<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [GSBN] Clay plaster language for IBC (GSBN Digest, Vol 10, Issue 18)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Rob (and all),<BR>
<BR>
I'm in transit from Oaxaca, Mexico (great earthen building and stone building traditions) via Santa Barbara (will see David Eisenberg, Laura Bartels, Art Ludwig from this list at a sustainable policy retreat organized by Art) and then back to Berkeley CA (no elaboration necessary).<BR>
<BR>
The common criticism is that the International Building Code isn't international. It <B><U>is</U></B> international (including parts of it being used in the middle east, and being considered if not already implemented in Mexico and parts of South America.) It was intended to be (thus the name). And it is expected to become more and more international, like it or not. You can argue this was all hubris, and was uninvited by the international community, but the IBC and its format remain the practical reality we are working with in the US, and soon maybe you in Canada and others elsewhere.<BR>
<BR>
Yes, it has an American, industrialized building bias, but in some contexts that’s not a bad thing at all. Yes, it has many shortcomings, and is not particularly “green”. That’s why more and more people, like the GSBN’s David Eisenberg, have been working for years to change it, or add to it. That’s also what I, with help from many others, am trying to do now. <BR>
<BR>
I didn’t mean to imply that this clay plaster section should or would be only prescriptive. It will likely be a mix of prescriptive and performance language. Whatever works for the subject at hand. Whatever works <U>and</U> is acceptable to a majority of those who sit at the building code table. <BR>
<BR>
The notion that all code language should be performance-based is frankly nonsense. Some things do not lend themselves to being defined by performance, because they are not easily evaluated at plan check or easily enforced in the field. In many cases performance language is more cumbersome than a simple prescription that pretty much guarantees performance and doesn’t tie anyone’s hands. No one is going to say “straw bales shall be dry enough so that they will not bio-degrade” (performance), when you can say “straw bales shall not exceed 20% moisture content” (prescriptive).<BR>
<BR>
Your suggestion “to simply specify what the straw needs in terms of protection from wetting, capacity for drainage/drying, fire resistances etc.”, is in many ways appealing, but is not simple. Also, aspects like fire resistance and structural capacity are tied very strictly to tested assemblies, and thus they are prescriptive (but can sometimes be altered with approved engineering analysis).<BR>
<BR>
However, I agree with your intention, and performance language is my first choice (because it describes the goal to achieve, but not how to achieve it), and there is a fair amount of it in this proposed code as it stands. I just encourage being open to prescriptive language if and when it works best.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Martin (I’m trying to perform but I need a prescription) Hammer<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 1/17/12 4:34 PM, "RT" <<a href="archilogic@yahoo.ca">archilogic@yahoo.ca</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:02:00 -0500, <<a href="GSBN-request@sustainablesources.com">GSBN-request@sustainablesources.com</a>> <BR>
> wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#008000">>> From: martin hammer <<a href="mfhammer@pacbell.net">mfhammer@pacbell.net</a>><BR>
>> To: GSBN <<a href="GSBN@SustainableSources.com">GSBN@SustainableSources.com</a>><BR>
>> Subject: [GSBN] Clay plaster language for IBC<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">> <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#008000">>> <BR>
>> I proposed a Strawbale Construction section for the International <BR>
>> Building Code (IBC) on January 3.<BR>
>> One area of this ?code? I feel is under-developed is the part on Clay<BR>
>> Plaster (and secondarily Soil-Cement).<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">> <BR>
> Not being an Murrican, I don't know anything about the <BR>
> (not)"International" BC but it seems overly cumbersome and not <BR>
> particularly effective in achieving what I hope is the intended purpose.<BR>
> <BR>
> Rather than trying to come up with prescriptive standards for bale <BR>
> plasters it would seem to make more sense to specify performance criteria <BR>
> for the situation to which the plaster will be subjected.<BR>
> <BR>
> ie loads and climate do not have one set of conditions when attacking <BR>
> brick veneer claddings, another for wood, another for cement plaster and <BR>
> another for earthen plasters.<BR>
> <BR>
> Nor does straw have different requirements for protection when clad by <BR>
> each of the preceding.<BR>
> <BR>
> It would seem to make more sense to simply specify what the straw needs in <BR>
> terms of protection from wetting, capacity for drainage/drying, fire <BR>
> resistances etc.<BR>
> <BR>
> Then it would be up to the designers to provide the appropriate <BR>
> configurations to provide that protection.<BR>
> <BR>
> What the IBC document might provide are some tables showing what <BR>
> characteristics various cladding materials can provide for specific <BR>
> compositions/configurations.<BR>
> === * ===<BR>
> Rob Tom<BR>
> Kanata, Ontario, Canada<BR>
> <BR>
> < A r c h i L o g i c at Y a h o o dot c a ><BR>
> (manually winnow the chaff from my edress if you hit "reply")<BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> GSBN mailing list<BR>
> <a href="GSBN@sustainablesources.com">GSBN@sustainablesources.com</a><BR>
> <a href="http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN">http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN</a><BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>