[GSBN] Wall Heights- Larger & Multi-storey Straw Bale buildings

Fri Apr 5 12:18:13 UTC 2013

Hi Paul

Thanks for the photos of the 2 storey - what I would call - plantation style
house.

Where is that built and when and can i reference you as the architect?

Incidentally obviously when I asked about the slenderness ration in relation
to in-fill type structures, i am referring to the height of walls between
horizontal structural framing and not the overall height of the building,
which is clearly influenced by hte design of ones structural frame,
protection form inclement weather etc. It appears from examples I have found
while surveying the web and my various books on straw bale, that the closer
together one uses vertical members to contain the bales the higher one can
go before inserting a horizontal member in the panel and conversely the
wider one builds a panel the more regularly one needs to use horizontal
beams / structure to contain the panels.

With framed systems a(s much as I love the idea of building load bearing,
for numerous reasons – building authority being a big one – we generally
find that we end up using bales as an in-fill material), I have generally
found when working on site that anything longer than 3 bales length (width
of panel) starts to get a bid wobbly and so if the wall is longer than that
without a window buck or structural upright to work against then we end up
having  to insert some kind of vertical post or ladder into the wall to help
stabilize it. I have not tried the external pinning method but imagine that
that would add alot of stiffness to the walls and that this length may be
able to be increased in this case. 

 I would be really interested to hear what other peoples experience has been
with the sizing of in-fill panels and what guidance one can give around
their design.

Many thanks

Kind regards,

Andy Horn

Logo-and-Address

From: GSBN-bounces at sustainablesources.com
[mailto:GSBN-bounces at sustainablesources.com] On Behalf Of Paul Olivier
Sent: 05 April 2013 12:56 PM
To: Global Straw Building Network
Subject: Re: [GSBN] Wall Heights - Larger & Multi-storey Straw Bale
buildings

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Andy Horn <andy at ecodesignarchitects.co.za>
wrote:

Hi all 

I am curious if any of you out  there can send me any info / links to photos
of large straw bale structures ....I am looking to put a quick presentation
together showing precedent of various 2 and 3 storey straw bale structures
as well as any larger type cellars, warehouses, public buildings etc.

Also in terms of in-fill structures have there been any studies done on how
high one can build with straw bales......the width to height ratio given in
the proposed international straw bale building code is  6:1 width to
height........does this same ratio still apply to non-load bearing
structures and have there been any studies that look at if this still
applies with bales laid flat vs bales laid on edge....as well as the
difference ones plaster makes to this.

I would be interested to know if any studies have been conducted on the
influence of how the walls are pinned and how they are plastered etc as to
how this would influence the slenderness ratio......for instance I would
think that if one had an earth plaster for instance which was very well
bonded into the straw (as with say a pre-dipping method where one has up to
80mm of earth fused with the outer layer of straw) then this would also
impact on the stability of the wall as would the type of pinning used
internal vs external pinning etc..... 

Many thanks 

Kind regards

Andy

Error! Filename not specified.

From: GSBN-bounces at sustainablesources.com
[mailto:GSBN-bounces at sustainablesources.com] On Behalf Of Feile Butler
Sent: 22 March 2013 09:07 PM
To: Global Straw Building Network
Subject: [GSBN] Fw: The Mechanical Ventilation Debate

I'm forwarding this for Robert Riversong. 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Robert Riversong <mailto:housewright at ponds-edge.net>  

To: Feile <mailto:feile at mudandwood.com>  Butler 

Cc: Graeme North <mailto:graeme at ecodesign.co.nz>  ; John Straube
<mailto:jfstraube at uwaterloo.ca>  

Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:33 PM

Subject: Re: [GSBN] The Mechanical Ventilation Debate

Feile, et al:

Thank you for using my statements to continue this important dialogue. Feel
free to forward this to the list as well (and I would accept an invitation
to join this group if it were offered).

The "divide" that John Straube describes is not necessarily between those
who choose to offer the best solutions to the majority who are immersed in
the current (and almost certainly unsustainable) paradigm of complexity,
control and comfort – and those who seek to change the cultural paradigm
(which is a near-impossible task). It is between those who, with the very
best of intentions, support and encourage the current paradigm by offering
"best practices" consistent with it – and those who understand that the
current paradigm is very close to a global collapse which will force
dramatic social and technological change (the only way fundamental change
has ever occurred in evolutionary or cultural history).

There is a long and noble history of the prophetic Luddite tradition which
has challenged the "value-neutral" notion of technology, including such
notables as Oswald Spengler, Aldous Huxley, Paul Goodman, Leopold Kohr,
George Orwell, Arthur Koestler, Herbert Marcuse, Jacques Ellul, Lewis
Mumford, Marshall McLuhan, E.F. Schumacher, Ivan Illich, Wendell Berry,
Theodore Roszak, Edward René David Goldsmith, Joseph Tainter, Jerry Mander,
Neil Postman, Kirkpatrick Sale, Ted Kaczynski, Morris Berman, Ronald Wright,
Nicholas Carr, and Spencer Wells. 

