*
The flood of emails I have gotten as a result of the FHB article, “Making the American Dream Affordable,” had a notable common thread: “I could never do that in my community–inspectors would never let me.”
While the building codes we currently have are predicated on decades of experience and testing, more and more aftermarket attempts are being made around the country. Let’s face it–resources are dwindling, and unless we make the best possible use of the resources we have, the planet is headed for a real trainwreck. It does no good to be responsible at the point of harvest in the forest if consumers are wasting the harvest. But there are no codes that address how to use refuse or alternative materials in the building of structures.
I would like to identify various parameters that would become a “Unified Alternative Building Code,” sister to prevailing standard codes.
The code would only be an addendum to prevailing codes, and cities could choose to adopt it or not. So, for right now, I want “chapter titles” that cover homogenous issues that are not addressed in established standard codes. So far I have interested two civil engineers, four architects, an entomologist, a fire protection engineer, a testing laboratory, and my own building inspector. Eventually this group, and anyone else who is interested, will form the generating consortium for such a code.
Chapter-level issues that have been identified so far are:
b 1. Structural integrity of materials not covered in standard codes.
Must everything have ASTM blessing, or is there some savvy that will guide builders and inspectors, in consort with engineers?
b 2. Toxic history of materials to be used.
What published materials are available for guidance and reference? Hazardous Materials Handbooks are readily available. Is there an index publication?
b 3. Flame spread index of materials to be used.
What published materials cover tolerable levels of flame spread for a wide variety of materials that could be used throughout the building process?
b 4. Susceptibility of materials to insect and bacterial degradation.
Kiln-dried lumber minimizes the cootie factor. But without kiln-drying, some wood species carry larvae and bacteria that later become active, sometimes 30 years down the road. Identification of at-risk species, and methods of how to cope, would help.
b 5. Tolerable degradation levels of materials to be used.
Is there any index that could guide professionals through the welter of blemishes–ranging from spalting, splits, insect damage, holes, and warps to blemishes that have been “rendered” with what technology provides–ranging from adhesives and insecticides to new ways to make use of such degraded materials?
b 6. What are the existing, specific, alternative codes?
There are many straw-bale and adobe building codes that have been developed around the country. What are the hybrid varieties of construction? Are there such codes already? If so, specific guidelines could be available for each.
Once major parameters are identified, I propose we have various teams, comprised of appropriate professionals, to develop the document. We can identify methods that as yet are untested, but if they show promise, we can go after grant monies to get them tested, and usher them into mainstream practice.
Through it all is an abiding commitment to safety and quality of life in America. For right now, let’s identify major parameters, and then, once identified, deal with how to explore each. All opinions are welcome.
Dan Phillips
Replies
*
I think you'll find that all of teh codes do permit alternate methods and materials and that the recent trends in regulation is towards performance based and away from perscriptive requirements. All this depends on the local ahj making a decision. Unfortunately, that decision may later be scrutinized in court. Thus, any alternative code must provide the ahj a safe haven or some protection from liability. Professional stamps generally qualify it seems but that seems expensive for your approach - which I admire very much by the way.
Have you approached the ICC about this? Or the NFPA? Either group could be a home for these efforts and give the effort some instant credibility.
*Thanks, Bill,I will approach those agencies. Instand credibility is always good.I am aware that the code we have adopted in this town does allow for abberations in approach, but it seems to be spread over numerous chapters. When I ask my inspector if the creosote (carcinogen) in cross ties is covered in the code, I get a blank response. When I ask if I can use old clothing for insulation, he has a response, but not predicated on the code as he understands it, only his own experience. Insect danger from green wood? More blank expressions. While I believe he is bright, and quite articulate about the code, there isn't a series of indices, sorted under major concepts, that he can access to answer questions and make decisions. Such an effort would not of course cover everything, but would be a start.Perhaps such an idea would be better handled as adding new articles to existing codes.In any case, can you think of more major topics that need specific exploration, whether they be handled as an addition to existing codes, or as reliable data to augment guidance in, and enforcement of, existing codes?Dan
*one of the problem that you should think about is that the government regulation agency is the finally word on this manner. All government can only do what is written in manuels, they do not have the ability to think. It has alway been said if you have no common sense you can only work for the university or the government. These suckers would die in the real world. So if it is not written down you can forget it, because of liabilty the building codes will be the same 200 years from now. Only goverment can change the rules and if they was that smart why ain't they working in the real world where they can make some money. Oh yea, if you too dumb for the university or government there always Home Depot.
