[GSBN] Update, question re: proposed SB code (hay bales)

[martin hammer]

Hello Derek,

A delayed reply.

I feel I am either about to talk you off a ledge, or that with this proposed
code I am about to push you (and others) off a ledge.

I think the proposed code is much less restrictive than you imagine (I¹m not
sure which version you¹ve been using as a basis for your comments), but I
will e-mail you the current version so you can judge for yourself.  If you
see anything that troubles you, let me know.

I don¹t want to go into a long narrative, so instead I will bullet point
this to try to clarify things:

* I resubmitted the proposed SB chapter on Tuesday with substantial
revisions.  I might be able to tweak a few things, but not for much longer.

* Both running bond and stack bond are allowed, with one exception (running
bond is required for structural walls with unreinforced plaster).  What
³widely used and successful bale stacking method² are you referring to, that
will be banned?

* Hay or other grasses are not banned.  But they¹re not specifically
mentioned as permitted.  That does make alternatives more difficult to be
used , but don¹t confuse that with them being banned.  One must go through
the ³Alternative materials and methods² section (which over the years is
what most SB projects have gone through in their entirety).  This same
concept applies to all aspects of the proposed code.  That window is always
open, and if one demonstrates equivalency, the alternative will be allowed.
Sometimes it¹s easy, sometimes it¹s a battle, and sometimes it¹s denied, but
the possibility is always there.

* Many provisions in the proposed code haven¹t been ³sufficiently tested².
Testing is leaned on wherever possible, but it¹s basis is a mix of testing,
research, established engineering principles, building code precedence,
common practice, experience, and logic.  There is an enormous amount of
judgment, and it is by no means my judgment alone.

* If this proposed code is adopted (odds against, it I hate to say)(but you
might like to hear), it would likely solve the problems of the New Mexico SB
code (it allows load bearing, doesn¹t require pinning, doesn¹t require the
bottom plastic wrap).  That is if the state of New Mexico adopted used the
IBC as its basis (I believe it does) and didn¹t remove the SB chapter.  It
might also box you into other corners, but again look at if for yourself.

* Overall, as I¹ve said before, I think there is significantly more to gain
than there is to lose by bringing this into the major model codes.  I and
others are trying to minimize any unintended pain, but there would likely be
some unavoidable pain.  Worth it on balance in my view.  But it would
improve and continue to be a work in progress, like all codes are.  Anyone
could propose a change during the periodic review cycles.

* I don¹t know if I should have put this out more methodically and
comprehensively to the entire SB world community.  It has had input from
many places (over the years).  I¹m doing what I feel I have the capacity
for, and still trying to serve the global community.  I know I offered it to
GSBN members about a year ago, and a few reviewed it.

All for now.

Martin




On 2/14/12 7:32 AM, "Derek Roff" <derek at unm.edu> wrote:

