[GSBN] Straw Bale Code Appeal (+MH SB Code update)

Tue Dec 1 09:37:13 UTC 2009

Yes, great work Laura.  Shining the light of straw bale knowledge into
misguided corners of the globe.

One could make an argument that the Grand County, Utah ³Straw Bale
Construction Policy of Requirements² was the first official straw bale
³code².  It was adopted in April 1994, a year and a half before the
Tuscon/Pima County, Arizona code that GSBN¹s own Matts Myhrman and David
Eisenberg developed (and which became the basis of 80% of the current US SB
codes).  However, both New Mexico and Arizona were years ahead in terms of
buildings built and knowledge gathered, and sophistication of their
subsequent codes.  I didn¹t call Grand County¹s document a code when I did
my research in 2006 and instead classified it as guidelines.  It is a very
skimpy 8-point document, that goes into detail about some relatively
unimportant things (no ice maker boxes in SB walls), and completely ignores
other things that matter a great deal.   It also unknowingly created
potential harm with the requirement you corrected.  But to be fair, they
wrote what they knew (or thought they knew) at the time, and they broke new
ground.  Thanks for continuing its evolution.

Speaking of the evolution of straw bale codes, this morning I submitted to
the International green Construction Code committee, a modified version of
what I¹ve developed over recent years (with the help of many) for the State
of California.  The proposed California SB code has hit a 2 year (minimum)
standstill due to Housing and Community Development being overworked and
understaffed, so they can¹t/won¹t devote the resources necessary to push it
across the finish line.  We made good progress in 2007, especially with the
Fire section, but more work is needed to satisfy three important
stakeholders, the California Building Officials Association, the Structural
Engineers Association of California, and the California Seismic Safety
Commission.  Largely an education and documentation process, which, even if
I did most of the work, HCD¹s participation is still necessary to get it
through.  So that continues to be in limbo, but I poke them periodically to
keep it alive.

Regarding the IgCC,  I came to it somewhat late in the process.  For many
months a 29 member committee (including GSBN¹s David Eisenberg), with input
from stakeholders and interested parties, has been forging the International
green Construction Code (IgCC).  An ICC senior staff architect made a
request some weeks ago for code language addressing certain materials,
including straw bale, rammed earth, and cob.  I met this person in
Philadelphia in October and have since participated in numerous
tele-conference meetings with the materials subcommittee, including a 3-1/2
hour (!) one today.  I¹ve been hearing and commenting on many interesting
issues other than straw bale, becoming familiar with the group and the
process.  The IgCC is an ambitious project.  A stand-alone code applying to
non-residential buildings that could be adopted by any jurisdiction to
promote ³green² design and building practices.  It is interesting to hear
the earnest, thoughtful, (occasionally industry self-serving), and sometimes
spirited discussion that goes with it, and to contribute where I can.
Forging this code is like wrestling 3 or 4 giant alligators to the ground.
I¹ll let you know how my personal (and our collective) alligator fares in
coming weeks.

If anyone wants to offer input on what I submitted, let me know and I can
e-mail it to you.  I didn¹t have the time I wanted to put it out for comment
within the GSBN community before submitting it.  Assuming it goes forward,
there is definitely still time for modification.  The IgCC is not the ideal
place for a strawbale section of the code, the IBC is.  But this was an
opportunity I couldn¹t pass up, and it could provide a stepping stone to the
IBC.  The ICC staff architect and others are supportive in principle, but so
are the State of CA and its various stakeholders.  The difficulty is in the
many details, and their understanding and agreement by people in positions
of code authority, especially in the realms of structure, fire, and
moisture.  At one point in the California process there was a proposal to
pull structural out of the proposed code.  75% of the resistance would have
disappeared, but I and others decided it was too important to sacrifice for
shorter term expediency.  New Mexico¹s code still doesn¹t allow loadbearing,
14 years after its adoption (Derek R. and Catherine W., any progress
there?).

My goal with any SB Code is to keep it as simple and versatile as possible,
but to adequately address all relevant issues of life safety and minimum
building performance, based on best collective knowledge.  In the code
realm, which directs what can and can¹t be built, it all must be rational
and defensible.  I continue to grapple with what it can, should, and must
be.

So, there¹s a long e-mail that started as a simple acknowledgement of
Laura¹s good work.  But I think I owed everyone an overview and update of
what I know re: SB codes in California and the US.

Thanks to all.

Martin Hammer

On 11/30/09 8:40 AM, "Laura Bartels" <laura at greenweaverinc.com> wrote:

> Dear GSBN'ers, 
> 
> First, let me say I am feeling very thankful again for this network, the value
> it offers, and the access it provides to so many good people doing excellent
> work. I don't write often, but I "listen" a lot and speak up as my schedule
> allows. 
> 
> And secondly, I was asked to share this by several of you. I was recently
> hired by a client to appeal a straw bale code in Grand County, UT that
> required a "weather barrier" or "sheet barrier" 32" up the exterior of the
> straw bale wall under the plaster. This code requirement has been in place for
> over 10 years, previously required a full sheet barrier and was unsatisfactory
> to many builders and owners in the jurisdiction. The client, who I applaud,
> was willing to put some resources into having a study of this and to create a
> hopefully successful appeal for the benefit of those following him. The head
> code official is on the board of the International Code Council and is
> involved at the state level as well. Thanks go to several folks on this list
> who I contacted individually for thoughts and data related to this issue. I
> collected data from the StrawSense systems that GreenWeaver makes and sells
> and wrote a report summarizing that data, the data in a study by Kris Dick,
> and a one-time moisture investigation I did of the Waldorf School campus in
> 2007. With that in hand, I met with the building official, the clients and
> their builder last week and at the end of a two hour meeting, he agreed to
> remove the requirement from the code and to look more deeply at the other
> straw bale requirements and opportunities to improve their code. The meeting
> helped me to see again some of the common misconceptions about drainage vs.
> storage wall assemblies, the role of plasters, and the properties of vapor
> permeance and capillary absorption. But, it also helped me to understand again
> the value of taking the educational approach, going in with an appreciation of
> the motivations for a code, and an attitude of wanting to work together. The
> building official was very conscientious and I applaud him as well in this
> change. 
> 
> Thanks again to those involved.
> 
> Laura 
> 
> I will make available a .pdf of the data after I add some additional data that
> came in after the fact.
>  
> Laura Bartels
> P.O. Box 912, Carbondale, CO 81623
> Ph 970-379-6779, Fax 970-963-0905
> laura at greenweaverinc.com
> www.greenweaverinc.com
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20091201/f82358dc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3970 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20091201/f82358dc/attachment.jpg>