[GSBN] Big News!!
Graeme North
graeme at ecodesign.co.nz
Tue Aug 24 23:11:20 UTC 2010
HI Martin
firstly my congratulations -
and yes, I would really appreciate a word document I can make comment on
From my neck of the woods, one of the overriding issues I encounter
time and time again is that of good weather protection from wind
driven rain in our decidedly pluvian and humid climate - something
that gets skittered around in most books and references.
I think we need a prescriptive starting point. In the NZ Earth
Building Standards NZS 4299 we relate wind zone. eaves height
(vertical exposed wall height), and roof overhang width to give
MIMIMUM roof overhangs as follows -
Wind Zone - Ratio of eave height to width
Low (at ULS 32m/s) 4:1 (600mm over a 2400 wall)
Medium (37m/s) 8:3
High (44 m/s) 3:2
Very High (50 m/s) 1:1 (or in other words a full verandah)
We developed this table after leaks and some degradation of material
in some earthen structures and I can report that there has been no
reported problem since we adopted this.
It is my contention that straw buildings are at least as moisture
sensitive as earthen buildings and I would suggest that this sort of
table be regarded a good starting point for calculating minimum roof
overhangs for direct-plastered external strawbale walls, a
recommendation that could possibly be worked back (or exceeded) after
local weather or site assessment, or possibly a service history of
locally developed techniques.
It may seem a but draconian to some but for my money the biggest
problem with strawbale buildings, in humid wet climates at least,
seems to be that of providing adequate primary weather protection, in
the form of eaves, or rain screening, and lack of good practical
prescriptive guidance on this subject.
Comments welcome
Graeme (in bossy standards writing mode) North
Graeme North Architects
49 Matthew Road
RD1
Warkworth
tel/fax +64 (0)9 4259305
graeme at ecodesign.co.nz
www.ecodesign.co.nz
On 23/08/2010, at 5:32 PM, martin hammer wrote:
> Everyone,
>
> Lars Keller asked the below question so I thought I would answer to
> all in case others are interested. I’ll set a deadline of
> September 30th for anyone wanting to comment on the strawbale code
> as in the second draft of the IGCC.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 8/22/10 9:36 PM, "Lars Keller" <larskeller at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Martin,
>> What is the deadline for comments to you ?
>> Best regards,
>> Lars Keller
>>
>> On 22 August 2010 03:36, martin hammer <mfhammer at pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> Hello friends on the GSBN,
>>>
>>> My voice has been conspicuously absent on this subject, so I
>>> thought I would weigh in.
>>>
>>> First, thanks for the words of appreciation. I was pleasantly
>>> surprised to hear the news from David on Monday. I think this
>>> strawbale code document is very good, but there are a number of
>>> reasons I didn’t think it would go through to the next step. I
>>> thought both the Earthen Materials proposal (referencing the
>>> recently revised ASTM standard that Bruce, David in earlier
>>> years, and others worked so hard on) and the Straw-Clay proposal
>>> I co-authored with Paula Baker-Laporte, had better chances. I
>>> might propose them again in the upcoming Code Change Proposal
>>> phase (once IGCC committee concerns are addressed).
>>>
>>> Much blood, sweat, and a few tears have gone into this SB code
>>> since 2003, when I began writing it at the request of the State
>>> of California (they asked Bruce, Bruce asked me . . .). I’ve had
>>> very good input from others along the way, including members of
>>> this list (David Eisenberg, Bruce King, Dan Smith, Bob Theis, Tim
>>> Kennedy, John Swearingen, Bill Steen, Kelly Lerner) (apology if
>>> I’ve missed anyone), and others not on this list, notably civil
>>> engineering professor Mark Aschheim.
>>>
>>> Because it started as a California code, and because there are
>>> great SB experts in northern CA where I live, the code might be a
>>> bit California-centric (with particular attention to seismic
>>> issues). However I’ve always wanted it to be broadly applicable
>>> and I welcome broader, global input at this time. I expect to
>>> propose adjustments during the next IGCC review phase. If it
>>> remains in the IGCC and goes the way codes often do, some version
>>> of this might show up at your building official’s door and then
>>> your strawbale door in Australia, South Africa, or who knows
>>> where. And although I think there’s much to like, I can almost
>>> guarantee you can find something you don’t like. So . . .
