• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Persist

But conarb, we are talking about two different applications (uses) with some different desired results (and perhaps some similar desired results).

There is no need to try and MAKE them be the same thing.

RJJ "I see this as a situation that is basically a failure to communicate. It seems that a small handful of code people are not embracing the Green movement." ~ you cracked me up : )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yankee:

We got off on the vapor issue, let's stay with the WRB, they must install asphalt felt or an approved alternative, an alternative approved for walls, there are no approved peel and stick alternatives. Demand the ES Report for anything you see on walls, except for asphalt felt. Green movement or not, homes are already rotting out and people are getting sick in them, and that's without complete air sealing. In the home I have in design now we are spending a couple of hundred thousand more to avoid the green and sprinkler codes to build a "healthy home". I recently had a customer tell me that when she complained to the CBO about being sick in her new million dollar home, he told her to sell it and find a good 50 year old home if she wanted a toxic-free home.
 
Right - and I agree, this issue is not news and has been going this way for 20 years. I live in a 50 year old home and wouldn't even think of buying something new.
 
Yankee: Just trying to put some heat to the pot! We need some good debate. This is just one element and a few die hards still cling to the what once was. Lets face it Green is here so how do we function with it.
 
There are two pressures here, energy efficiency and "green" building which I see as seperate issues.

To properly ventilate, one looses the energy efficiency that can be gained. It is clear a balance has not been found and it is foolish to develop one without also developing the other.

And then "green", avoiding using materials that require MORE ventilation due to their poisonous properties, or that have a large "carbon footprint" when they are being manufactured/delivered/installed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yankee:

You see the issues 100%, in today's ICC Newsletter:

Energy Efficiency a Major Focus during Final Action Hearings in Charlotte Energy efficiency—a global topic on several fronts including cost savings, reduced energy usage, conservation of natural resources and the impact of energy usage on environment—will be a major focus during Group B of the Code Council's Final Action Hearings in Charlotte, North Carolina. The hearings will be held in conjunction with ICC's Annual Conference, October 24-31, at the Charlotte Convention Center.
Click to expand...
Notice the wide net they are casting, Green and Energy Efficiency are two different code issues that are being combined in the public's eye, yet are in direct contradiction to each other. In California we had an Energy Code go into effect one year ago, the Green Code was due to go into effect at the same time but due to some expressed concerns it was made voluntary and due to go into effect on January 1, 2011. It's the AHJs that adopted it that are having the problems, the green raters are mandating recycled materials to "clean up the forest floor", many of these materials are loaded with toxics, we are sealing those toxics into the sealed-up homes creating the problems. California is mandating lower VOC emissions from those green products; however, those low VOC products are failing, we are getting mold in new OSB, apparently it was the formaldehyde that was inhibiting the mold growth.If nothing else, we are being hit with way too much way too fast. Only the inspectors can stop this insanity, just start demanding ES Reports on everything that appeasers suspect, in the case of these PERSIST structures, I don't think there is a material approved and available that can seal up the walls.
 
Conarb,

RJJ stated; "Lets face it Green is here so how do we function with it?"

I agree, Green is here; and the only thing an inspector can hope to do; is be sure that new products are installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions. There is nothing in the codes that require using ICC reports.

And you said; " Only the inspectors can stop this insanity"

Inspectors have no, none, zero authority to demand anything. Our job as inspectors is to carry out the instructions of our boss; the Building Official.

Example: I go out and fail an exterior sheathing inspection because the crown of the staples are not parallel with the studs and plates (framing member); and, half of the staple is not in the wood (one prong is sticking out through the sheathing inside the wall cavity).

The manufacturer's installation instructions are printed on each sheet of sheathing; in English and a foreign language; and, requires the staple crown to be parallel to the framing member.

If the Building Official says; Pass it. Our job is to pass it.

(No, it didn't happen to me; it's just an example.)

Inspectors are not in a position of authority; and, much of an inspector's problems are caused because they don't understand that.

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
UB: The last statement is one we all struggle with and no right answer exists. The whole wrap it tight and build from green is way out of our control. We think the sprinkler issue was contaminated! Well just wait and see how twisted the green machine becomes. It is 6:10 time to go home and enjoy my carbon footprint. Once referred to as a piece of the American Dream.
 
Most building departments average 10 to 14 inspections per single family home. Installation of vapor and/or water barriers on exterior above grade walls are not normally included. Not all code requirements included in a 748 + page code book and all referenced standards can be checked or inspected. The would require an inspector to be on the job at all times work is taking place.

conarb I see your points I just do not have a praticle solution
 
Mt: I hear ya! However, during those 10 to 14 trips a looky see my be needed. I agree that and inspector or department can see everything being installed. Selected inspections are such that it affords the opportunity to see the majority.

