When I was teaching trades at the local comedy college, I always emphasized to my students that when you say you have built it "to code" then you are saying you have done the worst job you can do and still get it passed. You are not bragging, you are confessing. Codes are an absolute minimum and nobody in his right mind would build that shoddily. Unfortunately "normal" buildings are built by the lowest bidder who has much incentive to make it as cheap as possible by building to the minimum standards. After all, if he is the lowest bidder then he has probably forgotten something that he will have to pay for, and make up somewhere else. It is no wonder that tornadoes and hurricanes leave piles of kindling in their wake. Then politicians get fired up and add codes requiring metal tie down straps as a band aid instead of rewriting codes to include modern engineering standards and materials.
The problem with inspectors is another ball game. They are trained only to make sure things meet minimum codes, keeping in mind that contractors have to cheat or die. We always left something obvious but minor for the inspector to find so he felt fulfilled, and didn't look much farther. If it isn't in the code then inspectors are not competent to rule on it, and therefore won't pass it unless you hire an engineer to take the blame off their shoulders. An inspector's greatest fear is a lawsuit. To make it worse, the people who write/approve/adopt the codes are influenced by industry suppliers who try to make sure the only new things in the code are things they own, definitely not something that you can do at home without buying from them. Codes don't say "make a wall that will support 1,200 pounds per running foot", they say "put a 2x4 stud every 1.3' and two 2x4 plates top and bottom, then cover with 5/8 gypsum board on both sides". That way nobody has to think, just do it by the book. Inspectors don't have to be engineers and figure out how much weight a wall will support *like they used to* but only have to look and measure that there is indeed a 2x4 every 16". Their training includes memorizing rules and interpreting tables. "You say your pc wall will support 4,800 pounds per running foot? Show me in the book. Don't bother me with math, I had trouble dividing up the lunch ticket. Even if I thought you might be right, I'm not sticking my neck out this close to retirement."
A couple of years ago we on this list tried to start the process to have papercrete written into the codes, but unfortunately that died on the vine from the inevitable personality conflicts. IMHO that is what it will take to make papercrete mainstream. If it is in the book, the inspector can walk up to your 12" thick pc wall and knock on it to hear how it rings, and approve it as a cheap, efficient building method. I invite anyone to come tap on my walls with a sledge hammer (dodge so the rebound doesn't hit your face) and see for themselves how great pc is. Not everyone can live in a place inspectors aren't interested in, so our choices are to get into the code or accept Donald's pessimism and restrict ourselves to birdhouses and garden ornaments. For myself it is pretty much moot. When the city finally decides it is economical to incorporate the rest of the county, they will probably grandfather my buildings, as is traditional with existing structures. Meanwhile I'm living phat in my birdhouse and weaving in new twigs as fast as I can.
spaceman All opinions expressed or implied are subject to change without notice upon receipt of new information. http://Starship-Enterprises.Net blog at http://Starship-Enterprises.Net/wordpress/
On 5/30/2011 4:58 PM, doris wrote:
Building codes add expense and complexity to any type of building especially innovative materials that have not been tested over time. Codes probably save lives by making it difficult to cut too many corners. Our building is not that cheap. There is a lot of cement in that paper (probably too much). I think it would hold up to a tornado better than a lot of stick homes we have seen on the news lately(all built to code). Anything new has to be "not normal" and difficult and subversive to a degree. As for the future, I think a big company will adapt papercrete to a new type of insulated concrete forms. Fully engineered, mass produced and greener than the foam they currently use. But you make a good point Donald, but I would at least scale up to dog houses. Ronthebuilder
--- In papercreters@yahoogroups.com, Donald Miller <donald1miller@...> wrote:For all of us ooh-ing and ahh-ing over Ron and Doris' addition, and it is quite impressive, remember that for the vast majority of us living in areas with building code enforcement, this building would never be allowed without the very expensive OK from an architect or engineering firm. And it probably wouldn't be allowed in it's present form even with that. Not without a lot of very expensive and unnecessary changes. Which defeats the purpose of Papercrete as an economical building medium in which a low cost and safe home can be built by people of modest means and abilities. This is why the papercrete movement with all it's promise will never be realized and the medium will be reduced to being used for birdhouses.
__._,_.___