> I don't pretend to know the wise way forward, but I find this very
> disheartening.  I'm getting that we can't talk about something that we know
> matters, because we can't pin down the details enough, nor provide solid
> testing.  We can, and will, propose banning various straw bale materials, that
> may be the best choice in some locations and circumstances, because we can't
> do sufficient testing.  We will propose banning a widely used and successful
> bale stacking method, very popular in my region, and supported by multiple
> tests on multiple continents, because of reasons that I have yet to see
> enumerated.  Apparently, because some "they" in the process are uncomfortable
> with the approach.
> 
> Recognizing how thankless and frustrating this process has been for David, and
> is currently being for Martin, I wonder where the payoff is.  I remember the
> excitement, when New Mexico became the first state with strawbale in the code,
> and the second jurisdiction mentioning and approving a form of SB building
> anywhere in the US.  Then the code was published with mysterious changes that
> banned loadbearing structures, among other things, and these changes are said
> to have come from one of the SB members of the committee.  We still have that
> code in New Mexico, unchanged after many attempts.  It also requires rebar
> pinning and wrapping the bottom course of bales in plastic.  So, somehow,
> codes can happily churn along for years with provisions that we know are
> counterproductive and at odds with science and best practices.  But nothing
> can be proposed that isn't exhaustively documented.  I've worked with our
> state code boards, and their attitude seems to be, "If you sellout and suck up
> enough now, at the beginning of the process, maybe we will put a piece into
> the code that allows some of what you want, while it prevents a lot of the
> building that people are currently doing successfully."
> 
> I am currently working with a few other SB supporters to try and get
> improvements, again, in the New Mexico code, and the words "Why bother?" loom
> large in my consciousness.  If the best we think we can get approved is
> something that I don't agree with, why am I pushing for it?  What sort of a
> victory is it, when our proposal is approved, and we are stuck with something
> that was never really what we wanted, and that I know will lock us into
> practices for many years after superior approaches have been discovered?
> 
> I recognize that these gloomy thoughts on a gloomy day for me don't represent
> the complete picture.  I would welcome a more positive perspective that would
> help me recapture a sense of why this process is a worthwhile use of my
> limited time, resources, and life-energy.
> 
> (more than usually) Derelict
> 
> Derek Roff
> derek at unm.edu
> 
> 
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 12:54 PM, strawnet at aol.com wrote:
> 
>> I want to inject a couple of comments and thoughts about this process of code
>> writing and what makes it so challenging for things like straw and earthen
>> materials. But first, I want to acknowledge something that I hope we can
>> figure out how to address.
>> 
>> Having been in the shoes that Martin is now wearing - leading the effort to
>> get straw bale building accepted by the codes and standards folks - I have an
>> extremely deep appreciation for the amount of work, the time, the brain and
>> heart stressing process - of trying to get these things right. Over the past
>> few years, Martin has taken on the central load of getting this done, with
>> some wonderful technical and occasional (and very minimal) financial support
>> for his expenses. As an individual with his own small architectural practice,
>> and a family, Martin has invested far more than his share of his invaluable
>> time and expertise and, as well, I know that this has to have taken a
>> financial toll on him and his other work (which has also included
>> volunteering to work in Haiti and Pakistan). I don't know what the solution
>> is, but I would like to see us try to not have invaluable people like Martin
>> carry such a huge financial and time burden doing work that benefits all of
>> us. And of course, I speak from my own place of experience in this realm, but
>> I have had the benefit of at least working for a small nonprofit organization
>> that occasionally pays me but covers most of my direct expenses. If DCAT were
>> adequately funded, we would create a program or some way to compensate people
>> doing this kind of work. But we're not. So I would like to see how we might
>> find a way to support this kind of work so that it doesn't create such a
>> heavy burden on those who take on these years-long and crucial leadership
>> roles. Okay, enough said on that.
>> 
>> As for the questions around how to deal with different types of baled
>> materials and the seasonal harvesting issues, while I think they are
>> important to think about and address at some point, what concerns me most is
>> that the folks in the building codes and standards realm are not accustomed
>> to dealing with materials like straw or earth that don't go through intense
>> industrialized processes to assure that they are extremely uniform and
>> predictable. And I am concerned that while these issues are of importance, I
>> question if they are of such importance that they are worth jeopardizing the
>> potential to get straw bale provisions into the IBC here in the US at this
>> point in time. 
>> 
>> What I know is that there is an expectation that anything that is proposed
>> for inclusion in code can be backed up by irrefutable testing and research.
>> Knowing what we know about what it costs to do the amount of testing we've
>> done to date, I wonder how and when we could reasonably expect to be able to
>> substantiate anything about the viability of straw harvested at different
>> times of year, what would need to be tested to achieve that, etc. What
>> concerns me about raising these issues in the code language is that it will
>> just be more ammunition for those who are already likely to oppose the
