Loading...
2018 04 18 CBAIU v c U OF NOTICE AND CALL OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA QUINTA CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND TO THE BOARD SECRETARY: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Construction Board of Appeals will be held on Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. at the La Quinta Study Session Room located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA for the following purpose: 1. APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 4, 2017 2. CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 4, 2017 - APPROVE THE APPEAL TO MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REGARDING ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION FOR A ROOF AND WALL SYSTEM IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING THAT INCORPORATES LIME MASONRY BLOCKS, LIME TREATED INSULATION AND LIME PLASTER FINISH. REQUESTED BY KENNETH AND CAHTERINE DUCE. LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS AT 51-335 CALLE HUENEME IN THE DESERT CLUB TRACT. Dated: April 16, 2018 Attest: W �,� umGG WANDA WISE-LATTA, Board Secretary La Quinta Construction Board of Appeals KEVIN LEONHARD Kevin Leonhard, Chairperson DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Wanda Wise -Latta, Board Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the Construction Board of Appeals meeting of April 18, 2018 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber at 78-495 Calle CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS 1 APRIL 18, 2018 Tampico, and the bulletin boards at 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on April 16, 2018. )N t�t"th - -6n-c' WANDA WISE-LATTA, Board Secretary La Quinta Construction Board of Appeals CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS 2 APRIL 18, 2018 t(v 0aigr(V — GEM of the DESERT — Construction Board of Appeals agendas and staff reports are now available on the City's web page: www.laouintaca.ora SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA STUDY SESSION ROOM 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18. 2018 AT 2:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Board Members Edwards, Leonhard, Morris, Venuti and Wolff PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA At this time, members of the public may address the Construction Board of Appeals on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "Reauest to Speak" form and limit vour comments to three minutes. The Construction Board of Appeals values your comments; however in accordance with State law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an emergency item authorized by GC 54954.2(b). CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 4, 2017 PUBLIC HEARING - None BUSINESS ITEM CONSTRUCTION APPEALS BOARD AGENDA 1 APRIL 18, 2018 1. CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 4, 2017 - APPROVE THE APPEAL TO MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REGARDING ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION FOR A ROOF AND WALL SYSTEM IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE-STORY SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING THAT INCORPORATES LIME MASONRY BLOCKS, LIME TREATED INSULATION AND LIME PLASTER FINISH. REQUESTED BY KENNETH AND CAHTERINE DUCE. LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS AT 51-335 CALLE HUENEME IN THE DESERT CLUB TRACT. BOARD MEMBER ITEMS ADJOURNMENT DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Wanda Wise -Latta, Board Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Construction Appeals Board meeting was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber at 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at 78-630 Highway 111, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on April 16, 2018. DATED: April 16, 2018 WANDA WISE-LATTA, Board Secretary City of La Quinta, California PUBLIC NOTICES The Study Session Room is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the Building Division of the Design and Development Department at 777-7118, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Board, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the Building Division of the Design and Development Department at 777-7118. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Board during a Construction Appeals Board meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Board Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Board regarding any item(s) on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Design and Development Department's counter at City Hall located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours. CONSTRUCTION APPEALS BOARD AGENDA 2 APRIL 18, 2018 CALL TO ORDER CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2017 A meeting of the La Quinta Construction Board of Appeals was called to order at 2:02 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall Study Session Room by Board Member Venuti. PRESENT: Board Members Edwards, Leonhard, Morris, Venuti and Wolff ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney William Ihrke, Assistant City Attorney Morgan Gallagher, Building Official Burt Hanada, Board Secretary Wanda Wise -Latta, Office Assistant Mirta Lerma and Building Inspector Jacob Fuson. APPELLANTS PRESENT: Mr. Ken Duce OTHERS PRESENT: Peter MacDonald, Land Use Attorney Neville Pereira, P.E. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Board Member Morris led the Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA It was noted for the record by Board Secretary Wanda Wise -Latta that Attachment C to Business Session Item No. 3 in the agenda packet was incorrect and the correct document was distributed to the Board; and copies made available to the public. Agenda confirmed. CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARING - None BUSINESS SESSION ITEMS CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS 1 OCTOBER 4, 2017 City Attorney William Ihrke introduced himself and introduced Assistant City Attorney Morgan Gallagher and stated that Ms. Gallagher was present in an advisory role to the Board regarding Business Item No. 3. He also advised the Board Members of their role as set forth in the City of La Quinta Municipal Code. 1. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON MOTION - A motion was made and seconded by Board Members Morris/Venuti to select Board Member Leonhard to serve as Construction Board of Appeals Chairperson. Motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Venuti assumed the duties of presiding officer for the remainder of the meeting. 2. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRPERSON MOTION - A motion was made and seconded by Board Members Wolff and Leonhard to select Board Member Venuti to serve as Construction Board of Appeals Vice Chairperson. Motion passed unanimously. 3. APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REGARDING ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND METHODS REQUEST BY KEN AND CATHY DUCE. City Attorney Ihrke advised the Board that in accordance with California case law, he was stepping aside and allowing Assistant City Attorney Gallagher, who had not been involved in the matter or with its participants; to advise the Board procedurally and answer their questions. Building Official Burt Hanada presented the staff report, which is on file in the Design and Development Department. Board discussion followed regarding flood zones in relationship to Mr. Duce's property; the proposed adjusted building pad height; impact of moisture on the alternative material proposed by Mr. Duce; Mr. Duce's request to use alternative materials and construction methods is the first such request received by staff, nuisance or danger to surrounding properties; neighbors' awareness of the use of the alternative materials and methods of construction; and the disclosure covenant and indemnification of the City. City Attorney Irhke advised the Board that there are state laws that require the City to follow all building codes. Assistant City Attorney Gallagher stated that the City has the obligation to uphold the California Building Code. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OCTOBER 4, 2017 PUBLIC SPEAKER: Ken Duce, Missoula, MT - introduced himself as the applicant and introduced Peter McDonald of Pleasanton, CA. Mr. Duce presented his proposal to use alternative materials and methods of construction and responded to the Board's question regarding the width of the exterior walls. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Peter McDonald, Pleasanton, CA - Mr. McDonald provided additional information regarding the exterior wall construction; the use of wood moisture sensors; and testing of the alternative materials and methods of construction. Mr. Duce advised on the proposed wall assembly and his proposed use of energy - recovery ventilator address moisture in the interior of the home. Board discussion followed regarding the use of proven methods and tested materials for construction. Building Official Hanada stated that the materials used in the construction of a building would typically be certified by the California State Energy Commission. A Board Member asked if the proposed wall assembly had been built elsewhere and Mr. Duce responded no. The Board asked if any state had approved any part of the products being proposed for use by the applicant. Assistant City Attorney Gallagher read from the California Building Code standards regarding the options available to the Board in making their determination. Mr. McDonald and Mr. Duce provided information regarding the construction of the roof deck. The Board inquired if they approved any part of Mr. Duce's request would it be subject to only Mr. Duce's project and no other project. City Attorney Irhke indicated that the proposed alternative materials and methods of construction have not been approved and the Code has specific provisions to allow for testing, which can be interpreted as testing done before construction; however, the applicant is proposing to conduct testing and monitoring after construction; and should the materials and construction fail, what is the alternative to address the failure. Mr. Duce shared information regarding the use of plastic stucco. Board discussion followed regarding the experimental nature of Mr. Duce's proposed home construction which is not currently allowed under State or City Code; the risk if the proposed alternative materials and methods of construction should fail and the impact of such a failure on the neighbors; and the impact staff should the proposed building become a nuisance. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS 3 OCTOBER 4, 2017 Mr. Duce commented on building a similar structure in other areas of the country and other climates using the proposed alternative materials Board discussion followed regarding Mr. Duce's option to appeal the Board's action to the City Council should the Board deny his request. Building Official Hanada discussed the use of a special inspector and the appropriate qualifications. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Neville Pereira, P.E., Transtech Engineers - discussed the proposed alternate building materials and chain of custody and storage such materials. Board discussion followed regarding the impact of construction defects and the assurance that construction plans are followed. Mr. Hanada discussed the plan review process and addressing specific concerns regarding the proposed materials. Board discussions followed regarding possible conditions of approval. Mr. Duce provided information regarding Graymont, a producer of lime and limestone products. Assistant City Attorney Morgan advised the Board that the Board can condition the approval. Board discussion continued regarding a possible motion and conditions of approval that would include the use of qualified inspectors; quality control of products and materials used; a covenant to address public nuisance should the alternative materials and construction methods used in the construction fail; and deed restriction regarding the sale of the property in the future. City Attorney Irhke advised that the matter could be continued in order to work on language related to the Conditions of Approval and reconvene at a future date to review and approve the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Neville shared is concerns regarding the use of untested alternative materials and construction methods. The Board asked Mr. Duce if there was any reinforcement in the proposed concrete block wall and Mr. Duce responded no. Mr. Duce stated that his structural engineer will address the correction list provided by Esgil Engineering on behalf of the City upon the approval of his request to use alternative materials and methods of construction. Building Official Hanada clarified that the City's consultant, Esgil Corporation, has completed a review with corrections that the Mr. Duce will have to address. He also CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS 4 OCTOBER 4, 2017 stated that the structural requirements for the State of California and Energy review are in process and have not been approved. He stated that with regards to the hiring of special inspectors, the City would approve the inspector's qualifications and it is typically the owner's responsibility to hire the special inspectors. MOTION: Motion was made by Board Members Wolff/Venuti to modify the decision of the Building Official regarding alternative materials and methods of construction for a roof and wall system in the construction of a one-story, single-family dwelling that incorporates lime masonry blocks, lime -treated insulation and lime plaster finish for proposed project to be located at 51335 Calle Hueneme and, subject to a continuance in order to establish conditions of approval to address the following: • Need for qualified special inspector(s); • Quality control of the alternative materials used; • Covenant to address the proposed project should it become a public nuisance; • Covenant to be attached to property disclosing approval of said project; • Establish specific types of paint and stucco to be used in the maintenance of the proposed project; • Indemnification of the City of La Quinta; • Address the costs borne by the City and implementation issues as the result of the additional inspections that may be required and • Other conditions consistent with the intent of the Board. AYES: Board Members Edwards, Venuti and Wolff. NOES: Chairperson Leonhard and Board Member Morris. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Motion passed. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIALS - None BOARD-KMBER ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Board Members Leonhard/Venuti to adjourn this meeting at 4:23 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, WANDA WISE-LATTA, Board Secretary City of La Quinta, California CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS 5 OCTOBER 4, 2017 City of La Qu i nta BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1 CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING: APRIL 18, 2018 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPROVE THE APPEAL TO MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REGARDING ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION FOR A ROOF AND WALL SYSTEM IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING THAT INCORPORATES LIME MASONRY BLOCKS, LIME TREATED INSULATION AND LIME PLASTER FINISH. REQUESTED BY KENNETH AND CATHERINE DUCE. LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS AT 51- 335 CALLE HUENEME IN THE DESERT CLUB TRACT. RECOMMENDATION Approve a resolution with conditions modifying the decision of the Building Official regarding the use of alternative methods and/or material requested by Kenneth and Catherine Duce. FISCAL IMPACT - Applicants provided no cost estimates at this time. BACKGROUND On December 19, 2016, Kenneth and Catherine Duce (Applicant) applied for a Building Permit for a proposed one-story single-family dwelling at 51-335 Calle Hueneme, Desert Club Tract. A roof and wall system incorporating "alternative methods and/or materials" of construction using lime masonry blocks, lime treated insulation and lime plaster finish is proposed. City Staff advised the applicant during the course of two plan reviews to provide justification for all alternate methods and/or materials of construction that would demonstrate compliance with the intent of the provisions of all applicable codes (including Title 8 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC") and the California Residential Code, California Building Code, and other state construction codes (collectively, the "state building codes" or "building codes") incorporated by reference into the LQMC), and to include product listings, testing and data, and compiled reports. Applicants Ken and Cathy Duce electronically submitted documents in support of an application for alternative materials and/or methods of construction, which documents were dated April 19, received by the Building Official on May 10, and supplemented by an email dated July 5, 2017 (collectively, the "application"). The application included a proposed roof and wall system in the construction of a one- story single-family dwelling that incorporates lime masonry blocks, lime treated insulation and lime plaster finish. On August 24, 2017, the Building Official rendered a decision to conditionally approve the Alternate Material and Method of Construction proposal, whereby the applicants complete testing of the proposed alternative materials and methods, exactly as proposed and presented in their application, with clarifications of building materials conditioned by the determination, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The