and I think these obligations even flow through an LLC e.g. if your client is a developer but the end client is obviously a future homeowner. The CGA has significant weight for things having a reasonable lifespan.

2/ All building work must comply with the Building Code...not separating timber from concrete in this situation would be a non-compliance under our Code so the contractor would have done illegal building work. Hence, on the hook

3/ Section 362 of our Building Act sets out 'implied warranties' which are very powerful and legally define that you can't contract out of doing work properly. You also can't use the 'ignorance of the law' excuse by just not talking about it with your client - again, the 'implied warranty' you give by doing building work exists regardless of your clients knowledge of their obligations

4/ The Building Code sets out lifespans that certain items are expected to last, typically 5, 15, or 50 years. I would argue that no DPC between the bottom plate and the foundation would be risking the 15 year building life (though from your experience you seem to disagree here), or certainly the 50 year building life obligation (50 year would be the applicable test though)

All of which makes perfect sense IMO because there is a) typically a huge knowledge gap between contractors and homeowners and prevents people getting taken advantage of; b) goes a decent way to protecting future homeowners



Of course, it no utopia here - there are still a huge number of cowboys, and you still need money to sue, etc etc. But at least there are mechanisms in place to protect you, unlike the USA it seems.

It is my understanding that sill sealer is to prevent air leakage into the basement or unvented crawlspace. You can just caulk the sill plate to get the same effect.