*> resources are dwindlingWhich ones, exactly ?
*Hi, Ron,All of our resources are dwindling. To put it more in perspective, resources are dwindling relative to population growth. Over ninety percent of the humans who have ever lived on the planet are still alive. Paul Hawken, in "Natural Capitalism" says, "In the past half century, the world has lost a fourth of its topsoil and a third of its forest cover. At present rates of destruction, we will lose 70 percent of the world's coral reefs in our lifetime, host to 25 percent of marine life. In the past three decades, one-third of the planet's resources, its " natural wealth," has been consumed." Later he remarks that the world population will double in the next century. Of course, we'll both be dead. But our children won't be. It might be nice for us to lift a finger toward conservation, which can be done easily and painlessly, if we start doing it now. Perhaps John Paul II will sometime soon declare that the world is not flat, and that there is such a thing as a prophylactic. But it doesn't look promising.In the meantime, we can continue to buy new and throw away, rather than repair and reuse--gleefully and proudly referring to ourselves as "a throw-away society." Or we can assert some intelligence and notice what's going on.Sorry, didn't mean to go on so. My button is easily punched.Dan
*
The flood of emails I have gotten as a result of the FHB article, "Making the American Dream Affordable," had a notable common thread: "I could never do that in my community--inspectors would never let me."
While the building codes we currently have are predicated on decades of experience and testing, more and more aftermarket attempts are being made around the country. Let's face it--resources are dwindling, and unless we make the best possible use of the resources we have, the planet is headed for a real trainwreck. It does no good to be responsible at the point of harvest in the forest if consumers are wasting the harvest. But there are no codes that address how to use refuse or alternative materials in the building of structures.
I would like to identify various parameters that would become a "Unified Alternative Building Code," sister to prevailing standard codes.
The code would only be an addendum to prevailing codes, and cities could choose to adopt it or not. So, for right now, I want "chapter titles" that cover homogenous issues that are not addressed in established standard codes. So far I have interested two civil engineers, four architects, an entomologist, a fire protection engineer, a testing laboratory, and my own building inspector. Eventually this group, and anyone else who is interested, will form the generating consortium for such a code.
Chapter-level issues that have been identified so far are:
b 1. Structural integrity of materials not covered in standard codes.
Must everything have ASTM blessing, or is there some savvy that will guide builders and inspectors, in consort with engineers?
b 2. Toxic history of materials to be used.
What published materials are available for guidance and reference? Hazardous Materials Handbooks are readily available. Is there an index publication?
b 3. Flame spread index of materials to be used.
What published materials cover tolerable levels of flame spread for a wide variety of materials that could be used throughout the building process?
b 4. Susceptibility of materials to insect and bacterial degradation.
Kiln-dried lumber minimizes the cootie factor. But without kiln-drying, some wood species carry larvae and bacteria that later become active, sometimes 30 years down the road. Identification of at-risk species, and methods of how to cope, would help.
b 5. Tolerable degradation levels of materials to be used.
Is there any index that could guide professionals through the welter of blemishes--ranging from spalting, splits, insect damage, holes, and warps to blemishes that have been "rendered" with what technology provides--ranging from adhesives and insecticides to new ways to make use of such degraded materials?
b 6. What are the existing, specific, alternative codes?
There are many straw-bale and adobe building codes that have been developed around the country. What are the hybrid varieties of construction? Are there such codes already? If so, specific guidelines could be available for each.
Once major parameters are identified, I propose we have various teams, comprised of appropriate professionals, to develop the document. We can identify methods that as yet are untested, but if they show promise, we can go after grant monies to get them tested, and usher them into mainstream practice.
Through it all is an abiding commitment to safety and quality of life in America. For right now, let's identify major parameters, and then, once identified, deal with how to explore each. All opinions are welcome.
Dan Phillips