• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

U-Values on windows.??!!?

They could do an equivalency evaluation

(A_ir/R_ir) ≥ (A_ip/R_ip)

Where;

R_ir = RSI value required by 9.36.2.6"

A_ir= Area of the referenced assembly"

R_ip= Proposed RSI value"

A_ip = Area of the referenced assembly"

Where is this formula from???
 
gbhammer said:
I suppose the ICC "believes" that if the codes are followed as written then the construction of a one/two family dwelling will be affordable.A violation would not fall under the affordable statement.
Click to expand...
But when considering a modification, the intent of the code is central, and affordibility is mentioned.
 
righter101 said:
Where is this formula from???
Click to expand...
The National Building Code of Canada, I'm going to assume the objectives line up for the intent of a house to only have a certain amount of energy lost due to inefficiency of building components when it come to thermal resistance. what this formula does is calculate the thermal transmittance through an assembly, so if the proposed assembly is the same or lower than the benchmark it can be accepted as an alternate solution.

Window & Attic Required by Code Proposed

(A_ir/R_ir) + (A_ir/R_ir) ≥ (A_ip/R_ip) (A_ir/R_ir)

in this case the window would exceed the thermal transmittance stated by code and the attic would have increased insulation to reduce the thermal transmittance of the attic. The intent of every energy code in existence is to have a house that consumes no more than x amount of energy. the prescriptive paths are only there to make the code easy to use. Understanding this you could use whatever materials you want as long as the efficiency is made up in another assembly.
 
have them add some insulation underfloor and /or in the attic, insulate water lines, upgrade lighting or any other energy saving upgrade and then fill out an alternate materials and methods approval to cya for the file.
 
We have already expended more energy discussing this than correction of the defeciency will save in the next 20 years. As a fellow Washingtonian I concur with your assesment and share your frustration regarding the removal of a chunk of insulated wall area replaced by lower insulating value glazing to come into compliance, makes little sense. That said, I also feel you need something in the file to clean up the paper trail. Have you spoken with Mr. Nordeen or one of his coworkers at the States' energy office? They come up with some ingenious ideas from time to time for such situations.

Email energycode@energy.wsu.edu or call the WSEC Residential Code Hotline at (360) 956-2042.

All in all I think most of the practical options have been outlined in the thread. And yes Imhotep is correct that the state will be adopting the 2012 IECC with what will undoubtedly be a volume of State Ammendments to accompany it.

ZIG
 
It's all about money and the ICC throwing around words like "affordable" is clearly an attempt to white wash their own rep with the masses. The fact is that green is a huge money maker for a "few" and would never have gotten off the ground without the global warming scare, which has changed its brand to climate change because the masses have seen the fraud that went into hockey stick science.

This article from another thread is great.

PVC vs Green

Interesting story worth a read.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-co...r-on-pvc-pipe/
 
zigmark said:
We have already expended more energy discussing this than correction of the defeciency will save in the next 20 years. As a fellow Washingtonian I concur with your assesment and share your frustration regarding the removal of a chunk of insulated wall area replaced by lower insulating value glazing to come into compliance, makes little sense. That said, I also feel you need something in the file to clean up the paper trail. Have you spoken with Mr. Nordeen or one of his coworkers at the States' energy office? They come up with some ingenious ideas from time to time for such situations.Email energycode@energy.wsu.edu or call the WSEC Residential Code Hotline at (360) 956-2042.

All in all I think most of the practical options have been outlined in the thread. And yes Imhotep is correct that the state will be adopting the 2012 IECC with what will undoubtedly be a volume of State Ammendments to accompany it.

ZIG
Click to expand...
I do contact Gary and Luke at WSU when I have questions. They are generally very helpful.

This is just one of those things that I have a good idea what route I will take. I just wanted to get others feedback when an issue comes up that is "techncially" a code violation, but IMHO, quite trivial.

I agree with the poster who said we have spent more energy discussing this than would be saved by upgrading the windows. That is precisely the point.

I have previewed the IECC with Washington Amendments. It would be shorter to list what wasn't ammended. I do like going to a single book though.
 
gbhammer said:
It's all about money and the ICC throwing around words like "affordable" is clearly an attempt to white wash their own rep with the masses. The fact is that green is a huge money maker for a "few" and would never have gotten off the ground without the global warming scare, which has changed its brand to climate change because the masses have seen the fraud that went into hockey stick science. This article from another thread is great.

PVC vs Green

Interesting story worth a read.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-co...r-on-pvc-pipe/
Click to expand...
Hi GB,

That link doesn't work. Got another?

Foggy
 
gbhammer said:
It's all about money and the ICC throwing around words like "affordable" is clearly an attempt to white wash their own rep with the masses. The fact is that green is a huge money maker for a "few" and would never have gotten off the ground without the global warming scare, which has changed its brand to climate change because the masses have seen the fraud that went into hockey stick science. This article from another thread is great.

PVC vs Green

Interesting story worth a read.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-co...r-on-pvc-pipe/
Click to expand...
2 things. The link you posted is "not found".

secondly, I whole heartedly agree with you on the "climate science" scam that is being run.

That could turn in to a whole nother topic. I just don't like being demonized and cast as a kook for disagreeing with the man made global warming stuff.

My father works for the power company and he was recently asked by HR or a supervisor to take down his sign that stated "THE GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT- LAST HOME FOR THE COMMUNIST PARTY"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top