condition to complete testing was issued in accordance with state building codes that permit the Building Official to require such testing. Because the documents supporting the application for alternative materials and/or methods of construction was received in 2017, the 2016 version of the California Residential Code governs, but the provisions permitting the Building Official to condition an approval based on the completion of testing were substantively the some in the 2013 version of the California Residential Code, which governed until January 1, 2017. The Building Official's decision to condition the approval on the completion of testing was reached because, among other reasons identified in the decision, there are no records of any other residence in the City using the construction materials and methods proposed by the applicants as being approved, and neither the state building codes nor La Quinta Municipal Code have approved the alternative construction materials and methods proposed by the applicants. Furthermore, the City contracted with an outside, independent consultant - Transtech - to review the application. The Building Official sought independent consultant review to determine if the findings can be made that the applicants' proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of the state building codes and that the proposed materials and methods are no less than the equivalent of those materials and methods that have been approved by the state building codes. On September 24, 2017, Mr. Ken Duce appealed the Building Official's decision with a filing with the City Clerk. Mr. Duce is proposing to install monitoring devices in the wall and roof systems construction, with monitoring to be for a period of three years from the final building inspection, and the Building Official to approve the monitoring plan prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. Mr. Duce is also proposing a disclosure covenant of this approval to be attached to his property. On October 4, 2017, a hearing was held before the Construction Appeals Board (Board) to consider an appeal of the decision of the Building Official regarding the applicants' request to use Alternative Materials and Methods (Attachment 1). A motion was made and seconded by Board Members Wolff/Venuti to modify the decision of the building official regarding alternative materials and methods of construction for a roof and wall system in the construction of a one-story single-family dwelling that incorporates time masonry blocks, lime -treated insulation and lime plaster finish for proposed project to be located at 51335 Calle Hueneme and, subject to a continuance in order to establish conditions of approval to address the following: • Need for qualified special inspector(s); • Quality control of the alternative materials used; • Covenant to address the proposed project should it become a public nuisance; • Covenant to be attached to property disclosing approval of said project; • Establish specific types of paint and stucco to be used in the maintenance of the proposed project; • Indemnification of the City of La Quinta; • Address the costs borne by the City and implementation issues as the result of the additional inspections that may be required and • Other conditions consistent with the intent of the Board. City Staff, the City Attorney's Office, and the applicant, personally and with the assistance of legal counsel when asked by the application, have drafted conditions of approval that attach to the approval of the application for alternate methods and/or materials of construction (Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference) (the "Conditions of Approval") and a Residential Disclosure, Declaration of Restrictive Covenant, and Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement for recordation (Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference) (the "Disclosure Covenant"). Staff has prepared the attached resolution, recommended conditions of approval; and a residential disclosure, declaration of restrictive covenant, and indemnification and hold harmless agreement for the Board's consideration. ALTERNATIVES Pursuant to La Quinta Municipal Code Section 2.40.050, the Construction Board of Appeals may: • Approve the conditions modifying the decision of the Building Official regarding the use of alternative methods and/or material; or • Continue this appeal for further consideration. Prepared by: Anthony Ortega, Interim Building Official Attachment: 1. 10-04-2017 Construction Board of Appeals Packet CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION 2018 - 001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS THE APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE METHODS AND/OR MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION; REQUEST BY APPLICANT CASE NUMBERS: APPEAL 2017-0001 APPLICANT: KENNETH AND CATHERINE DUCE WHEREAS, on December 19, 2016, Kenneth and Catherine Duce applied for a Building Permit for a proposed one-story single-family dwelling at 51-335 Calle Hueneme, Desert Club Tract, with a roof and wall system incorporating "alternative methods and/or materials of construction" using lime masonry blocks, lime treated insulation, lime plaster finish, and related methods and/or materials; and WHEREAS, City Staff advised the applicant during the course of two plan reviews to provide justification for all alternate methods and/or materials of construction that would demonstrate compliance with the intent of the provisions of all applicable codes (including Title 8 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC") and the California Residential Code, California Building Code, and other state construction codes (collectively, the "state building codes" or "building codes") incorporated by reference into the LQMC), and to include product listings, testing and data, and compiled reports; and WHEREAS, subsequently, the Declarant electronically submitted documents in support of an application for alternative methods and/or materials of construction, which documents were dated April 19, 2017, received by the City's Building Official on May 10, 2017, and supplemented by an email dated on July 5, 2017 (collectively, the "application for alternate materials and methods of construction"). WHEREAS, on August 24, 2017, the Building Official rendered a decision to conditionally approve the application for alternate materials and methods of construction, whereby the applicant complete testing of the proposed alternative materials and methods, exactly as proposed and presented in their application, with clarifications of building materials conditioned by the determination, prior to the issuance of a building permit; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2017, the applicant appealed the Building Official's decision to the La Quinta Construction Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, the Construction Board of Appeals received written evidence and verbal testimony at a duly noticed public meeting on October 4, 2017, directing City Construction Board of Appeals Resolution 2018 - 001 Appeal 2017--0001 - Ken and Cathy Duce Adopted: Page 2 of 3 Staff and the City Attorney's Office to work with the applicant for conditions of approval and disclosure covenant to indemnify the City, in furtherance of modifying the decision of the Building Official; and WHEREAS, City Staff, the City Attorney's Office, and the applicant, personally and with the assistance of legal counsel when asked by the application, have drafted conditions of approval that attach to the approval of the application for alternate methods and/or materials of construction (Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference) (the "Conditions of Approval") and a Residential Disclosure, Declaration of Restrictive Covenant, and Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement for recordation (Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference) (the "Disclosure Covenant"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the direction from the Construction Board of Appeals from the meeting of October 4, 2017, City Staff and the applicant have provided the draft Conditions of Approval and Disclosure Covenant for final review and consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Construction Board of Appeals of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct, and are part of the findings, in addition to the findings on record and described in the Conditions of Approval and Disclosure Covenant, of the Construction Board of Appeals in this administrative appeal. SECTION 2. The Condition of Approval and Disclosure Covenant are hereby approved. The Building Official (or authorized designee) shall issue the Conditions of Approval in the ordinary course. The City Manager (or authorized designee) shall have the authority to execute the Disclosure Covenant, substantially in the form attached hereto and subject to modification that does not materially alter the substantive terms and conditions therein, on behalf of the City. SECTION 3. The decision of the Building Official is hereby modified to conform to the decision of the Construction Board of Appeals as adopted by this Resolution. The decision of the Construction Board of Appeals shall be the final decision on the application for alternate methods and/or materials of construction unless timely appealed to the City Council pursuant to the La Quinta Municipal Code. Construction Board of Appeals Resolution 2018 - 001 Appeal 2017--0001 - Ken and Cathy Duce Adopted: Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City of La Quinta Construction Board of Appeals, held on this the 18th day of April, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KEVIN LEONHARD, Chairperson Construction Board of Appeals City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: Monika Radeva, Deputy City Clerk City of La Quinta, California EXHIBIT A CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS Resolution 2018-001 Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Alternate Materials or Methods of Construction (Permit#: BRES2016-0363) Applicant: Kenneth and Catherine Duce Owner: Kenneth and Catherine Duce Adopted: December 6, 2017 Page 1 of 7 These conditions of approval attach to the applicant/owners' application for alternate materials and methods of construction, as reviewed and approved by the La Quinta Construction Board of Appeals on April 18, 2018 (referred to as the "conditions of approval" and "application for alternate materials and methods," respectively). The application for alternate materials and methods are referenced with the application for Building Permit No. BRES2016-0363, but Building Permit No. BRES2016-0363 will be subject to separate issuance at a later date and may subject to separate standard conditions. These conditions of approval attach to the approval of the application for alternate materials and methods. GENERAL 1. The applicant/owner agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of the application for alternate materials and methods, these conditions of approval, or any other decision of the City (including but not limited to the City's building official ("building official"), its professional consultants, members of the Construction Board of Appeals, the City Council, and all of the City's agents, officers and employees) relating to the application and conditional approval of the alternate materials and methods, the application of Building Permit No. BRES2016-0363, these conditions of approval, and the construction of the applicant/owners' residence located at 51-335 Calle Hueneme, La Quinta, California (the "residence"). The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. 2. The City shall promptly notify the applicant/owner of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 3. Compliance with these conditions of approval is and shall be required for the applicant/owner to meet the requirements relating to alternate materials and methods of construction as required by Chapter 8.06 [Residential Code] of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. The State of California building standard codes, including the California Residential Code (2016 edition), can be accessed at www.bsc.ca.gov. 4. These conditions of approval shall be effective upon final approval by the City's Construction Board of Appeals, shall apply to Building Permit No. BRES2016- 0363 once issued, and shall remain effective as long as residence utilizes the CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS Resolution 2018-001 Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Alternate Materials or Methods of Construction (Permit#: BRES2016-0363) Applicant: Kenneth and Catherine Duce Owner: Kenneth and Catherine Duce Adopted: December 6, 2017 Page 2 of 7 alternate materials and methods of construction as authorized herein. If Building Permit No. BRES2016-0363 is not issued within one (1) year of the date of approval of these conditions of approval, the applicant/owner may request of the building official an extension, for periods of either six (6) months or one (1) year increments, depending on the status of the application for Building Permit No. BRES2016-0363, and the building official shall grant the request for an extension as long as the applicant/owner continues to process the application for Building Permit No. BRES2016-0363. Any request for an extension shall be in writing and submitted to the building official in the manner prescribed by the City pursuant to Section R105 [Permits] of the California Residential Code (2016 edition, or later edition when adopted). 5. After the issuance of these conditions of approval, for any subsequent costs incurred by the City Attorney's Office relating to these conditions of approval or implementation hereof, the applicant/owner shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney's Office to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions of approval, if applicant/owner requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to implement these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and applicant/owner's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of these conditions of approval. 6. After the issuance of these conditions of approval, for any subsequent costs incurred by the City for any engineering, testing, inspection, and/or any other consultant review that relates to these conditions of approval or implementation hereof, the applicant/owner shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual fees incurred by the City for engineering, testing, inspection, and/or any other consultant review required or authorized pursuant to these conditions of approval, including but not limited to such contracted services relating to the pre -construction, construction, and post - construction review of plans, inspection of the residence, and measurements from monitors of moisture at specified locations at the residence. Any of these obligations shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and applicant/owner's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of these conditions of approval. 698/015610-0154 11665045.3 a04/16/18 -2- CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS Resolution 2018-001 Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Alternate Materials or Methods of Construction (Permit#: BRES2016-0363) Applicant: Kenneth and Catherine Duce Owner: Kenneth and Catherine Duce Adopted: December 6, 2017 Page 3 of 7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "architect," and "building inspector" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 7. Single family residence plans for the construction to be authorized by Building Permit No. BRES2016-0363, once issued, shall be consistent with the alternate materials and methods presented to and approved by the Construction Board of Appeals. Any modification to the approved alternate materials and methods approved by the Construction Board of Appeals must be submitted by the applicant/owner to the City's building official for review and approval, subject to applicant/owner's right to appeal the building official's determination to the Construction Board of Appeals and City Council under the LQMC. For reference, the design renderings for alternate material and methods approved by the Construction Board of Appeals include the following: (a) Attachment 1 (Duce Wall System, Section 1) and Attachment 2 (Duce Wall System, Section 2) to the applicant/owner's Application for Appeal of Director or Building Official Decision [Construction Board of Appeals] submitted for the October 4, 2017 hearing by the Construction Board of Appeals; and (b) the renderings attached to these conditions of approval, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and submitted for the April 18, 2018 hearing by the Construction Board of Appeals. 8. Review and approval of the engineering and architectural single family residence plans shall be by or under the direct supervision of a qualified building inspector, which may be a City inspector but, in the reasonable discretion of the building official, may be contracted out to an independent building inspector. RESIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE, DECLARATION, AND INDEMNIFICATION COVENANT 9. No later than thirty (30) days after the issuance of Building Permit No. BRES2016-0363, or prior to commencement of construction pursuant to Building Permit No. BRES2016-0363, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall execute and record in the official records for Riverside County, California, a RESIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE, DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, AND INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT, in a form approved by the City (the "Disclosure and Indemnity Agreement"). The purpose of the Disclosure and Indemnity Agreement, among other terms and conditions, is to inform all potential owners of the residence of the existence of the alternate materials and methods, to have the specific testing and maintenance requirements run with the land, and to indemnify the City in perpetuity for any 698/015610-0154 11665045.3 a04/16/18 -3- CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS Resolution 2018-001 Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Alternate Materials or Methods of Construction (Permit#: BRES2016-0363) Applicant: Kenneth and Catherine Duce Owner: Kenneth and Catherine Duce Adopted: December 6, 2017 Page 4 of 7 claims arising out of the alternate materials and methods that may be constructed in the single family residence. 