>> inclusion of straw bale construction in these codes. I just don't want us
>> throwing obstacles in our own way. This relates also to the incredibly
>> frustrating experience that Martin bore the brunt of in having the straw bale
>> provisions withdrawn in their entirety from the International Green
>> Construction Code. We don't need another setback that involves the three year
>> code development cycle.
>> 
>> Lastly, I don't feel like I know enough about the specifics of what harvest
>> times ultimately mean for bale quality, but I do know that we are typically
>> not going to be in control of when crops are harvested or baled. So are we
>> also adding in something that will make it even more difficult and
>> potentially, more expensive to obtain bales for building by introducing this
>> issue?
>> 
>> I just want to make sure that people are aware that the code development
>> process, while it can be incredibly beneficial and there are many people who
>> would like to and will offer constructive assistance, is a comparatively
>> hostile environment for innovative, low tech, and environmentally beneficial
>> technologies and materials. That is just the voice of a couple of decades of
>> immersion in the realm. So let's be very careful about what we include, how
>> we present it, and what the implications may be.
>> 
>> Thanks everyone for the insightful comments in this thread.
>> 
>> David Eisenberg
>> www.dcat.net <http://www.dcat.net>
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Derek Roff <derek at unm.edu>
>> To: Global Straw Building Network <GSBN at sustainablesources.com>
>> Sent: Mon, Feb 13, 2012 10:27 am
>> Subject: Re: [GSBN] Update, question re: proposed SB code (hay bales)
>> 
>> Thanks for your response, Martin.  I agree that it is useful in a code to
>> mention items like hay explicitly, even if other parts of the code might
>> cover them implicitly.  Well-chosen redundancy improves clarity and
>> communication.  You have to deal with the realities of code creation, in ways
>> that I can't even imagine.  My thoughts and hope for the code may be
>> impractical or impossible, but I will offer them in case they are of use.
>> 
>> One of the things on my mind is the point others have raised, that harvesting
>> the same cereal grain at different parts of its life cycle can have a
>> significant effect on the durability of the bales.  The proposed language
>> approves five cereal grains, with the hope that this limitation will increase
>> the likelihood of using good building bales.  If the code doesn't mention the
>> importance of how the time of harvest, in the growing cycle of the grain,
>> affects the bales, then most of the code officials and owner-builders won't
>> know about it.  So I would like to see that mentioned.  I think that RTs
>> suggestion that any plant with provably similar performance should be usable
>> has a deep truth, but if the burden of testing is on the individual owner or
>> builder, then this amounts to a prohibition in most cases.  There would be no
>> way for the average product to fund all the testing needed.
>> 
>> To the extent that the code will be a model for other countries and climates,
>> a strict limitation to the 5 major cereal grains grown in the United States
>> would be unfortunate.  If the code community could tolerate it, I think it
>> would be good to say what we know, and avoid insisting that we know
>> everything.  Including the five cereal grains as approved, when harvested
>> properly, makes sense to me.  Including some additional plants that have been
>> used with success, such as flax and hemp, also makes sense.  This second tier
>> might require explicit recognition by the architect or engineer, and by the
>> builder, that this choice has a little less data and experience to back it
>> up.  The use of additional unnamed grains and grasses should be possible as
>> local conditions and experience would recommend- that is, a recognition that
>> local people will know more about local options than centralized codes ever
>> can.  The bar for approval might need to be higher for these choices, but if
>> this code is to have any value outside of industrialized US locations, then
>> the bar can't be set at repeating all of the historical tests that have been
>> done on wheat and rice bales.
>> 
>> I think my thoughts are pretty close to what Chris Magwood wrote.  It may be
>> that the code creation environment won't be willing to tolerate this kind of
>> thinking.  However, I hope the code can find a way to be inclusive in these
>> ways.  If it can't, it won't be able to come close to serving as an
>> International code, and it will be prohibiting and banning reasonable and
>> effective approaches to building.
>> 
>> Thanks for all your work on these difficult questions,
>> 
>> Derelict
>> 
>> Derek Roff
>> derek at unm.edu
>> 
>> 
>> Smirk of the day:
>> 
>> Code official:  The short answer is "No".
>> 
>> Owner-Builder:  Well, what's the long answer?
>> 
>> Code official:  "NOOOOOOoooooooooooo!"
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:52 AM, martin hammer wrote:
>> 
>>> Derek,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for persisting with this.  You¹re right that if only straw from the
>>> five named plants is permitted, then everything else is not pemitted,
>>> including hay.  But sometimes something is so commonly misused, it¹s worth
>>> explicitly prohibiting it.  On the other hand, I was actually revisiting the
>>> issue of building with hay bales. (Is it in fact a misuse.)
>>> 
>>> You¹re also right that alfalfa is often referred to as hay (the words
>>> ³alfalfa hay² were spoken to me yesterday) and it is not a grass, which I
>>> didn¹t know until looking it up just now.  You raise a good point.  And
>>> according to at least some definitions, cereal grains are a type of grass
>>> (or graminoid).  So stating that hay (cut and dried grass) is prohibited
>>> seems to unwittingly also prohibit the use of straw from cereal grains.
>>> (Depending on what definitions are agreed upon.) (RT seems to concur that
>>> cereal grain plants are grasses.)
>>> 