>>>
>>> If you want to see and comment on the proposed code you can ask
>>> me to e-mail the proposed SB code (by itself) to you as a word
>>> document, and then e-mail me your comments or send it back with
>>> “track changes”. OR you can go to: http://www.iccsafe.org/CS/
>>> IGCC/Pages/Comments0810.aspx , and download all Public Comments
>>> under the “Complete Document” subheading (Strawbale Construction
>>> is Comment #5-136). You can then e-mail your comments to me (not
>>> to ICC). I’m also open to comments on #5-134 Straw-Clay, and
>>> #5-135 Earthen Materials. If you want to understand the IGCC
>>> process and schedule, you can go to: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/
>>> IGCC/Pages/PublicVersionDevelopment.aspx
>>>
>>> In addition, I want to clarify that:
>>>
>>> Strawbale is not yet in the IGCC. That’s because it isn’t
>>> finalized (and SB could even be entirely removed).
>>> Even if included in the final version, the IGCC applies only to
>>> commercial and high-rise residential, AND only in jurisdictions
>>> that adopt the IGCC. So it would have limited application.
>>>
>>> That said, this approval is still a very good thing. And if it
>>> does make it to the finish line of the IGCC, it would probably
>>> then migrate to the IBC in the next code cycle, and then to a
>>> jurisdiction near you. I even see the possibility of
>>> jurisdictions adopting it or informally using it for all
>>> occupancies, even before reaching the IBC. John Swearingen’s
>>> report of it already producing “instant results” for his project
>>> in Stanislaus County supports that notion, and is both welcome
>>> and frightening.
>>>
>>> Finally, I want to acknowledge David Eisenberg and Matts Myhrman
>>> who together forged the first SB code in Arizona in the early-mid
>>> 1990’s, and to David again for speaking so convincingly on behalf
>>> of the current proposed code at the recent hearing in Chicago.
>>> If you read his description of what he said, you’ll see that he
>>> simply told the compelling truth about the most relevant issues.
>>> It’s one of many things David does so well. It’s nice when the
>>> compelling truth prevails (at least for now).
>>>
>>> Thanks David, and thanks to all. And thanks to the enduring
>>> spirit of strawbale!
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> PS - For a pre-IGCC history of this SB code, see my GSBN post on
>>> Dec. 1, 2009. Reviewing that e-mail might also be used as a
>>> natural aid to help you fall asleep. However, for me it is a
>>> riveting drama (sometimes moving at the pace of a melting
>>> glacier . . . actually that’s happening quite quickly these days!)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/16/10 10:13 PM, "strawnet at aol.com" <strawnet at aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> I want share some great news. Earlier today, here in Chicago,
>>>> Martin Hammer's "comment"/proposal to include the strawbale code
>>>> he’s been working on over the past few years in California into
>>>> the new International Green Construction Code (IgCC) was
>>>> approved by a committee vote of 8 to 6! The IgCC is the new US
>>>> code for commercial (and high-rise residential) buildings that
>>>> will become part of the family of 2012 International Codes (I-
>>>> codes). It will go through a full code development cycIe with
>>>> the rest of the 2012 I-codes next year and there is work that
>>>> will need to be done still to make sure it doesn’t get rejected
>>>> in that process, but getting it into the second public draft of
>>>> the code now is a very big step forward.
>>>>
>>>> I served on the drafting committee for this code from last
>>>> summer through the spring of this year. For more information
>>>> about the IgCC and to download the whole IgCC first public draft
>>>> and the comments – including Martin’s proposals for strawbale
>>>> and earthen building and the EcoNest comment in support of straw
>>>> clay go here:
>>>> http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/IGCC/Pages/default.aspx
>>>> http://www.iccsafe.org/CS/IGCC/Pages/Comments0810.aspx
>>>> You’ll find these listed as comments 5-134, 5-135 and 5-136.