10. The form of the Disclosure and Indemnity Agreement shall be substantially in the form presented to and approved by the Construction Board of Appeals along with these conditions of approval. CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING 11. The alternate materials and methods of construction approved and subject to these conditions of approval are for exterior wall and roof systems that utilize hydraulic lime masonry blocks, perlite insulation, hydraulic lime plaster, and other materials and methods reviewed and approved by the Construction Board of Appeals and identified in Condition No. 7 above (for convenience, the alternate materials and methods are referred to below as the "hydraulic lime and related construction"). Construction of the residence shall be according to the following: A. The City building official shall verify the type and quality of the hydraulic lime and related construction materials. Prior to commencement of construction, the City building official, or an inspector or consultant with expertise in such materials, may complete a LATH review. B. Prior to the completion of construction, the City building official, or an inspector or consultant with expertise in such materials, shall confirm the exterior protective coatings comply with alternate materials and methods approved by the Construction Board of Appeals identified in Condition No. 7 above. C. Compliance with testing for the hydraulic lime and related construction materials, in furtherance of California Residential Code sections R104.11 and R104.11.1 (2016 edition), shall be as prescribed in these conditions of approval. 12. Final approved building plans for Building Permit No. BRES2016-0363 shall be reviewed by the building official to confirm the plans conform to the alternate materials and methods of construction approved by the Construction Board of Appeals. A. During the approval process for Building Permit No. BRES2016-0363, a moisture testing and monitoring plan shall be prepared and submitted by the applicant/owner or any moisture testing/monitoring consultant retained by the applicant/owner. As of the date of these conditions of approval, the 698/015610-0154 11665045.3 a04/16/18 -4- CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS Resolution 2018-001 Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Alternate Materials or Methods of Construction (Permit#: BRES2016-0363) Applicant: Kenneth and Catherine Duce Owner: Kenneth and Catherine Duce Adopted: December 6, 2017 Page 5 of 7 applicant/owner intends to use Lew Harriman from Mason Grant Consulting; If Mr. Harriman is not available, the applicant/owner may use another consultant with expertise in moisture testing/monitoring, who shall be approved by the building official (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed). The moisture testing/monitoring program shall be reviewed by the building official as part of the application process for Building Permit No. BRES2016-0363. B. The moisture testing and monitoring plan shall identify the locations at the applicant/owner's residence where moisture monitor sensors will be placed to measure the temperature, humidity, and moisture content (also known as "WME" or "wood moisture equivalent"). These moisture monitoring sensors shall be connected wirelessly to gateways at a database server owned by OmniSense LLC, 72 Sams Point Road, Beaufort (Lady's Island), South Carolina 29907, or such other company or consultant that collects and provides a database for such WME monitoring. If OmniSense discontinues its services, the applicant/owner shall identify and contract with a successor company or consultant that provides the same or similar services as OmniSense so that no disruption of WME monitoring occurs. Any successor company or consultant shall be approved by the building official (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed). C. Measurements from the moisture monitor sensors shall be collected continuously for no less than three (3) years from the date of final inspection and a certificate of occupancy (or other right to use and occupy the residence with the alternate materials and methods of construction) has been issued. After the three-year period, moisture monitoring may conclude if there is no evidence of a violation of these conditions of approval and, in particular, no evidence of moisture levels contributing to structural instability of the wall or roofing systems of the residence, such as wood -rot, mold, or other related structural deficiencies. No less than 30 days prior to removing any moisture monitor sensors, the applicant/owner shall deliver written notice to the building official of the intent to remove the sensors. The building official shall have the right to review data collected and to determine, based on the standards set forth in these conditions of approval, whether moisture monitoring sensors should remain in place or may be removed. The applicant/owner may not remove the moisture monitoring sensors without providing at least 30 days' written notice to the building official pursuant to this condition. 698/015610-0154 11665045.3 a04/16/18 -5- CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS Resolution 2018-001 Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Alternate Materials or Methods of Construction (Permit#: BRES2016-0363) Applicant: Kenneth and Catherine Duce Owner: Kenneth and Catherine Duce Adopted: December 6, 2017 Page 6 of 7 D. The following shall be grounds for continued moisture monitoring and/or remedial action, such as the modification to or removal of the alternate materials and methods of construction, if the moisture monitor sensors demonstrate anv of the following: An accumulation of moisture that is more than fifteen percent (15%) WME in untreated wood, or twenty-five percent (25%) WME in treated wood, for more than three (3) months. If any such conditions exist at the residence, the moisture monitor sensors may not be removed until an independent consultant reviews the measurements and renders an expert analysis regarding the structural soundness and suitability for habitation of the residence, given that wood and wood members may experience wood -rot, mold, or other related structural deficiencies. The City building official, in his/her reasonable discretion, shall have the authority to contract out for an independent consultant. E. All costs and expenses for the installation, operation, maintenance, removal, and use of the monitors shall be paid by the applicant/owner. The City shall incur no cost or expense for use of the monitors at the residence to comply with these conditions of approval. F. Measurements from the moisture monitor sensors shall be delivered to the building official (or designee) upon request by the building official. All measurements from the monitors required to be delivered to the building official (or designee) may be summarized format(s), subject to a written confirmation between the owner of the residence and building official as to what measurement information should be available in the summarized format(s). 13. All inspections, reviews, and approvals required or authorized by these conditions of approval relating to the alternate materials and methods of construction may be conducted and completed by the building official or a City building inspector or, in the reasonable discretion of the City building official, may be contracted out to an independent consultant based on the expertise that a building inspector has relating to the alternate materials and methods constructed as part of the residence. The City building official and applicant/owner may meet and confer (either in person or by series of written communications) for the purpose of considering one or more independent consultants, but the City building official shall have the right to approve (in his/her reasonable discretion) an independent consultant for the work to be retained, based on the consultant's expertise. 698/015610-0154 11665045.3 a04/16/18 -6- CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS Resolution 2018-001 Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Alternate Materials or Methods of Construction (Permit#: BRES2016-0363) Applicant: Kenneth and Catherine Duce Owner: Kenneth and Catherine Duce Adopted: December 6, 2017 Page 7 of 7 REMEDIAL ACTION/NUISANCE ABATEMENT 14. The applicant/owner (and any and all successors -in -interest to the residence) shall have the obligation to remediate and/or replace any and/or all of the alternate materials or methods of construction used at the residence if, for any reason whatsoever, the residence is not in compliance with the LQMC and that non-compliance is attributable to the alternate materials and methods of construction, and/or is not structurally sound, and/or is not capable of habitation typical of a single family residence in the vicinity of the residence. The applicant/owner (and any and all successors -in -interest to the residence) shall have the obligation to pay for all of the costs and expenses for any such remediation and/or replacement of construction materials and methods. By way of example and not limitation, this condition of approval requires the applicant/owner (and any and all successors -in -interest to the residence) to replace any of the hydraulic lime and related construction materials with other construction materials that are approved by the California Residential Code (2016 edition) if the moisture monitoring sensors (see condition of approval #12) reveals an accumulation of moisture in and around the wood and wood members that, over time, would increase wood -rot, mold, or other related structural deficiencies. Also by way of example and not limitation, one remedial measure may include replacing the hydraulic lime and perlite insulation with Portland cement plaster surrounded by a weather -resistant membrane (or other California Residential Code (2016 edition) approved materials) that would otherwise not impair the soundness of the structure. If remediation and/or replacement is required, the City building official shall have the authority to review and approve such materials and methods, subject to the applicant/owner (or successor -in - interest) right to appeal under the LQMC. 698/015610-0154 11665045.3 a04/16/18 -7- RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: City Manager EXHIBIT B (Space Above For Recorder's Use) This Agreement is recorded at the request and for the benefit of the City of La Quinta and is exempt from the payment of a recording fee pursuant to Government Code §27383. RESIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE, DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, AND INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT This Residential Disclosure, Declaration of Restrictive Covenant, and Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement ("Agreement") is hereby entered into for the benefit of the CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation and charter city ("City"), by and between the City and Kenneth B. Duce and Catherine E. Duce, Husband and Wife as Joint Tenants, and as owner of real property described in this Agreement ("Declarant"), as of , 2018. RECITALS A. Declarant owns in fee simple absolute that certain real property located at 51-335 Calle Huemene, La Quinta, California, APN 770-163-017, more particularly described in the legal description attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference ("Property"). The Property is zoned for single family detached residential use. B. On or about December 19, 2016, Declarant applied for a building permit (Plan Check/Permit #BRES2016-0363, and referred to as the "application for the building permit") for a proposed one-story single family dwelling at the Property. A roof and wall system incorporating lime masonry blocks, lime treated insulation and lime plaster finish, among other "alternate materials and methods of construction," were proposed. The application for the building permit is a public record and available at La Quinta City Hall, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253, during regular business hours. 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 -1- C. City Staff advised the Declarant during the course of two plan reviews to provide justification for all alternate materials and/or methods of construction that would demonstrate compliance with the intent of the provisions of all applicable codes (including Title 8 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC") and the California Residential Code, California Building Code, and other state construction codes (collectively, the "state building codes" or "building codes") incorporated by reference into the LQMC), and to include product listings, testing and data, and compiled reports. In the January 11, 2017 plan review correction list, a note stated in part "...Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods, the building official shall have the authority to require tests as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified in this code or by other recognized test standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test methods, the building official shall approve the testing procedures. Tests shall be performed by an approved agency. Reports of such tests shall be retained by the building official for the period required for retention of public records." The testing requirements were based upon California Residential Code Sections R104.11 and R104.11.1 (2016 edition), which govern the ability to approve alternate materials and/or methods of construction. D. Subsequently, the Declarant electronically submitted documents in support of an application for alternative materials and/or methods of construction, which documents were dated April 19, 2017, received by the City's Building Official on May 10, 2017, and supplemented by an email dated July 5, 2017 (collectively, the "application for alternate materials and methods of construction"). The alternate materials and methods of construction in that application generally consisted of exterior wall and roof systems that utilize hydraulic lime masonry blocks, perlite insulation, hydraulic lime plaster, and other materials and methods as identified in Attachment 1 (Duce Wall System, Section 1) and Attachment 2 (Duce Wall System, Section 2) to the application, and depicted in Exhibit "A" to the Conditions of Approval (as defined in Recital I below). For convenience, the alternate materials and methods are referred to in this Agreement as the "hydraulic lime and related construction" and refer to the alternate materials and methods of construction in Attachments 1 and 2 (cited in the previous sentence), which are attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference herein. The application for alternate materials and methods of construction is a public record and available at La Quinta City Hall, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253, during regular business hours. E. On August 24, 2017, the City's Building Official (as defined in the California Residential Code (2016 edition)) rendered a decision to conditionally approve the Declarant's application for alternate materials and methods of construction, whereby the Building Official directed the Declarant to complete 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 -2- testing of the proposed hydraulic lime and related construction prior to commencement of construction on the Property. The August 24, 2017 decision of the Building Official is a public record and available at La Quinta City Hall, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253, during regular business hours. F. The Building Official's decision to condition the approval on the completion of testing was reached because, among other reasons identified in the decision, there were no records of any other residence in the City using the construction materials and methods proposed by the Declarant as being approved, and neither the state building codes nor LQMC had approved the proposed hydraulic lime and related construction. The City contracted with an outside, independent consultant to review the application to determine if findings could be made that the Declarant's proposed design was satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of the state building codes, and that the proposed materials and methods were no less than the equivalent of those materials and methods that have been approved by the state building codes. G. On September 7, 2017, the Declarant administratively appealed the Building Official's decision to the La Quinta Construction Board of Appeal ("CBA") pursuant to the LQMC by filing an Application for Appeal of Director or Building Official Decision [Construction Appeals Board] (the "CBA administrative appeal application"). Among other submissions to the CBA, the Declarant re -submitted the application for alternate materials and methods of construction, Attachments 