Conarb: None of us can answer just what other inspectors are approving or not approving. I think for the purpose of debate some single issues need to be posted. From the single issues all of us can focus on the problems or solutions. When someone hits me with the shot gun approach my reaction is to first boil it down to the real issue. I believe we can all agree that the whole green movement is out of control. The energy and building protection is out of control. So I would suggest a simplified approach to these many complicated issues. To reference Cal. code issue is tough for me to respond to with out the actual code reference. Things differ everywhere!
 
\ said:
I agree, Green is here; and the only thing an inspector can hope to do; is be sure that new products are installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions. There is nothing in the codes that require using ICC reports.
Click to expand...
Uncle Bob, I don't agree. Mule gave us the relevant IRC section:

\ said:
R703.2 Water-resistive barrier. One layer of No. 15 asphalt felt, free from holes and breaks, complying with ASTM D 226 for Type 1 felt or other approvedwater-resistive barrier shall be applied over studs or sheathing of all exteriorwalls. Such felt or material shall be applied horizontally, with the upper layer lapped over the lower layer not less than 2 inches (51 mm). Where joints occur, felt shall be lapped not less than 6 inches (152 mm). The felt or other approved material shall be continuous to the top ofwalls and terminated at penetrations and building appendages in a manner to meet the requirements of the exterior wall envelope as described in Section R703.1.
Click to expand...
Anything other than the prescription for No. 15 asphalt felt requires an approved alternative, and that includes all plastic wraps I think you have the right and duty to demand an approved alternate, and the usual approval is an ES Report. I recall on one apartment complex I built providing a 3" ring binder full of ICBO reports required by the plan checker.

RJJ:

Based upon my response to our Uncle above I will try to simplify: I come to you with a PERSIST house, I show on my plans using Grace Ice & Water Shield on the walls to seal them up, based upon R-703.2 you demand I give you information to approve an alternative, I give you ESR-1677, do you approve my PERSIST home in your jurisdiction?
 
I show on my plans using Grace Ice & Water Shield on the walls to seal them up, based upon R-703.2 you demand I give you information to approve an alternative, I give you ESR-1677, do you approve my PERSIST home in your jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
No based on section 2.0

2.0 USES

Grace Ice & Water Shield®, Grace® Select, Grace® Ultra and Grace® Basik membranes are used as substitutes for the ice barrier specified in Chapter 15 of the IBC, BNBC, and SBC; and in Chapter 9 of the IRC. The membranes are also used as a substitute for the severe climate underlayments required in Tables 15-B-1, 15-B-2, 15-D-1 and 15-D-2 of the UBC
 
Log Cabin:

Chapter 15 of the IBC:

CHAPTER 15 ROOF ASSEMBLIES AND ROOFTOP STRUCTURES

SECTION 1501

GENERAL

1501.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall govern the

design, materials, construction and quality of roof assemblies,

and rooftop structures.
Click to expand...
That isn't walls, what does Chapter 9 of the IRC say? Do we have concurrence that ICE & Water Shield cannot be used on walls?I think there should be one exception, it should be allowed on walls used in the construction of gas chambers for use in executing people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My understanding of the code:

- low perm layer on the inside of insulation I.e poly behind drywall
- high perm layers outside of that to promote external drying I.e. insulation, wrb, rainscreen

It seems like persist is actually a pretty great option. The low perm layer is just moved outside the structure and the insulation goes outside of that. In terms of permeability, it is exactly what code is specifying.

It seems like the confusion here is whether the grace (Bitumen) is replacing the traditional 6mil poly or the wrb. I think that it is definitely replacing the 6mil poly. You can then go and put whatever wrb you want outside the insulation (ideally something high. perm to promote drying.

Here are the two assemblies:
traditional - drywall, poly, framing + insulation, sheathing, wrb, siding
persist - drywall, framing, sheathing, grace, insulation, wrb, siding

Both seem to be compliant with code, which doesn‘t specify the location of poly with respect to framing, just the location with respect to insulation. The framing can be moved around and still comply with code.

At the end of the day, it seems like a much better approach compared to a lot of the crazy **** I see going in. I.e. vapor barrier, insulation + framing, zip (unknown perm) or placing 1” poly outside of the wrb, which is also pretty much 0 perm.
 
From my scientific research it is transplants that have moved away, they were never Californian's. I encourage more to do the same.
 
JPohling said:
From my scientific research it is transplants that have moved away, they were never Californian's. I encourage more to do the same.
Click to expand...
Anecdotally:
My grandparents transplanted to California from Montana, Wisconsin, and Illinois.
My parents, native Californians, stayed in Los Angeles County all their lives.
In my generation, all native to LA County, only 5 out of 12 have stayed in LA County.
In the next generation (our kids), all 22 of them native to California: only five have remained in California. All others moved elsewhere, mainly for affordability, economic growth, and to escape the gridlock. Most moved to Texas or the Pacific Northwest, Colorado and Idaho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top