>>>>
>>>> I was the only proponent speaking in favor of it here, and there
>>>> were others who spoke in opposition. The initial motion was to
>>>> disapprove but it failed 5 votes to 9 after considerable and
>>>> very mixed discussion – which surprised me because of the nature
>>>> of some of the comments – that it was still not ready and needed
>>>> some technical fixes.
>>>>
>>>> The failure of the motion to disapprove required a new motion
>>>> and Chris Mathis, an old building science friend from North
>>>> Carolina, offered a motion for approval. That was followed by
>>>> more discussion, with more concerns expressed that it wasn't
>>>> ready. Then, just before the second vote, Chris pressed the
>>>> committee to push the envelope. He said they should approve it
>>>> and get it in, and rather than just having the few people who
>>>> are very knowledgeable about it work on improving the things
>>>> that still need to be done, “Let thousands of people look at it
>>>> and help improve it through the next round of the code
>>>> development process!” He said it was time to start pushing these
>>>> things through. Then they voted - and it passed 8 to 6! I was
>>>> amazed and delighted! So it is going into the second public draft!
>>>>
>>>> There were two other similar proposals (they’re called
>>>> “comments”) that were heard right before the strawbale comment.
>>>> The first, from Paula Baker Laport and Robert Laport proposed
>>>> including the straw clay guidelines from New Mexico. Next was
>>>> the other submitted by Martin, that one in support of earthen
>>>> construction based on the new ASTM standard for earthen wall
>>>> systems that I had initiated almost 10 years ago and Bruce King
>>>> has spearheaded over the past few years. I spoke in support of
>>>> both, but they were disapproved, though both received
>>>> encouraging suggestions to bring them forward again after
>>>> addressing non-mandatory/permissive language and other issues.
>>>>
>>>> Because they were heard one after the other, and I was the only
>>>> proponent for them, I got to speak first for each one and so I
>>>> had a total of 6 minutes (2 minutes each) to frame them all in
>>>> terms of the big issues I’ve been speaking to for all these
>>>> years, including the coming challenges of ever-more limited and
>>>> expensive energy, the low-impact, low-tech, climate beneficial,
>>>> local/regional benefits, the industrial/proprietary bias and
>>>> difficulty in funding research, testing and development for
>>>> public domain, non-proprietary materials and systems. I started
>>>> off by talking about the fact that I had been in buildings in
>>>> Europe built with materials like straw clay and earth that are
>>>> twice as old as this country! And to say that these are durable
>>>> and safe ways of building when done properly. And when talking
>>>> about the ASTM earthen standard, I said that if they looked at
>>>> it they might think that it was too low tech to be reasonable
>>>> compared to the standards that they’re used to for concrete and
>>>> other industrial materials. But, I said, It was intentionally
>>>> low tech. That I was involved in initiating that standard almost
>>>> ten years ago and it was both to enable the use of those
>>>> materials here and to reverse the outlawing of earthen building
>>>> in developing countries through the adoption of modern
>>>> industrial codes. That it was designed to enable people to build
>>>> safe, durable, healthy, and affordable buildings anywhere in the
>>>> world—including the in United States. I mentioned that the
>>>> committee that developed that standard included the leading
>>>> experts on earthen building and engineering from around the
>>>> world and was based on reviewing and incorporating the best from
>>>> international codes and standards for earthen building.
>>>>
>>>> After the first two went down, I was quite convinced because of
>>>> the comments that the sb proposal would share the same fate and,
>>>> thankfully, I was wrong!
>>>>
>>>> So hats off to Martin, Bruce, Matts, and many others who have
>>>> worked so long and hard to develop these codes and to Chris
>>>> Mathis for his leadership and visionary action on the committee.
>>>>
>>>> Onward!
>>>>
>>>> David Eisenberg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GSBN mailing list
>>>> GSBN at greenbuilder.com
>>>> http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GSBN mailing list
>>> GSBN at greenbuilder.com
>>> http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing list
> GSBN at greenbuilder.com
> http://greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/GSBN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20100825/385592a8/attachment.htm>
More information about the GSBN
mailing list