1 and 2 thereto (and Exhibit "B" hereto), and further explained to the CBA the Declarant's proposal for the installation of wood/moisture monitoring devices in the wall and roof systems for a period of three years from final building inspection, and for the Building Official to approve the monitoring plan prior to the issuance of the building permit. The Declarant also agreed to execute and have recorded a disclosure covenant that, among other terms and conditions, (i) would disclose to any and all future property owners the use of the proposed hydraulic lime and related construction (and limitations to future construction due to the use of the hydraulic lime and related construction), (ii) would provide the City is immune from liability by statute, (iii) would indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City from any claims or actions resulting from the performance of the hydraulic lime and related construction on the Property, and (iv) would have the disclosure and indemnity run with the land and bind successive owners. The CBA administrative appeal application is a public record and available at La Quinta City Hall, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253, during regular business hours. H. On October 4, 2017, the CBA held a public meeting and received extensive verbal and written testimony from the Declarant. At the conclusion of the public meeting, the CBA voted to modify the decision of the Building Official regarding the proposed hydraulic lime and related construction for use on a residence at the Property, subject to a continuance order to establish conditions 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 -3- of approval that would attach to the proposed hydraulic lime and related construction. Among other conditions of approval that were to be returned for review by the CBA, the Declarant would be required to execute and have recorded, in a form approved by the City, a disclosure covenant that, among other terms and conditions, (i) would disclose to any and all future property owners the use of the proposed hydraulic lime and related construction (and limitations to future construction due to the use of the hydraulic lime and related construction), (ii) would provide the City is immune from liability by statute, (iii) would indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City from any claims or actions resulting from the performance of the hydraulic lime and related construction on the Property, and (iv) would have the disclosure and indemnity run with the land and bind successive owners. I. On , 2018, the CBA held a second public meeting to review the Declarant's CBA administrative appeal application and the proposed conditions of approval, among other documents. The CBA, by Resolution No. , modified the decision of the Building Official regarding the proposed hydraulic lime and related construction for use on a residence at the Property and approved the conditions of approval that attached to the proposed hydraulic lime and related construction. Said resolution and conditions of approval are attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference (the "Resolution" and "Conditions of Approval," respectively and together, the "CBA Approval"). J. Pursuant to the Conditions of Approval, the Declarant is required to execute and have recorded this Agreement, to be binding on the Declarant and any and all successors -in -interest to the Property. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference and are a substantive part of this Agreement, the Declarant and City do hereby agree as follows: 1. Declarant's Intent to Be Bound and Bind Future Owners. Declarant is subject to and bound by this Agreement as an "owner of the Property." Furthermore, it is the expressed intent of the Declarant to bind any and all future owners of the Property by this Agreement. Any and all covenants set forth in this Agreement are to be liberally construed in favor of and for the benefit of the City. 2. Disclosures. 2.1 The owner of the Property is subject to the Conditions of Approval that require, among other conditions, compliance with a testing and monitoring program for three (3) years from the date of final inspection and issuance of a certificate of occupancy, as set forth in the Conditions of Approval. 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 -4- 2.2 The residence on the Property was approved to use alternate materials and methods of construction pursuant to Title 8 of the LQMC and state building codes, including but not limited to the California Residential Code (2016 edition) and Sections R104.11 and R104.11.1 therein. As part of the alternate materials and methods of construction, the walls and roof members of the residence on the Property include hydraulic lime intended to remain porous to water vapor so as to minimize or prevent wood -rot, mold, and other moisture - based construction defects. The owner of the Property is hereby warned that installation of water impermeable surface materials may trap moisture or water in the wall or roof systems, potentially resulting in wood damage or rot to the interior structural members of the wall and roof systems. The owner of the Property should use lime -based exterior paints or other vapor permeable exterior coatings to provide appropriate surface porosity, or no coatings. 2.3 The owner of the Property shall be bound by the Conditions of Approval, including but not limited to the possible requirement to continue monitoring beyond three (3) years for moisture and/or remedial work at the residence, in the event the alternate materials and/or methods of construction fail to perform. 2.4 The owner of the Property shall have obligation to prevent any public or private nuisance on the Property and shall have the obligation to pay for any and all costs of nuisance abatement that may be required or ordered by the City. 3. City Immunity from Liability and Indemnification. 3.1 The owner acknowledges the City is immune from liability by statute for its approval of the alternate materials and methods used, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, as set forth in Paragraph 3.2 below, from any claims or actions that may result from the performance of the approved alternate materials or methods of construction as approved by the Resolution and implemented by the Conditions of Approval. 3.2 The owner of the Property shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, members, officials, employees, representatives, and agents from and against any and all claims or causes of action, obligations, losses, liabilities, judgments, or damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of litigation, alleged, arising out of, or relating to the alternate materials and/or methods of construction that may be and/or are used for the residence on the Property, whether or not the final alternate materials and/or methods of construction are constructed pursuant to the plans submitted by the Declarant. 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 -5- 3.3 Upon receipt and no later than ten (10) business days of any claim, complaint, or lawsuit covered by this Agreement, City shall tender any such lawsuit to the owner of the Property, and thereafter the owner of the Property shall provide City a defense in the matter with counsel of City's choice. 3.4 Declarant's obligations under this Agreement shall commence from the recording of this Agreement, which shall occur either no later than thirty (30) days after the issuance of the building permit for the residence, or prior to commencement of construction pursuant to the building permit, whichever occurs first. Declarant shall have the obligation to execute the Agreement prior to such date, and Declarant shall have the obligation to record the Agreement with the Office of Official Records for Riverside County, California. The City may, on behalf of Declarant, cause the Agreement to be recorded in satisfaction of Declarant's obligation to record. 4. Covenants Run with the Property anq,Bind Successors In Interest. 4.1 This Agreement shall run with the land and bind successive owners of the Property. 4.2. This Agreement is intended to be and shall be construed as a restrictive covenant that limits, restricts, and burdens the use of the Property. The Declarant, as owner in fee of the Property, hereby declares that this Agreement, and the covenants, conditions, and restrictions of use on the Property as set forth herein, is intended to and shall run with the land in perpetuity, and each and every successor of the Declarant that has any ownership interest or right of ownership interest in the Property (or portions thereof) shall be subject to this Agreement, which is intended to be and shall be construed as placing a reasonable burden on the use of the Property, which, among other provisions, was developed for use and enjoyment as Declarant's residence with alternate materials and methods of construction that Declarant specifically researched and sought to use. To the maximum extent permitted by law, this Agreement shall be construed as an expressed, valid, and enforceable deed restriction, restrictive covenant, or other similarly described encumbrance that runs with the Property. This Agreement shall be binding upon any person or entity that acquires any right, title, or interest in or to any portion or all of the Property. Furthermore, this Agreement is designed to create equitable servitudes and covenants running with the land, in accordance with the provisions of Civil Code Section 1468. The covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, equitable servitudes, liens, and charges set forth herein shall run with the Property, as the "burdened property," and shall be binding upon all persons or entities having any right, title or interest in the Property (or portion thereof) and their heirs, successive owners and assigns, and shall be binding upon the Declarant, and the successors and assigns. Furthermore, the covenants, conditions, 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 -6- restrictions, reservations, equitable servitudes, liens, and charges set forth herein shall run with all City -owned real property adjacent to or nearby of the Property, with the City property being the "benefitted property," and shall inure to the benefit of the City and its successors and assigns, and may be enforced by the City and its successors and assigns. The Declarant hereby declares its understanding and intent that the burden of the covenants set forth herein touch and concern the land and that the Declarant's interest in the Property may be rendered less valuable thereby. The Declarant hereby further declares its understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants touch and concern the land by enhancing and increasing the enjoyment and use of the Property and by furthering public purposes for the City. In amplification and not in restriction of the provisions hereinabove, it is intended and agreed that the City is deemed a beneficiary of the covenants provided herein both for and in its own right and also for the purposes of protecting the interests of the community. All covenants without regard to technical classification or designation shall be binding for the benefit of the City, and such covenants shall run in favor of the City, without regard to whether the City is or remains the owner of the all City -owned real property adjacent to or nearby of the Property, or of any land or interest therein to which such covenants relate. However, all such covenants and restrictions shall be deemed to run in favor of all real property owned by the City, which real property shall be deemed the benefited property of such covenants. The City shall have the right, in the event of any breach of this Agreement, to exercise all rights and remedies, and to maintain any action at law or in equity or other proper proceeding to enforce the curing of such breach of this Agreement. 4.3 If the Property is sold during the period between issuance of the building permit in accordance with the CBA Approval, and the completion of the three year testing period specified in those conditions, or any extension of testing or mitigation required by non-performance of the installed alternate materials, then the new owner shall comply with any remaining testing or mitigation required under the CBA Approval. Declarant or any successor shall inform any new owner of these obligations and their status prior to close of escrow. If the testing and mitigation period is still ongoing at the time of change of ownership, Declarant or any successor shall provide the City Building Department a copy of the grant deed transferring ownership of the Property no later than 10 days after change of ownership takes place. Declarant personally guarantees to the City that the testing program or mitigation required by non-performance of the installed materials shall be completed, notwithstanding any change of ownership. Upon completion of the three year testing period, or any additional period of mitigation required by non-performance of the alternate materials, no further action shall be required of the owner of this Property, except as specified in this Agreement and the CBA Approval; i.e. this Agreement shall remain in force by its terms for purposes of disclosure and indemnification. 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 -7- 4.4 The owner of the Property shall have a continuing obligation to deliver written notice to the City Clerk of any change in ownership of the Property. 5. Miscellaneous. 5.1 Authoritv. Each signatory hereto warrants to the other party that it has authority to sign on behalf of the party for whom it purports to sign. The City Manager shall have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the City and shall have the authority to negotiate and/or amend this Agreement on behalf of the City, provided that any amendment is consistent with the Conditions of Approval. Nothing in this paragraph or elsewhere in this Agreement prevents or may be construed as preventing the City Manager from submitting any proposed amendment to this Agreement to the La Quinta City Council for review and consideration at a public meeting in accordance with applicable laws. 5.2 Attornevs' Fees. In the event any party hereto brings suit to enforce the terms of this Agreement or on account of breach hereof, the party not prevailing in such suit shall pay all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the other party in such suit, including, without limitation, court costs, attorneys' fees, and expert witness fees. 5.3 No Wavier. A waiver by either party hereto of a breach of any of the covenants, conditions, or agreements hereof to be performed by the party shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or other covenants, agreements, restrictions or conditions thereof. 5.4 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same agreement. 5.5 Governinq Law. The Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Riverside shall have the exclusive jurisdiction of any litigation between the parties arising out of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed under, the internal laws of the State of California, without regard to conflict of law principles. Service of process shall be made in the manner required by law. 5.6 No Personal Liabilitv. No officer, official, member, employee, agent, or representative of City shall be personally liable to Declarant, or any successor or assign of same, for breach of this Agreement or for any other matter whatsoever relating to the Property, the residence on the Property, the use by the Declarant (and any successor -in -interest) of the alternate materials and methods of construction, and/or the process for review and approvals (conditional or otherwise) of the construction of the residence on the Property. 5.7 Notices. All notices required to be delivered under this Agreement or under applicable law shall be delivered by one of the following means: (a) 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 -g- personal delivery; (b) delivery by United States mail, prepaid, certified, return receipt requested; (c) delivery by Federal Express or a comparable overnight courier service that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery; or (d) delivery by facsimile provided the sender receives confirmation the facsimile was received. Notices personally delivered or delivered by a courier service shall be effective upon receipt. Notices delivered by United States mail shall be effective at 5:00 p.m. on the second business day following dispatch. Notices delivered by facsimile shall be effective upon receipt provided that any faxed notices which are transmitted at any time other than between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday (excluding legal holidays) shall be deemed transmitted as of the next business day. Notices shall be delivered to the following addresses: City of La Quinta To City: 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Attn: City Manager With a copy to: Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Attn: William H. Ihrke, Esq. To Declarant Ken and Cathy Duce 51-335 Calle Huemene La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Ken and Cathy Duce With a copy to: Law Office of Peter MacDonald 400 Main Street, Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Attn: Peter MacDonald, Esq. Either party may, from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate a different address which shall be substituted for the one above specified, and/or specify additional parties to be notified. 5.8 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 5.9 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, representatives, transferees and assigns. 