[GSBN] Big News!!
Bruce King
ecobruce at sbcglobal.net
Wed Aug 25 07:05:42 UTC 2010
Thanks for that, Graeme. I would completely agree about wind-driven
rain, and also refer myself and others to the New Zealand earth
standards for guidance when no other guide is available.
Bruce King
www.ecobuildnetwork.org
(415) 987-7271
On Aug 24, 2010, at 4:11 PM, Graeme North wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100825/97917979/attachment.htm>
More information about the GSBN
mailing list