>>> And flax?  Maybe.  That¹s why I opened the question.  Should flax be added
>>> to the list of permitted building bale materials?  I¹ve never seen a test
>>> that included flax bales, which could be a problem when this is all
>>> scrutinized.  But I don¹t believe I¹ve seen a test with rye straw bales
>>> either.  As with virtually every small and large part of this, pandora¹s box
>>> is not far away.
>>> 
>>> The task here, as with every inch of the proposed code, is to find the best
>>> place to draw the line, all relevant things considered.
>>> 
>>> Do you want to propose how this should be worded?
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/8/12 7:59 PM, "Derek Roff" <derek at unm.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "I don¹t think hay vs. straw is as fuzzy as you suggest."  How fuzzy did I
>>>> suggest?  For people who are paying attention to strawbale building, I
>>>> agree that the distinction is clear enough.  But the number of articles and
>>>> reports, and even occasional statements from SB home owners, that mention
>>>> "hay bale houses" is high enough, that I think there is plenty of confusion
>>>> in the broader public.  My guess is that lots of code officials, who spend
>>>> most of their time with concrete and frame construction, may not
>>>> immediately grasp the distinction.  For example, alfalfa is called hay, is
>>>> sold without seed heads, and isn't a grass, nor a cereal.
>>>> 
>>>> Your response says that, for the purposes of the code, straw allowed for
>>>> construction is one of five plants.  With that language in the code, hay is
>>>> banned, whether it is mentioned or not.  For what it is worth, the few
>>>> people who have posted to the SB lists on building with flax bales have
>>>> rated flax as their favorite bale material.
>>>> 
>>>> Derelict
>>>> Derek Roff
>>>> derek at unm.edu
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 8, 2012, at 7:24 PM, martin hammer wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Re: [GSBN] Update, question re: proposed SB code (hay bales)
>>>>> Hi Derek,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The code proposal doesn¹t define hay.  When words are not defined in the
>>>>> code, they have ³ordinarily accepted meanings such as the context
>>>>> implies.²  A short dictionary definition of hay is ³cut and dried grass².
>>>>> Which is a rather cut and dried definition.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Straw is defined in the code proposal as ³The dry stems of cereal grains
>>>>> after the seed heads have been removed.² (Though the allowed straw is
>>>>> currently limited to five cereal grains - wheat, rice, rye, barley, and
>>>>> oat) (am I missing any that anyone uses?)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Even without hay being defined in the code, I don¹t think hay vs. straw is
>>>>> as fuzzy as you suggest.  However, I might ask ICC for their opinion on
>>>>> whether hay should be defined.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Martin 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2/8/12 5:13 PM, "Derek Roff" <derek at unm.edu <x-msg://63/derek@unm.edu>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> How does the code proposal define hay?  Hay vs. straw is a fuzzy
>>>>>> distinction, especially if you want to compare current agricultural
>>>>>> products with those of a hundred years ago.  The use of synthetic
>>>>>> fertilizers and new grain varieties make historical comparisons less
>>>>>> valuable for code work, in my opinion.  Anything grown with a high dose
>>>>>> of synthetic fertilizer is likely to be more subject to spontaneous
>>>>>> combustion. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Derelict
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Derek Roff
>>>>>> derek at unm.edu <x-msg://63/derek@unm.edu>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 8, 2012, at 4:04 PM, martin hammer wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> After resubmitting the proposed SB code to the International Code
>>>>>>> Council last week, I received their comments and will submit final
>>>>>>> revisions on Monday.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you to those who gave input re: clay plaster in the proposed SB
>>>>>>> section of the International Building Code.  There was a mix of opinion,
>>>>>>> sometimes in direct conflict.  I used some of the suggested changes.  I
>>>>>>> generally loosened the language (we¹ll see how much vagueness is
>>>>>>> accepted without challenge) and eliminated any required percentage of
>>>>>>> clay.  I still welcome clay plaster input from those who expressed
>>>>>>> initial interest, but whose busy lives probably got in the way (but asap
>>>>>>> please).  Particular thanks to Graeme North who gave input on the entire
>>>>>>> proposed code (as he did in a past iteration).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> One other question for input:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Prohibit use of baled hay?  (That¹s what the proposed code currently
>>>>>>> says.)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is the conventional wisdom, but weren¹t some of the first buildings
>>>>>>> in Nebraska built with hay bales (some still standing?), or has anyone
>>>>>>> successfully used hay bales (or bales with other non-straw ³grasses²)?
>>>>>>> Yesterday I had a discussion with a California rice farmer who bales
>>>>>>> straw and alfalfa hay.  He says that apart from the notion that hay is
>>>>>>> more subject to degradation, hay is 2 to 3 times as expensive so is much
>>>>>>> less likely to be used as a building material.  Regarding the notorious
>>>>>>> proclivity for stacks of hay bales to spontaneously combust, in addition
>>>>>>> to witnessing that, he has twice seen a stack of rice straw bales
>>>>>>> spontaneously combust.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Martin (what the hay) Hammer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing list
> GSBN at sustainablesources.com
> http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20120218/3487770c/attachment.htm>