5.10 Entire Agreement. This Agreement (which includes all exhibits and attachments hereto) contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto with respect to the matters covered hereby, and all negotiations and agreements, 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 -9- statements or promises between the parties hereto or their agents with respect to this transaction are merged in this Agreement, which alone expresses the parties' rights and obligations and if not contained herein shall not be binding or valid against either of the parties hereto. 5.11 Amendments and Modifications. Any amendments or modifications to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by the City and the owner of the Property. 5.12 Severabilitv. If any term, provision, condition or covenant of this Agreement or the application thereof to any party or circumstances shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this instrument, or the application of such term, provision, condition or covenant to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom or which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. [End of Agreement - signatures on next page] 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 -10- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto as of the date first above -written. "DECLARANT" Kenneth B. Duce and Catherine E. Duce, Husband and Wife as Joint Tenants By: Name: Kenneth B. Duce By: Name: Catherine E. Duce ATTEST: Susan Maysels "City" CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation and charter city Frank Spevacek ;ity Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP in William H. Ihrke 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 -1 1- A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ) On before me, Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. It XNa: Notary Public 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 -12- A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ) On , before me, Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. rM Name: Notary Public 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 -13- Exhibit A Legal Description of Property [INSERT ADDRESS, APN, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DUCE RESIDENCE] 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 Exhibit B Attachments 1 and 2 to Application for Alternate Materials and/or Methods of Construction [Attached] 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 Exhibit C RESOLUTION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL [Attached] 698/015610-0154 11664741.2 a04/16/18 LCL 1 1/8" ROOF DECK TRUSS JOISTS 24" O.C. 1/4" THICK CLAY TILE - "ROOF DECK" 3" HYDRAULIC LIME MORTAR BED WITH SAND AND PERLITE FOR INSULATION AND ITS POROSITY AND VAPOR PERMEABILITY - MINIMUM 1-4 BALLAST MAT ON TOP OF PVC SINGLE PLY ROOFING _ 1/4" SLOPE s MOISTURE S i I 4" OF HYDRAULIC LIME CONCRETE T ON TOP OF 3/4 EXPANDED METAL MESH 5/8" PEX TUBING FOR RADIANT COOLING AND HEATING F yi 3/4" - 3 COAT LIME PLASTER O TUBULAR STEEL BEAMS - 12" DEEP f 6X WOOD BEAMS SPAN BETWEEN 4X4 RUNNERS TO DISTRIBUTE ROOF RAFTER LOAD TO MOISTURE STEEL STRUCTURE BELOW TUBULAR STEEL COLUMNS 4X4 RUNNERS TO DISTRIBUTE ROOF LOAD TO STEEL STRUCiURE BELOW LIME CONCRETE 8XBX16 HYDRAULIC LIME BLOCKS WITH LIME CONCRETE FILL — 3 COAT 3/4" HYDRAULIC LIME PLASTER 5" CONCRETE EXHIBIT B - ATTACHMENT 1 TYPICAL WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTION ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS Scale: 1/2"=1'-0" Sante Fe Scupper NO NEED FOR VENTING OF "ATTIC" - PERLITE INSULATION ► CEILING AND EXTERIOR WALL COVERING OF HYDRAULIC LIME PLASTER IS VAPOR PERMEABLE - MOISTURE IS NOT HELD. PERLITE INSULATION IS FIRE PROOF - NO NEED FOR FIRE BLOCKING PERLITE AND HYDRAULIC LIME INSULATION MIX IS A WEAK LIME MIX TO HOLD PERLITE TOGETHER TO NOT"RUN" �SPIDERLATH -STUCCO LATH 3/4" - THREE COAT HYDRAULIC LIME PLASTER 3/8" THICK X 3/4" WOOD STRIPS, 12" O.C. ATTACHED ON TOP OF FILTER CLOTH ON STUDS FOR HOLDING CHICKEN WIRE PLASTER LATH BREATHABLE MESH FABRIC INSTALLED ONFACE OF STUDS C LIKE FILTER CLOTH TO HOLD PERLITE INSULATION LSL 2X4 STUDS, 24" O.C. PRESERVATIVE TREATED 2X4 PLATES — CONCRETE APRON OR PATIO ALL AROUND BUILDING PILASTERS AT EACH STEEL COLUMN CONCRETE GRADE BEAM DUCE: 51335 CALLE HUENEME: ALTERNATIVE METHODS AND MATERIALS: APPROVED CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS I Duce xome LA QUINTA, CA 92253 .132" BALLAST MAT 3 INCHES OF PERLITE CONCRETE: FOR MOISTURE MOVEMENT PERLITE, SAND, HYDRAULIC LIME AND PROTECTION OF PVC ROOFING INSULATION VALUE OF R-4 PLUS TOP OF PVC ROOFING BASE FOR CLAY TILE 1/4 INCH CLAY TILE - FOLDED WALL - UNDERNEAEA TH STUCCO 80 MIL PVC ROOFING LOOSE LAID 1 1/8" WOOD DECKING 7� �7 7-- * --------TRUSS JOISTS 24" O.C. FILTER CLOTH TO HOLD INSULTIER PRIOR TO STUCCO AND PROVIDE AIR PERMEABLE LAYER 3/4" HYDRAULIC LIME PLASTER - 3 COAT \ 4X4 BEARING PLATES TO TRANSFER VERTICAL ROOF LOADS TO INTERIOR STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAME HYDRAULIC LIME AND PERLITE CRETE INSULATION �SPIDERLATH �• v "-_� y +r yr _ r + +�. :_ ,e.•_y; -CHICKEN WIRE LATH -- - -4" OF HYDRAULIC LIME CONCRETE Scale: 3"=1'-0" S/8" PEX PIPING FOR RADIANT -- HYDRAULIC LIME BLOCK COOLING AND HEATING ON TOP OF 3/4" #9 EXPANDED STEEL PLATE _� BLOCK FILL WITH HYDRAULIC LIME CONCRETE March 20, 2018 A 02 FLOOR ALTE March 20, 2018 .:a�i�lYYiy u.�Y.c4 r1�i�.\au.�lYi:dY�i n`��iii:•i11 i31�w1i�nY Y:•. .:.., I.N.-.— I.".,. n1.... .�.....�.�..... _ _ A I� FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS FLOOR PLAN SHOWING SECTIONS Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" March 20, 2018 .A11 .... IF\Iiulil.11l�Al.......... I11�Iu1_Ili.�l_I I'M_IJJ.IIl Ia1141111'11.11M■\111 ■.111_I.�1�\li_IJJi_I 1=1 .1 - _ _ A 104 FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS 1X DIAGONAL SHEATHING INSIDE OF GARAGE WALLS AND CEILING - STAINED FOR VAPOR PERMEABILITY i— i—_9 1_V 4--1— L & INSULATION: LIME & PERLITE WITH THERMAL BREAK BETWEEN OUTSIDE STRUCTURE AND INSIDE STRUCTURE SECTION 1 wilijLj T-7. Scale: 3/16"=I' -O" March 20, 2018 c w-l.F-fiy1�Ii i i- iii- - 1i aIIYYiy u.�Y.c4 r11— —.1l1-1.11:•i\1i3\- . \:•. .:'i\i I. N. -..i I.".,. r1.... .�.....�.�..... _ _ A I05 FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS NIS � II=I ! I - 41�-m L � � SECTION 2 Scale: 3/8"=I' -O" \ -dr� -- INSULATION: LIME & PERLITE i WITH THERMAL BREAK BETWEEN OUTSIDE STRUCTURE AND INSIDE STRUCTURE 1 i .I FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS 1X DIAGONAL SHEATHING INSIDE OF GARAGE WALLS AND CEILING - STAINED FOR VAPOR PERMEABILITY 1 I E 9- SECTION 3 Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" INSULATION: LIME & PERLITE WITH THERMAL BREAK BETWEEN OUTSIDE STRUCTURE AND INSIDE STRUCTURE March 20, 2018 r1.I i:dY Ii n`� 1i i i:•i11 i31- n. 1:•. .:.., I.N.-.— Iii .,. r1.... .�.....�.�..... _ _ A 107 FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS INSULATION: LIME & PERLITE WITH THERMAL BREAK BETWEEN SECTION 4 OUTSIDE STRUCTURE AND INSIDE STRUCTURE Scale: 3/8"=1'-O" *I FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS SECTION 5 Scale: 3/8"=V-0" ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS ------- INSULATION: LIME & PERLITE _ --- WITH THERMAL BREAK BETWEEN OUTSIDE STRUCTURE AND I INSIDE STRUCTURE r FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS J RE!"1m65'CIA�ETffell ��R17 4�PIaQ�4D'CQR9II�CI To F(IAAIaD'�F11PPEf1 SECTION 6 Scale: 1 / 2"= V-0" INSULATION: LIME & PERLITE WITH THERMAL BREAK BETWEEN OUTSIDE STRUCTURE AND INSIDE STRUCTURE FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS SECTION 6 March 20, 2018 . i.y.. - u. -Y.cli n1"i�.liu.I lYi:dYIi n`�1ii N., i31- r. Y:•. .:.., I.N.-.— I.".,i r1....,.�.�. �...�.�.........�.. _ A 111 FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS SECTION 7 Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS i i __ i i i -ter r� Yr i i �ti ter INSULA TION: LIME & PERLITE WITH THERMAL BREAK BETWEEN OUTSIDE STRUCTURE AND INSIDE STRUCTURE March 20, 2018 ...y.. ii --l. - u. -Y.c4 r11— —.11, —111. 1-1.11:•i11i31- . Y:•. -:.., I,:al-.—I.".,i n1.... .�.....�.�..... _ _ A 112 FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS SECTION S --INSULATION: LIME $ PERLITE WITH THERMAL BREAK BETWEEN Scale: 3/8"=1'-O" OUTSIDE STRUCTURE AND INSIDE STRUCTURE 1X DIAGONAL SHEATHING INSIDE OF GARAGE WALLS AND CEILING - STAINED FOR VAPOR PERMEABILITY FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS SECTION 9 Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS March 20, 2018 .:a�i�lYY i- u.-Y.c4 r1-1.11:•i11i31- . Y:•. -:.., I. N.-.— I.".,. n1.... .�.....�.�..... _ _ A 114 ``FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS SECTION 10 Scale: 3/8"=V-0" INSULATION: LIME & PERLITE WITH THERMAL BREAK BETWEEN OUTSIDE STRUCTURE AND March 20, 2018 ..ani 1 - u. -Y.c4 r11— —.1l 1-1.11!".,.3\- . Y:•. n1.... .�.....�.�..... _ _ A 115 FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS SECTION 11 Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" INSULATION: LIME & PERLITE WITH THERMAL BREAK BETWEEN OUTSIDE STRUCTURE AND INSIDE STRUCTURE I 7 I March 20, 2018 .:a �i 1 - u.-Y.c4 r11— —.1. 1-1.11!".,...- . Y:•. -:.., I.N.-.—Iii .,. n1.... .�.....�.�..... _ _ A 116 FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS SECTION 12 Scale: 3/8"=1'-O" March 20, 21 - - - A 117 FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS SECTION 14 Scale: 3/8"=V-0" INSULATION: LIME & PERLITE WITH THERMAL BREAK BETWEEN OUTSIDE STRUCTURE AND t INSIDE STRUCTURE 1— LM i DUCE: 51335 CALLE HUENEME: ALTERNATIVE METHODS AND MATERIALS: APPROVED CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS I Duce Home LA QUINTA, CA 92253 1-1/8" ROOF DECK TRUSS JOISTS 24" O.C. 1/4" THICK CLAY TILE - "ROOF DECK" 3" HYDRAULIC LIME MORTAR BED WITH SAND AND PERLITE FOR INSULATION AND ITS POROSITY AND VAPOR PERMEABILITY - MINIMUM 1-4 PVC ROOFING ROLLED UP PARAPET AND COVERED WTIH STUCCO — BALLAST MAT ON TOP OF PVC SINGLE PLY ROOFING 1/4" SLOPE -_J y� L C 4" OF HYDRAULIC LIME CONCRETE U U u F ON TOP OF 3/4 EXPANDED METAL MESH O 5/8" PEX TUBING FOR RADIANT COOLING AND HEATING ..--y F 3/4" - 3 COAT LIME PLASTER TUBULAR STEEL BEAMS - 12" DEEP �i 6X WOOD BEAMS SPAN BETWEEN 4X4 RUNNERS MOISTURE TO DISTRIBUTE ROOF RAFTER LOAD TO STEEL STRUCTURE BELOW U' -� TUBULAR STEEL COLUMNS 4X4 RUNNERS TO DISTRIBUTE ROOF LOAD TO STEEL STRUCTURE BELOW LIME CONCRETE 8XBX16 HYDRAULIC LIME BLOCKS WITH LIME CONCRETE FILL 3 COAT 3/4" HYDRAULIC LIME PLASTER EXHIBIT B - ATTACHMENT 2 TYPICAL WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTION ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS ,�—S-1 ROOF DECK —ROOF STRUCTURE BEARING PLATE Sante Fe Scupper NO NEED FOR VENTING OF "ATTIC" - PERLITE INSULATION CEILING AND EXTERIOR WALL COVERING OF HYDRAULIC LIME PLASTER IS VAPOR PERMEABLE - MOISTURE IS NOT HELD. —S-1 HYDRAULIC LIME BLOCK _PERLITE INSULATION IS FIRE PROOF - NO NEED FOR FIRE BLOCKING —S-1 LSL STUD PERLITE AND HYDRAULIC LIME INSULATION MIX IS A WEAK LIME MIX TO HOLD PERLITE TOGETHER TO NOT"RUN" SPIDERLATH - STUCCO LATH — 3/4" - THREE COAT HYDRAULIC LIME PLASTER/STUCCO —S-1 HYDRAULIC LIME BLOCK � S-1 LSL STUD BREATHABLE MESH FABRIC INSTALLED ON FACE OF STUDS LIKE FILTER CLOTH TO HOLD PERLITE INSULATION _� S-1 HYRDRAULIC LIME STUCCO LSL 2X4 STUDS, 24" O.C. �S-1 INTO TREATED SILL PLATE 5" CONCRETE SLABX PRESERVATIVE TREATED 2X4 PLATES - HYDRAULIC LIME BLOCK FILLED WITH HYDRAULIC LIME CONCRETE CONCRETE APRON OR PATIO ALL AROUND BUILDING Scale: 1/2"=V-0" PILASTERS AT EACH STEEL COLUMN MOISTURE MONITORING CONCEPT CONCRETE GRADE BEAM _ March 20, 2018 n .132" BALLAST MAT 3 INCHES OF PERLITE CONCRETE: FOR MOISTURE MOVEMENT AND PROTECTION OF PVC ROOFING PERLITE, SAND, HYDRAULIC LIME TOP OF PVC ROOFING INSULATION VALUE OF R-4 PLUS — CL 1/4 INCH AY TILE FOLDED WALL UNDERNEAEA TH STUCCO BASE FOR CLAY TILE�WAL 80 MIL PVC ROOFING — — LOOSE LAID TYPIROOF-CEILING S CTION 11/8"WOOD DECKING ALTERNATIVE THODS/MATERIA S -------------- ` --TRUSS JOISTS 24" O.C. { 4X4 BEARING PLATES TO TRANSFER - VERTICAL ROOF LOADS TO INTERIOR STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAME S/8" P PIPING FOR RADIANT COOLING AND HEATING ON TOP OF 3/4" #9 EXPANDED STEEL PLATE i March 20, 2018 Scale: 3"=1'-0" MOISTURE MONITORING CONCEPT SCUPPER I FILTER CLOTH TO HOLD INSULTIER PRIOR TO STUCCO AND PROVIDE E AIR PERMEABLE LAYER —S-1 ROOF DECKING - 3/4" 3 COAT HYDRAULIC LIME PLASTER S-1 ROOF JSTS BEARING PLATES HYDRAULIC LIME AND PERLITE CRETE INSULATION SPIDERLATH - STUCCO LATH BLOCK FILL WITH HYDRAULIC LIME CONCRETE —S-1 LSL OF HYDRAULIC LIME CONCRETE —HYDRAULIC LIME BLOCK S-1 LIME CONCRETE A FLOOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS GARAGE SECTION Scale: 1/2'r=V-0'r ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS r J S-1 NORTH SIDE STUDS r .f 1 S-1 SILL PLATES 10 March 20, 20181[-%p �iYi/((, iii D71V/.7., _.l MOISTURE MONITORING CONCEPT S-1 LSL 2X4 S-1 ROOF DECK --S-1 CEILING DECK S-1 LSL 2X4 OUTER AND INNER STUDS S-1 SILL PLATES AI _OOR/WALL/ROOF-CEILING SECTIONS ALTERNATIVE METHODS/ MATERIALS S-1 ROOF DECK -- S-1 S-1 CEILING BOARD@ S-1 RAFTER S-1 BEARING PLATE LIGHT AND VENTILATION SHAFT q r o t f March 20, 2018 r - �� - - - - / r / •' 1 1� Scale: 3/4"=1'-0" MOISTURE MONITORING CONCEPT S-1 NORTH SIDE WINDOW SILL PLATES S-1 BEARING PLATES FOR ROOF STRUCTURE AI ATTACHMENT 1 Q"tra act Construction Board of Appeals agendas and staff reports are now available on the City's web page: www.laauintaca.ora CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA STUDY SESSION ROOM 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4. 2017 AT 2:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Board Members Edwards, Leonhard, Morris, Venuti and Wolff PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA At this time, members of the public may address the Construction Board of Appeals on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit vour comments to three minutes. The Construction Board of Appeals values your comments; however in accordance with State law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an emergency item authorized by GC 54954.2(b). CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARING - None BUSINESS ITEM 1. Selection of Chairperson 2. Selection of Vice -Chairperson CONSTRUCTION APPEALS BOARD AGENDA 1 OCTOBER 4, 2017 Appeal of Decision of the Building Official regarding Alternative Materials and Methods Request by Ken and Cathy Duce. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIALS - None BOARD MEMBER ITEMS ADJOURNMENT DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Wanda Wise -Latta, Board Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Construction Appeals Board meeting was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber at 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at 78-630 Highway 111, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on September 28, 2017. DATED: September 28, 2017 x6w_� WANDA WISE-LATTA, Board Secretary City of La Quinta, California PUBLIC NOTICES The Study Session Room is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the Building Division of the Design and Development Department at 777-7118, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Board, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the Building Division of the Design and Development Department at 777-7118. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Board during a Construction Appeals Board meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Board Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Board regarding any item(s) on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Design and Development Department's counter at City Hall located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours. CONSTRUCTION APPEALS BOARD AGENDA 2 OCTOBER 4, 2017 City of La Qu i nta BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 3 CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING: October 04, 2017 STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REGARDING ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION FOR A ROOF AND WALL SYSTEM IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING THAT INCORPORATES LIME MASONRY BLOCKS, LIME TREATED INSULATION AND LIME PLASTER FINISH. REQUESTED BY KEN AND CATHY DUCE (APPLICANTS). LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS AT 51-335 CALLE HUENEME IN THE DESERT CLUB TRACT. RECOMMENDATION • Take into consideration the presentations and materials provided by the Applicants and City staff. Render a decision to affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Building Official. FISCAL IMPACI - Applicants provided no cost estimates at this time. BACKGROUND On December 19, 2016, Ken and Cathy Duce applied for a Building Permit for a proposed one-story single-family dwelling at 51-335 Calle Hueneme, Desert Club Tract. A roof and wall system incorporating "alternative methods and/or materials" of construction using lime masonry blocks, lime treated insulation and lime plaster finish is proposed. City Staff advised Mr. Duce during the course of two plan reviews to provide justification for all alternate methods and/or materials, demonstrating compliance with the intent of the provisions of the codes, and to include product listings, testing and data, and compiled reports. In the January 11, 2017 plan review correction list, a note stating in part "...Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods, the building official shall have the authority to require tests as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified in this code or by other recognized test standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test methods, the building official shall approve the testing procedures. Tests shall be performed by an approved agency. Reports of such tests shall be retained by the building official for the period required for retention of public records." Applicants Ken and Cathy Duce electronically submitted documents in support of an application for alternative materials and/or methods of construction, which documents were dated April 19, received by the Building Official on May 10, and supplemented by an email dated July 5, 2017 (collectively, the "application"). The application included a proposed roof and wall system in the construction of a one- story single-family dwelling that incorporates lime masonry blocks, time treated insulation and lime plaster finish. The proposals with attachments, and supplement email with attachments, are included as Attachment A. On August 24, 2017, the Building Official rendered a decision to conditionally approve the Alternate Material and Method of Construction proposal, whereby the applicants complete testing of the proposed alternative materials and methods, exactly as proposed and presented in their application, with clarifications of building materials conditioned by the determination, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The condition to complete testing was issued in accordance with state building codes that permit the Building Official to require such testing. Because the documents supporting the application for alternative materials and/or methods of construction was received in 2017, the 2016 version of the California Residential Code governs, but the provisions permitting the Building Official to condition an approval based on the completion of testing were substantively the same in the 2013 version of the California Residential Code, which governed until January 1, 2017. The Building Official's decision to condition the approval on the completion of testing was reached because, among other reasons identified in the decision, there are no records of any other residence in the City using the construction materials and methods proposed by the applicants as being approved, and neither the state building codes nor La Quinta Municipal Code have approved the alternative construction materials and methods proposed by the applicants. Furthermore, the City contracted with an outside, independent consultant - Transtech - to review the application. The Building Official sought independent consultant review to determine if the findings can be made that the applicants' proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of the state building codes and that the proposed materials and methods are no less than the equivalent of those materials and methods that have been approved by the state building codes. The Building Official's decision is included as Attachment B. The Transtech report is included as Attachment C. On September 24, 2017, Mr. Ken Duce appealed the Building Official's decision with a filing with the City Clerk. Mr. Duce is proposing to install monitoring devices in the wall and roof systems construction, with monitoring to be for a period of three years from the final building inspection, and the Building Official to approve the monitoring plan prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. Mr. Duce is also proposing a disclosure covenant of this approval to be attached to his property. Mr. Duce's appeal is included as Attachment D. ALTERNATIVES Pursuant to La Quints Municipal Code Section 2.40.050, the Construction Board of Appeals may: • Affirm (sustain) the decision of the Building Official to conditionally approve the alternate material and method of construction; or • Modify the decision of the Building Official; or • Reverse the decision of the Building Official; or • Continue this appeal for further consideration. Prepared by: Burt Hanada, Building Official Attachments: A. Proposal of Alternate Material and Method of Construction by Ken Duce B. Building Official's Decision Alternate Material and Method of Construction C. Transtech Final Report D. Appeal to Construction Board of Appeals ATTACHMENT A Peter MacDonald From: Peter MacDonald Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2017 3:38 PM To: Tim Jonasson (tjonasson@la-quinta.org); Burt Hanada (bhanada@la-quinta.org) Cc: Ken Duce (kencathyduce@yahoo.com); Bill Ihrke (bihrke@rutan.com); Frank Spevacek (fspevacek@la-quinta.org); Peter MacDonald Subject: Response to Transtech Report for Kenneth and Catherine Duce Attachments: Attachment A. GOVERNMENT CODE 818.4.pdf; Attachment B. Berding and Weil on Govt. Code Section 818.4 case lawin the Building Permit Process.pdf; Attachment 5 SATURATION TEST LIME PERLITE.pdf; 170503 Transtech Engineers Report.pdf; 170419 DUCE Proposal for Alternate Material or Method of Construction CBC 1.8.7 Duce v6 Final.pdf Good morning Tim and Burt, am an attorney working with Kenneth and Catherine Duce. I am familiar with Building Code Issues, having been a City Attorney in California for many years, and a land use attorney involved with construction issues for many years after that. Ken asked me to review the Proposal to use alternate materials or methods that he submitted to you dated April 19, 2017 ("Duce Proposal"), and the analysis of the Duce Proposal provided in the Transtech Engineers Report dated May 3, 2017 ("TE Report") Summary This issue is being made more complicated than necessary, well beyond what California Building Code Section 1.8.7 requires. This situation involves the proponents building a home for their own residence using alternate materials and methods for which there will be sensing equipment installed to determine if those alternate methods have worked, along with good reasons to believe the proposed system will work as intended. The risk is borne solely by the proponent, in a situation where equivalence will be either demonstrated by testing or corrective actions taken. Risk Management Issue The TE Report misunderstands the law when it suggests denial as a matter of "risk management at a Jurisdictional level". You already know, or your City Attorney can confirm to you, that Govt. Code Section 818.4 provides that a public entity is not liable for an injury caused by the issuance (or by the failure or refusal to issue) "any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization" if the public entity or an employee of the public entity is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such a permit should be issued (Attachment A). I include a short article from the Berding and Weil law firm that summarizes case law showing how strongly California courts have stood by this government immunity (Attachment B). This immunity has stood up because of strong public policy that discretionary government decisions should be driven by the public interest, common sense, and consumer well-being rather than fear of liability and litigation. Consumer Protection Issue As a former city attorney, the only consumer protection issue that came to my mind could arise with a subsequent owner of the home. Hypothetically, a subsequent owner of that home, unaware that the breathable wall material is necessary to prevent water vapor from building up within the wood members of that wall, could modify the exterior with water tight materials and thereby cause the dreaded moisture build up. It would be within the purview of the Building Official to protect that future homeowner, the City, and the Duces by requiring recordation of a Disclosure Covenant using words like this: "The residence on this property was approved to use alternate methods and materials under California Building Code Section 1.8.7. The walls and roof members of the home on this property include hydraulic lime intended to remain porous to water vapor. The owner is warned that installation of water impermeable surface materials could trap water vapor in the wall or roof resulting in wood damage and rot to the interior structural members of the wall and the roof. Use of lime based exterior paints will provide appropriate surface porosity. The owner acknowledges the City of La Quinta is immune from liability by statute for its approval of the alternate materials and methods used, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the City of La Quinta harmless from any claims or actions that may result from the performance of the approved alternate materials or methods. This covenant shall run with the land and bind successive owners." TE Report The Transtech Engineers Report would be of little evidentiary value in a quasi-judicial proceeding, like an Appeals Board hearing because: 1. The TE Report does not analyze or even mention CBC Section R703.1.1 — the Building Code Section which requires a water tight barrier. The key question is whether use of a porous material surrounding wood structural members would provide equivalent protection from water vapor accumulation. Where is that discussion in the TE Report? 2. The TE Report does not evaluate or discuss the facts and data in the Duce Proposal. To address the CBC Section R703.1 question, an experienced building official would evaluate whether the proffered data and facts credibly show that hydraulic lime is porous to water vapor, whether the specific proposed VLW hydraulic lime meets the standards of porosity desired, and whether the cited sources credibly explain how the porous hydraulic lime can sustain low enough wood moisture equivalent (WME) to prevent wood mold and rot, despite the absence of a water tight barrier under CBC Section R703.1.1. All that information is in the Duce Proposal. Rather than discuss the facts and data, the TE Report spews out a bunch of bureaucratic "unknowns" i.e. chain of custody?, lack of established inspection and testing protocols?, materials interaction?, international sources of information?, jurisdictional risk management?, steep learning curve?. And does no substantive evaluation whatsoever. `a 3. The TE Report does not analyze the proposed testing protocols. Whatever the answers are to the TE Report parade of "unknowns", the proposed systematic measurement of wood moisture equivalent (WME) over the first three years will definitively determine whether the proposed alternate material and method of construction function equivalently to the protection provided by CBC Section R703.1. Instead, the TE Report concludes that if there were any value to use of hydraulic lime, the National Homebuilders, Perlite insulation or Masonry Association would have sprung for the substantial cost ($million?) of ASTM testing to approve it. Really? Everything worth inventing has already been invented and tested? Thank heavens Thomas Edison and Henry Ford got their work done before ASTM came along. Findings for Approval The key words in CBC Section 1.8.7 (Section [A]104.11 in the TE Report [2013 CBC]), are: "An alternate material, design, or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, and safety." In this case, given: a. The substantial evidence presented in the Duce Proposal; b. The short term impact on only the consumers who are the proponents; c. A Disclosure Covenant to warn and protect future owners of the home regarding appropriate maintenance; d. The existence of testing protocols and sensing equipment which will definitively determine whether the alternate material and method are performing equivalently; e. The existence of a condition requiring appropriate corrective action should the alternate materials and method not perform as required; and f. In the analogous situation of strawbale houses, and for the same reasons, the 2016 California Residential Building Code Appendix S, literally prohibits use of vapor retarders in a strawbale wall (Sections AS104.3 and AS104.4.1.). Le. A watertight barrier is not required or even helpful in minimizing wood moisture in these equivalent circumstances. Based on the findings above, the building official can reasonably determine the requirements of CBC Section1.8.7. are met, subject to the reasonable conditions discussed above and in the Duce Proposal. Conclusion Additional structural and related studies and expertise, requiring money that the Duces cannot afford to waste, are awaiting resolution of this issue. Ken and Cathy Duce want to get their home built in a reasonable time. If the building official chooses not to approve the 9 Duce Proposal, please consider this note as our appeal to the Appeals Board, and please get that process timely concluded. Sincerely, Peter MacDonald Land Use Attorney Note: Attachment 5 was "reserved" in the Duce Proposal because of a delay in getting the information into understandable form. Ken asked me to forward Attachment 5 to the Duce Proposal to you with these comments. Attachment 5 presents the results of saturation testing of perlite performed by Ken Duce in May 2016 to determine to his satisfaction that the perlite would dry out in a timely manner for the Duce wall system to perform as needed. For ease of reference, I also attach the TE Report, and a dropbox link to the attachments to the Duce Proposal (large file size). https://www.dropbox.com/s/lgw8eacyl7w7h4n/Attachments%20-%20Duce%20Proposal.pdf?dl=0 Peter MacDonald Law Office of Peter MacDonald 400 Main Street, Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: 925.462.0191 i TRANsTEck May 3, 2017 Neville Pereira, P.E. Transtech Engineers 13367 Benson Ave. Chino, CA 91710 Timothy R. Jonasson, P.E. Director of Design and Development/City Engineer City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Mr. Jonasson, This letter is in response to your request for investigating how the 2016 California Building Code addresses a request for use of alternate material submitted by a local architect for construction of his personal home. I understand the applicant is proposing an exterior wall and roof system that uses lime masonry blocks and lime treated insulation with a lime plaster finish to create a - - "'��__� �• ""`""`i breathable wall and roof system according to the graphic below. w��R ...1�,.- •- ��-�� 13367 Benson Avenue I Chino CA 91710 1 T 9o9 595 8599 1 F 9o9 590 8599 1 Transtech.org 14�+�s��.a ",FR ~"'Y' _ I have reviewed �titR�PI�Y��•RR.R�i�I Rl1�1 rl � FiMF wM1YA +/ the aMnf11LSFQaFi4� '""�" �1�" 4 - w•va� all supporting o-1 ws wTMw material that you have provided from ._--1w=-•,�,� .,•. me the _ — .. _ ._ applicant in"' - reaching my conclusions, and 13367 Benson Avenue I Chino CA 91710 1 T 9o9 595 8599 1 F 9o9 590 8599 1 Transtech.org will cite the building code and applicable references where necessary. I found myself wanting to become an expert in the science of lime materials, however I limited myself to a moderate degree of detail for the sake of time. After reading the material provided and doing some cursory research, I recommend that Burt and/or you deny the approval of the alternate, adhere to the provisions of section 104.11 and leave approval of this alternate to the experts for the following reasons: 1. There are too many unknowns to the alternate methods and materials to be able to provide a blanket approval for this individual case. a. Control of material sources, transfer, and mixes are not standard and a chain of custody must be established and monitored. b. Application of these compounds has not been specified or standardized. c. In-situ inspection and testing protocols will need to be established. 2. Materials interaction between this product and surrounding framing materials has not been established. Even though the applicant established that the application is in a dry and arid climate, the Building Official must always consider probable environmental impacts and how the building materials react to those climates. 3. The science behind these materials is best left to the experts and standard tests for wall materials and finishes. 4. There is likely a good reason why this method of construction is discussed from a historical perspective and not widely used today. Even though I was not able to find the reason for its discontinuation, my suspicion is heightened by the fact it is not generally used currently. 5. The standards and practices of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) is the platinum standard nationally and internationally, and its value to the industry and the profession should not be diminished. If the National Home Builders, Perlite insulation or Masonry Associations found value in this method of construction, it would be advocated for appropriately. The fact that it is not leaves a lot to be desired. 6. 1 found most online information sources to be based internationally rather than domestically. Whereas this is not necessarily a reason to discredit the material science, the Building Official should lend credence to Americal standards of practice, especially when it comes to risk management at a Jurisdictional level. 7. There is too steep of a learning curve for internal staff for a one-time use of materials and methods and to assure a quality installation. One of the benefits of obtaining approved testing, certification, and third party evaluation, is that the jurisdictional approval process is distilled down to the simplest and barest minimum for the building official. As you are aware, the California building code attempts to cover all types of traditional and non- standard construction. It recognizes that the building official sometime faces obscure and emerging technologies and provides the following sections to address this fact. [A] 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment. The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety. Where the alternative material, design or method of construction is not approved, the building official shall respond in writing, stating the reasons why the alternative was not approved. [A] 104.11.1 Research reports. Supporting data, where necessary to assist in the approval of materials or assemblies not specifically provided for in this code, shall consist of valid research reports from approved sources. [A] 104.11.2 Tests. Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods, the building official shall have the authority to require tests as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified in this code or by other recognized test standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test methods, the building official shall approve the testing procedures. Tests shall be performed by an approved agency. Reports of such tests shall be retained by the building official for the period required for retention of public records. Notwithstanding the copious amounts of material provided by the applicant to substantiate the use of these materials or methods of construction, the building official is rarely an expert in all building practices and the science of materials. Thus, CBC Section 104.11.1 and 104.11.2 requires that the building official rely on recognized industry experts, test laboratories, and standardized testing to test, certify and validate the competence of these materials and methods to meet the intent of the code. DISCLAIMER This report is based on information provided to the researcher or information generally available t the public. The opinions rendered are referenced to the building code and recognized standards where possible. No warranty can be expressed or implied by this report because we did not author any of the referenced material. Every effort has been made to base interpretation of tangible evidence and neutral rationale. Questions and concerns about this report should be first brought to the author that may require a re-evaluation of the content of this report. CREDENTIALS Neville Pereira, P.E., CBO • Professional Civil Engineer, State of California C 55991 • Certified Building Official, International Code Council (ICC) Since 2012 • Certified Plans Examiner, International Code Council (ICC) Since 1996 • Certified Accessibility and Specialist, International Code Council (ICC) Since 1996 • Certified Building Inspector, International Code Council (ICC) Since 1999 n �1 "oF 01 From: Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 3:09 PM To: Ihrke, Bill Cc: Frank Spevacek; Tim Jonasson; Burt Hanada; Ken Duce (kencathyduce@yahoo.com); Peter MacDonald Subject: RE: Response to Transtech Report for Kenneth and Catherine Duce Attachments: 170419 DUCE Proposal for Alternate Material or Method of Construction CBC 1.8.7 Duce v6 Final.pdf; 170507 Email response to Transtech Report for Kenneth and Catherine Duce.pdf Good afternoon Burt, Tim, Bill, Frank, and Neville, (Someone needs to forward to Neville, with copy to me, so I can have his email.) Thank you for going over this issue with Ken and Cathy Duce and myself today. I feel like we made progress, and hope everyone stays on this to get it concluded. Below is the dropbox link to the Attachments to the Duce Report. And, the correct, final Duce Report above. https://www.dropbox.com/s/lgw8eacvl7w7h4n/Attachments%20- %20Duce%20Proposal. pdf?dl=0 Peter MacDonald Law Office of Peter MacDonald 400 Main Street, Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: 925.462.0191 From: Ihrke, Bill imailto:bihrke@rutan.coml Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 11:16 AM To: Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net> Cc: Frank Spevacek (fspevacek@la-quinta.org) <fspevacek@la-quinta.org>; Tim Jonasson <tlonasson@la-quinta.org>; Burt Hanada <bhanada@la-quinta.org> Subject: RE: Response to Transtech Report for Kenneth and Catherine Duce Dear Mr. MacDonald, Our law firm serves as the City Attorney's Office for the City of La Quinta (City). Thank you for your email and attachments, which will be included as part of the administrative materials for the above -referenced matter, City Application No. BRES 2016-0363/Building Permit for Personal Residence. Please be advised that no final determination has been made yet by the building official because the application is still being processed through plan check. As such, your request for your email to be considered a notice of an administrative appeal is premature. Furthermore, per your clients' request, city staff plans to meet with your clients tomorrow (Wednesday, May 10), tentatively set for 2:00pm, to discuss the application and proposed alternative materials/methods. In light of your email and items raised therein, I have offered to be available at that meeting if city staff requests my attendance. If you have questions concerning this response, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bill Ihrke La Quinta City Attorney William H. Ihrke Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 338-1863 (direct) bihrke(cbrutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. From: Peter MacDonald fmailto:pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.netj Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2017 3:38 PM To: Tim Jonasson (tionasson@la-cluinta.orR) <tionasson@la-cluinta.org>; Burt Hanada (bhanada@la- quinta.org) <bhanada@la-ciuinta.orF,> Cc: Ken Duce (kencathvduce@vahoo.com) <kencathvduce@vahoo.com>; Ihrke, Bill <bihrke@rutan.com>; Frank Spevacek (fspevacek@la-cluinta.org) <fspevacek@la-quinta.org>; Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net> Subject: Response to Transtech Report for Kenneth and Catherine Duce Good morning Tim and Burt, I am an attorney working with Kenneth and Catherine Duce. I am familiar with Building Code Issues, having been a City Attorney in California for many years, and a land use attorney involved with construction issues for many years after that. Ken asked me to review the Proposal to use alternate materials or methods that he submitted to you dated April 19, 2017 ("Duce Proposal"), and the analysis of the Duce Proposal provided in the Transtech Engineers Report dated May 3, 2017 ("TE Report"). Summary This issue is being made more complicated than necessary, well beyond what California Building Code Section 1.8.7 requires. This situation involves the proponents building a home for their own residence using alternate materials and methods for which there will be sensing equipment installed to determine if those alternate methods have worked, along with good reasons to believe the proposed system will work as intended. The risk is borne solely by the proponent, in a situation where equivalence will be either demonstrated by testing or corrective actions taken. Risk Management Issue The TE Report misunderstands the law when it suggests denial as a matter of "risk management at a Jurisdictional level". You already know, or your City Attorney can confirm to you, that Govt. Code Section 818.4 provides that a public entity is not liable for an injury caused by the issuance (or by the failure or refusal to issue) "any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization" if the public entity or an employee of the public entity is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such a permit should be issued (Attachment A). I include a short article from the Berding and Weil law firm that summarizes case law showing how strongly California courts have stood by this government immunity (Attachment B). This immunity has stood up because of strong public policy that discretionary government decisions should be driven by the public interest, common sense, and consumer well-being rather than fear of liability and litigation. Consumer Protection Issue As a former city attorney, the only consumer protection issue that came to my mind could arise with a subsequent owner of the home. Hypothetically, a subsequent owner of that home, unaware that the breathable wall material is necessary to prevent water vapor from building up within the wood members of that wall, could modify the exterior with water tight materials and thereby cause the dreaded moisture build up. It would be within the purview of the Building Official to protect that future homeowner, the City, and the Duces by requiring recordation of a Disclosure Covenant using words like this: "The residence on this property was approved to use alternate methods and materials under California Building Code Section 1.8.7. The walls and roof members of the home on this property include hydraulic lime intended to remain porous to water vapor. The owner is warned that installation of water impermeable surface materials could trap water vapor in the wall or roof resulting in wood damage and rot to the interior structural members of the wall and the roof. Use of lime based exterior paints will provide appropriate surface porosity. The owner acknowledges the City of La Quinta is immune from liability by statute for its approval of the alternate materials and methods used, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the City of La Quinta harmless from any claims or actions that may result from the performance of the approved alternate materials or methods. This covenant shall run with the land and bind successive owners." TE Report The Transtech Engineers Report would be of little evidentiary value in a quasi-judicial proceeding, like an Appeals Board hearing because: 1. The TE Report does not analvze or even mention CBC Section R703.1.1 — the Building Code Section which requires a water tight barrier. The key question is whether use of a porous material surrounding wood structural members would provide equivalent protection from water vapor accumulation. Where is that discussion in the TE Report? 2. The TE Report does not evaluate or discuss the facts and data in the Duce Proposal. To address the CBC Section R703.1 question, an experienced building official would evaluate whether the proffered data and facts credibly show that hydraulic lime is porous to water vapor, whether the specific proposed VLW hydraulic lime meets the standards of porosity desired, and whether the cited sources credibly explain how the porous hydraulic lime can sustain low enough wood moisture equivalent (WME) to prevent wood mold and rot, despite the absence of a water tight barrier under CBC Section R703.1.1. All that information is in the Duce Proposal. Rather than discuss the facts and data, the TE Report spews out a bunch of bureaucratic "unknowns" i.e. chain of custody?, lack of established inspection and testing protocols?, materials interaction?, international sources of information?, jurisdictional risk management?, steep learning curve?. And does no substantive evaluation whatsoever. 3. The TE Report does not analyze the proposed testing protocols. Whatever the answers are to the TE Report parade of "unknowns", the proposed systematic measurement of wood moisture equivalent (WME) over the first three years will definitively determine whether the proposed alternate material and method of construction function equivalently to the protection provided by CBC Section R703.1. Instead, the TE Report concludes that if there were any value to use of hydraulic lime, the National Homebuilders, Perlite insulation or Masonry Association would have sprung for the substantial cost ($million?) of ASTM testing to approve it. Really? Everything worth inventing has already been invented and tested? Thank heavens Thomas Edison and Henry Ford got their work done before ASTM came along. Findings for Approval The key words in CBC Section 1.8.7 (Section [A]104.11 in the TE Report [2013 CBC]), are: "An alternate material, design, or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, and safety." In this case, given: a. The substantial evidence presented in the Duce Proposal; b. The short term impact on only the consumers who are the proponents; c. A Disclosure Covenant to warn and protect future owners of the home regarding appropriate maintenance; d. The existence of testing protocols and sensing equipment which will definitively determine whether the alternate material and method are performing equivalently; e. The existence of a condition requiring appropriate corrective action should the alternate materials and method not perform as required; and f. In the analogous situation of strawbale houses, and for the same reasons, the 2016 California Residential Building Code Appendix S, literally prohibits use of vapor retarders in a strawbale wall (Sections AS104.3 and AS104.4.1.). I.e. A water tight barrier is not required or even helpful in minimizing wood moisture in these equivalent circumstances. Based on the findings above, the building official can reasonably determine the requirements of CBC Section1.8.7. are met, subject to the reasonable conditions discussed above and in the Duce Proposal. Conclusion Additional structural and related studies and expertise, requiring money that the Duces cannot afford to waste, are awaiting resolution of this issue. Ken and Cathy Duce want to get their home built in a reasonable time. If the building official chooses not to approve the Duce Proposal, please consider this note as our appeal to the Appeals Board, and please get that process timely concluded. Sincerely, Peter MacDonald Land Use Attorney Note: Attachment 5 was "reserved" in the Duce Proposal because of a delay in getting the information into understandable form. Ken asked me to forward Attachment 5 to the Duce Proposal to you with these comments. Attachment 5 presents the results of saturation testing of perlite performed by Ken Duce in May 2016 to determine to his satisfaction that the perlite would dry out in a timely manner for the Duce wall system to perform as needed. For ease of reference, I also attach the TE Report, and a dropbox link to the attachments to the Duce Proposal (large file size). https://www.droi3box.com/s/law8eacvl7w7h4n/Attachments%20- %20Duce%20Proposal.pdf?dl=0 Peter MacDonald Law Office of Peter MacDonald 400 Main Street, Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: 925.462.0191 Date: April 19, 2017 To: Burt Hanada, Building Official City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 From: Ken and Cathy Duce 48255 Monroe St., # 27 Indio, CA 92201 Phone: (406) 546-1785 Email: kencathyduce@yahoo.com Subject Property: 51335 Calle Hueneme La Quinta. 92253 APN. 770-163-017 Subject: Proposal to use alternate materials or methods of construction under California Building Code (CBC) Section 1.8.7. Introduction We are proposing to use alternate materials or methods of construction for our proposed home at 51335 Calle Hueneme. Our wall design and roof detail are shown in Attachments 1 and 2, pdf pp. 1 — 2. (the "Duce Wall System") The Duce Wall System is based on extensive use of hydraulic limes produced by Virginia Lime Works (VLW). In a preliminary comment, the initial concerns raised by Building Department Staff were as follows: "After review of your submittal there is still a lack of evidence to issue a building permit based on the alternative designs proposed. Our main concern is the absence of a water -resistive barrier on the exterior walls of the home. Traditionally, the Code utilizes this water resistive barrier to protect the components of the wall assembly. Our concerns are for these wall components, and how exactly the proposed design will perform. Under the proposed design the wood studs are susceptible to the exposure of moisture, thus potentially causing decay, mold growth, etc. These wood materials may retain moisture, even if contained within materials that "breathe, " such as the perlite insulation. With no testing of the performance of this assembly it is difficult to confirm that equivalence of the code requirements will be reached or exceeded. " The CBC Section referenced by the Staff comment as requiring a water resistive barrier is CBC Section R703.1.1 (Attachment 3, pdf p.3). CBC Section 1.8.7 Proposal: Duce Page 2 Summary of Response Those initial Staff concerns are addressed by a panel of building experts in the building science literature (in our attachments). In the excerpts quoted below, these building scientists explain the functionality of hydraulic lime. The interior wood wall components at issue are the 2x4 wood members which support the exterior wall stucco, and the wood rafters, bearing plates and roof decking shown in the roof structure. With the information provided, a building official can reasonably make the determination that the Duce Wall System meets the CBC requirement for protection of interior wood wall components from moisture. In summary: 1. Functionality. The high porosity of hydraulic lime allow it to absorb and release moisture at a rate sufficient to wick away any moisture above ambient (safe) levels in the wood members of the wall and roof assembly. 2. Testing Proqram. To document the superior performance of the Duce Wall System, we propose a testing program to systematically measure the moisture content of the wood members hourly over the first three years. Although highly unlikely, if a moisture buildup did occur, we would collaborate with the Building Official to propose appropriate action to address the moisture problem. 