And the current crop of "the best and brightest" who are warning about the
impending global crisis and inevitable Shift include Michael T. Klare (Five
Colleges professor of Peace and World Security Studies, defense
correspondent of The Nation magazine, and on the boards of directors of
Human Rights Watch and the Arms Control Association), Martin Rees (British
cosmologist and astrophysicist, Astronomer Royal, Master of Trinity College,
Cambridge, past President of the Royal Society of London), Richard A. Posner
(American jurist, legal theorist, and economist, Senior Lecturer at the
University of Chicago Law School, and the most cited legal scholar of the
20th century), James Howard Kunstler (American author, lecturer and social
critic, former staff writer for Rolling Stone), Jared Diamond (American
scientist and author, Professor of Geography at the University of
California, Los Angeles), James Lovelock (British scientist,
environmentalist and futurologist, best known for proposing the Gaia
hypothesis), Gus Speth (co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council,
Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality for Jimmy Carter, Professor
of environmental and constitutional law at Georgetown University; founder of
the World Resources Institute, senior adviser to President-elect Bill
Clinton's transition team, Administrator of the United Nations Development
Programme and Chair of the United Nations Development Group, dean of the
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University and
Professor in the Practice of Environmental Policy, now professor at Vermont
Law School). 

The natural building community has long been true pioneers in developing and
demonstrating alternative "appropriate" technologies for such essentials as
shelter. We don't change the paradigm by asking people to put on an extra
sweater – that impropriety may have cost Jimmy Carter a second term – or do
without conveniences that we have been conditioned to believe are necessary
for our well-being. But we can make such a paradigm-shift possible by
manifesting living examples of lower-tech lifestyles that demonstrably
increase personal freedom and well-being. People change when alternatives
become visible, and it is the role of the pioneer to create or provide such
alternatives.

As one who has been designing and building somewhat alternative shelters for
the past 30 years (including the first state-approved indoor site-built
composting toilet in Massachusetts in 1998, and some of the first
rubble-trench and shallow frost-protected foundations under superinsulated
homes built of local rough-sawn lumber since 1987 – all with some form of
low-tech whole-house ventilation system), I would hate to see the even more
pioneering natural building community devolve into the mainstream paradigm
(as is already happening).

If James Howard Kunstler is right (see his wonderfully prophetic novel:
World Made by Hand), and I believe he is, then we will soon be forced to
resort to the simpler and more hand-made technologies of our
great-grandparents. If at least some of us don't begin to relearn and
exemplify those technologies today, then we will have a much more difficult
time adapting when the Shift hits the (ventilation) fan.

- Robert

--- On Fri, 3/22/13, Feile Butler <feile at mudandwood.com> wrote:

From: Feile Butler <feile at mudandwood.com>
Subject: [GSBN] The Mechanical Ventilation Debate
To: "Global Straw Building Network" <GSBN at sustainablesources.com>
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013, 9:14 AM

Hi John

I accept that you were "implicitly discussing the 99% of homes 1 billion
people live in the western live in. There are literally billions more people
lined up trying to build and get into this type of housing, so the
conversation, and the understanding of different types of housing is really
important for the environment."

I also know the mechanical ventilation debate has opened up a much bigger
discussion than the original posts intended. We are looking at this from
different angles.

The big wheel is turning. You say that 99% of people want/need passivehaus
housing. The supposition is that this is the direction that the construction
industry/public desire is going and it has gathered so much momentum that it
cannot be stopped. 

To borrow from Robert Riversong's email again -

That we don't have much of a choice today in the necessity of mechanical
ventilation in well-insulated homes is evidence of the cul-de-sac that our
"progress" has driven us into.

I suppose I am questioning (maybe naively and idealistically) whether there
can be a shift in societal expectation? 

I know when people started building with straw bales, the wider masses
thought they were crazy. It was so simple and so cheap - it couldn't be
possible!!! Now it is a well-established, well-researched method of
building. Just because the "mad" 1% were doing it, didn't put them off. And
with time it continues to gain a bigger and bigger foothold in the
mainstream.

A lot of our work is about bringing people back to simplicity - to start
with the people - to change their perceptions - and then a different type of
building becomes possible. This type of work may only be affecting the 1% at
the moment (maybe even less), but there is potential for it to grow. I
suppose I am trying to say that it is important that we do keep other
options open - that there is not just one holy grail. (And I accept that
this is not what the original thread was about).

If we decide to hang on to the wheel and turn with it, then it is critically
important that the best quality buildings are produced for this style of
construction - which is what you are promoting. I suppose some of us are
deciding to jump off the wheel (and hope it doesn't roll over us and squash
us to pieces).

Hmmmmm

Feile

Féile Butler

MRIAI B.Arch Dip. Arch Conservation Grade III

Mud and Wood

Grange Beg, Skreen, Co. Sligo, Ireland

T:  +353 (0) 71 930 0488 

M: +353 (0) 86 806 8382

E : feile at mudandwood.com

W:  <http://www.mudandwood.com> www.mudandwood.com

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
GSBN mailing list
GSBN at sustainablesources.com
<http://mc/compose?to=GSBN@sustainablesources.com> 
http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN

_______________________________________________
GSBN mailing list
GSBN at sustainablesources.com
http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN

-- 
Paul A. Olivier PhD
26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
Dalat
Vietnam

Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
Skype address: Xpolivier
http://www.esrla.com/ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20130405/d74e6f28/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 15787 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20130405/d74e6f28/attachment.gif>