1. Functionality a. Lonq Historv. Roman walls made of hydraulic lime have lasted for over 2000 years. Revie, "Hydraulic Lime Binders, History and Comparison" (Attachment 4,) In 2004, in Merida, Spain, and elsewhere, we visited and were amazed by many completely functional Roman walls built in the time of Christ. Current European building codes have incorporated standard procedures for use of hydraulic and natural hydraulic limes (EN459 European Norms for Natural Hydraulic Limes). This is a proven building material and wall design. b. Environmental Benefits. As an incidental benefit, production and use of lime mortar uses less than half as much CO2 as Portland cement. Derived from Attachment 4, at pdf p. 14: Net Kg CO2/metric ton: Portland cement 819; lime 336. Moreover, while lime concrete lacks the strength of Portland cement, (and strength is not at issue here), lime concrete has lower water content protecting it from daily and annual shrink -swell cycles that limit the useful life of Portland cement structures to only 100 years, or much less. c. Riqht Climate. We probably don't need to produce reams of data to convince a La Quinta official that La Quinta has a hot dry climate. Officially, La Quinta is in Climate Zone 3B, comparable to Las Vegas and Fresno. (Attachment 6 at pdf p. 20.) This is important because, as Lstiburek points out in "Wood Durabilty" (Attachment 7 at pdf p. 26), the places where internal rotting of wall materials have occurred are notably more humid climates, CBC Section 1.8.7 Proposal: Duce Page 3 such as Vancouver and South Carolina. The problems in each case involved build up of moisture because an outer surface material impermeable to water vapor prevented the escape of water vapor. With reasonable porosity, as Lstiburek recommends for Las Vegas at pdf p. 29, then La Quinta is a safe and ideal location in which to test the viability of an alternate method of controlling moisture build up in wall and roof structures. d. Breathability. The Key issue -Three points: i. higher porosity. Hydraulic limes are far more porous than Portland cement: A. Staub BSD 112: Building Science for Strawbale Homes at pdf p. 34 of Attachment 8. "The vapour permeance for 25 mm (one inch) thick cement -based stucco tends to lie in the range of 200 to 500 metric perms (ng/Pa s m2) or 4 to 9 US perms. The addition of lime tends to increase the vapour permeance to the range of 400 to about 800 perms or 7 to 14 US perms. Pure lime and earth stuccos have an even higher vapour permeance, of as much as 1000 perms (18 USperms)." (See Attachment 9 at p. 41 for definitions of perms, and explanation of metric perms vs. US perms. We gather from the information that perms measure the flow of water vapor through a material, while coefficient of saturation (CoS) and porosity measure characteristics of the material —which characteristics strongly influence the vapor permeance of that material.) ii. the value of porosity. A. Livesey in "Building Limes in the United Kingdom" Attachment 10 at pdf p. 45, explains the advantage of limes' higher porosity as follows: "Lime applied as mortar or render benefits from the superior permeable and flexible properties. The first thought in making a building resistant to water ingress is usually to apply a waterproof coating in the form of paint, cement render or some other coating product or system. However, the problem with these is that inevitably there will be some movement or deterioration that will result in cracks, allowing the ingress of water liquid or vapour. As the crack is a miniscule part of the structure, water is prevented from release by evaporation through the remaining impervious coating, causing the internal concentration to grow with subsequent onset of internal damp, rot and loss of the thermal insulation properties reducing building efficiency. Fort Washington slides of stone with p. c. mortar and lime leaching Lime, however, allows a building to `breathe'. In wet conditions, water is absorbed into the wall but, as soon as the rain stops, the movement is reversed, accelerated by wind, and the wall dries out, thus preventing dampness and rot. Similar advantages are to be found with regard to structural movement either from ground conditions or solar effects. The flexibility of a lime mortar reduces the risk of cracking and the ability of lime to heal cracks autogenously by precipitation of calcium carbonate helps to seal those cracks that do occur. Again, overall weather tightness is retained. " B. Lstiburek, "Wood Durability, Research Report — 0997", Attachment 7, at pdf p. MCI CBC Section 1.8.7 Proposal: Duce Page 4 "It has become obvious from our investigations, field research and laboratory testing that most wall assemblies leak rain water and furthermore that most wall assemblies have always historically leaked rain water. The reason that traditional wall assemblies have provided successful performance in the past, is that although rain wetting occurred, the rain wetting was followed by hygric redistribution and drying to both interior and exterior environments. Poorly insulated or uninsulated assemblies constructed in a leaky (to air) manner with vapor permeable materials (no polyethylene, vinyl wall coverings or foam sheathings) that did not loose their water repellency (no plastic housewraps)dried before problems arose." C. Staub BSD 112: Building Science for Strawbale Homes in Attachment 8: At pdf p. 10: "If a balance between wetting and drying is maintained, moisture will not accumulate over time, and moisture - related problems are unlikely. " At pdf p. 12: "Providing a water-resistant barrier (drainage plane) behind the stucco is not practical in strawbale construction because it breaks the structural bond between the plaster and the strawbale and reduces the ability of a wall to dry outward. " At pdf p. 12: "The condensation surface in cold weather is usually the back of the sheathing in framed walls, or the back of the stucco in a strawbale wall. Any moisture that condenses here must dry to the outside. This occurs in sheathed walls by drying directly to the outside via ventilation of the cladding. In strawbale walls, condensate will be wicked into the plaster, and will subsequently evaporate from the exterior surface. This is an efficient drying mechanism. Placing building paper between the stucco and the straw will eliminate this condensation -wicking - drying mechanism and force any water to evaporate through the building paper and the full thickness of the stucco. " iii. Verified porosity of VLW limes. At Attachments 4, and 11 to 15, we include and highlight the results of testing of (Virginia Lime Works) VLW hydraulic limes by Construction Materials Consultants, Bill Revie, Materials and Testing Engineer. VLW hydraulic limes meet the adopted European standards for NHL 3.5 (Attachment 4, pdf p. 16). Also, meets ASTM C 1707-09 Spec (Attachment 14 at pdf p. 60 and Attachment16 at pdf p. 63) In the key result, the porosity for the tested VLW hydraulic limes is at 23% to 26%, all with a saturation coefficient (CoS) of 97% (Attachment 11 at pdf p. 49). This is explained by the tester, Bill Revie, Attachment 15, at pdf p. 62, as follows: "The porosity values are a measure of the total void space in the material and the coefficient of saturation (CoS)is a measure of the connectivity of the pores. A CoS value of 1.0 would indicate a well connectedpore structure and that moisture could migrate through the fabric easily, the size of the pores restricting the movement of water but allow the flow of moisture vapour; whereas a value of 0.2 would suggest a very poorly connected pore structure, in a fabric that will not wet readily, but if it does it will not dry easily [our comment: i.e. Portland cement mortar]. There is no direct correlation between the porosity and perms. The main benefit of using lime mortar in CBC Section 1.8.7 Proposal: Duce Page 5 renders and plasters were to act as poultices and help dry the wet walls as built and to limit water penetration, but not waterproof them, but let them breathe. If the timber is in a breathing wall it will not saturate and therefore will not rot." [bold face is added because that sentence summarizes our key point] 2. Testing Program a. Standard of Performance – What to test for? From the materials provided, we have a number of statements regarding the degree of moisture buildup necessary to threaten mold or rotting of wood members in a wall: i. Revie, March 14, 2017 email, Attachment 15 at pdf p. 61 "... wood only rots because the moisture content reaches a level to support rot which over here is 24% with the "At risk" band set between 17 and 22% with a high risk of rot between 22 and 24%. A well constructed lime mortar wall should not reach levels above 7% WME (wood Moisture Equivalent). " As explained by Livesy, Lsitiburek, and Staub in 1.d.ii. above, it is prolonged exposure to "at risk" levels of WME that leads to wood rot, not short term peaks in WME. ii. Staub BSD 112: Building Science for Strawbale Homes in Attachment 8: Atpdf p34: "Water vapour is stored in strawbales in the same way as wood or cellulose insulation, e.g., in the winter the equilibrium moisture content will be about 8-12% moisture content by dU weight, and the moisture content can rise to at least 20% before moisture problems begin. Hence, for a 8 pcf bale, more than 1 pound of water in vapour form can safely be stored per square foot of wall area." At pdf p. 34: "Different materials have different moisture performance thresholds. Corrosion of steel occurs as a function of its time of wetness (how many hours per year is it damp) the salt content of the vapour (e.g. from the ocean or deicing salts), the acid content of the vapour (from industry) and the temperature (the warmer the faster corrosion occurs). Corrosion begins at a surface relative humiditv of over 80%RH. Mould growth on wood and straw can occur when either is exposed to prolonged periods over 80%RH (about 20% moisture content). Wood rots if exposed to liquid water or over 950loRH for several months at warm temperatures. We know that wood will not rot below about 28 to 30% moisture content. It is believed that straw will rot at a slightly lower moisture content because of its much higher surface area." At pdf p. 36: "Safe storage capacity depends on the material. Wood and straw can generally store about 20% moisture by weight without danger of mold growth. Steel cannot store any water safely—hence, any water in the studspace can immediately act to corrode the steel. The ability to safely store significant amounts of moisture means that the drying period can occur a long time after wetting, perhaps several months. This improves the chance of a moisture balance being struck. " CBC Section 1.8.7 Proposal: Duce Page 6 In conclusion, the most conservative standard suggested by the authorities was in the Revie Email cited above as: "At Risk" Band: 17% to 22% WME (wood moisture equivalent). "High Risk" Band: Greater than 22% WME. That is the standard we propose to use in our testing program. b. Testinq Plan — Testing and Monitoring of Moisture and Water Vapor Movement Moisture monitoring probes will be placed on wood studs in representative areas, 12 inches above the treated sill plates for the most accurate representation of the moisture content in the studs. Moisture probes will also be placed in representative places in the 4x4 wood bearing plates on the ceiling slab and in the wood rafters and wood roof decking. In addition, temperature/humidity probes will be placed in 2 to 3 key places in the wall and ceiling roof assemblies in the house walls and roof, the garage walls and roof and the light and ventilation shaft walls and roof. These are done to show the direction of the flow of water vapor through the assembly — either into the air or into the interior of the house. We are working now with Omni -Sense and RDH Building Science Corporation on their building monitoring systems, picking one for a 3 year monitoring and evaluation of the data for determining possibilities of rot or moisture problems anywhere in the building envelope. An example of the kind of wood moisture equivalent sensors that are readily available is included as Attachment 17 at pdf p. 64. When we have determined the technical options available, the Building Official can specify the reporting schedule on test results to be provided to the City, and the format (digital, paper, or both). The Testing Plan will be finalized subject to approval of the Building Official prior to issuance of a building permit. CBC Section 1,8.7 Proposal. Duce Page 7 Summation Your timely and favorable consideration and approval of the proposed Duce Wall System will be sincerely appreciated. RespectfuIIy submitted Catherine E Duce Approved: enneth B. Duce Burt Hanada, Building Official Date CBC Section 1.8.7 Proposal: Duce Page 8 List of Attachments: PDF Page Attachment 1. Duce Wall System, Section 1 1 Attachment 2. Duce Wall System, Section 2 2 Attachment 3. California Building Code Section R703.1.1 Water barrier. 3 Attachment 4. Hydraulic Lime Binders, History and Comparison. Bill Revie 8 Attachment 5. Reserved 19 Attachment 6. All About Climate Zones, Green Building Advisor 20 Attachment 7. Wood Durability, Research Report — 0997, Joseph Lstiburek 26 Attachment 8. SBSD 112: Building Science for Strawbale Homes, John Staub, 33 Building Science Corporation Attachment 9. Perms defined and explained, Wikipedia 39 Attachment 10. Building Limes in the United Kingdom, Paul Livesly 41 Attachment 11. VLW Porosity and Saturation Coefficient Test, 49 Construction Materials Consultants Attachment 12. VLW Pozzolanic Limes, Construction Materials Consultants 50 Attachment 13. Notes on Lime Binder Differences. Construction Materials 56 Consultants Attachment 14. VLW Hydraulic Lime Analysis by Graymont Lime Company 60 Attachment 15. March 14, 2017 Email, Bill Revie 61 Attachment 16. ASTM Specification for Pozzolanic Hydraulic Lime C 1707-09 63 Attachment 17. Example Wood Moisture Equivalent Sensor 66 PDF page numbers appear in red numbers at the bottom of each page. I Ilk aaruszow y p x U J N � a VQ vi N oz a mLL0 u ❑� Y u W O Z ❑ a V a ❑* = V F d vSdN� N rU W'f"❑ nzV xqz �zV� W.iasN_ a � u maW� T. �iiF x y V0uj Q c Q W N N w I W O f J W w Fm m C o� p � � W w V 2 z �afl 7 t'V aaw E v0� Q a 2 E � )§ e \/(§ 3 ui 2�2] Z \ e2 §� S )�\ k e X22§ \§2 aq e Attachment 3 SECTION R703 EXTERIOR COVERING R703.1 General. Exterior walls shall provide the building with a weather -resistant exterior wall envelope. The exterior wall envelope shall include flashing as described in Section R703.8. R703.1.1 Water resistance. The exterior wall envelope shall be designed and constructed in a manner that prevents the accumulation of water within the wall assembly by providing a water-resistant barrier behind the exterior veneer as required by Section R703.2 and a means of draining to the exterior water that enters the assembly. Protection against condensation in the exterior wall assembly shall be provided in accordance with the California Energy Code. Exceptions: 1. A weather -resistant exterior wall envelope shall not be required over concrete or masonry walls designed in accordance with Chapter 6 and flashed according to Section R703.7 or R703.8. 2. Compliance with the requirements for a means of drainage, and the requirements of Sections R703.2 and R703.8, shall not be required for an exterior wall envelope that has been demonstrated 3 to resist wind -driven rain through testing of the exterior wall envelope, including joints, penetrations and intersections with dissimilar materials, in accordance with ASTM E 331 under the following conditions: 2.1. Exterior wall envelope test assemblies shall include at least one opening, one control joint, one wall/eave interface and one wall silL An tested openings and penetrations shall be representative of the intended end-use configuration. 2.2. Exterior wall envelope test assemblies shall be at least 4 feet by 8 feet (1219 mm by 2438 mm) in size. 2.3. Exterior wall assemblies shall be tested at a minimum differential pressure of 6.24 pounds per square foot (299 Pa). 2.4. Exterior wall envelope assemblies shall be subjected to the minimum test exposure for a minimum of 2 hours. The exterior wall envelope design shall be considered to resist wind -driven rain where the results of testing indicate that water did not penetrate control joints in the exterior wall envelope, joints at the perimeter of openings penetration or intersections of terminations with dissimilar materials. 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 approved water -resistive barrier shall be applied over studs or sheathing of all exterior walls. Such felt or material shall be applied horizontally, with the upper layer lapped over the lower layer not less than 2 inches z 4 (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 of walls 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. Exception: Omission of the water -resistive barrier is permitted in the following situations: 1. In detached accessory buildings. 2. Under exterior wall finish materials as permitted in Table R703.4. 3. Under paperbacked stucco lath when the paper backing is an approved water -resistive barrier. R703.6 Exterior plaster. Installation of these materials shall be in compliance with ASTM C 926 and ASTM C 1063 and the provisions of this code. R703.6.1 Lath. All lath and lath attachments shall be of corrosion -resistant materials. Expanded metal or woven wire lath shall be attached with 11 /2-inch-Iong (3 8 mm), 11 gage nails having a 7/16 -inch (11.1 mm) head, or 7/g -inchlong (22.2 mm), 16 gage staples, spaced at no more than 6 inches (152 mm), or as otherwise approved. R703.6.2 Plaster. Plastering with portland cement plaster shall be not less than three coats when applied over metal lath or wire lath and shall be not less than two coats when appJied over masonry, concrete, pressure -preservative treated wood or decay -resistant wood as specified in Section R3I7.I or gypsum backing. If the plaster surface is completely covered by veneer or other facing material or is completely concealed, plaster application need be only two coats, provided the total thickness is as set forth in Table R702.1(1). On wood -frame construction with an on -grade floor 3 5 slab system, exterior plaster shall be applied to cover, but not extend below, lath, paper and screed. The proportion of aggregate to cementitious materials shall be as set forth in Table R702.I(3). R703.6.2.1 Weep screeds. A minimum 0.019 -inch (0.5 mm) (No. 26 galvanized sheet gage), corrosion -resistant weep screed or plastic weep screed, with a minimum vertical attachment flange of 31 / 2 inches (89 mm) shall be provided at or below the foundation plate line on exterior stud walls in accordance with ASTM C 926. The weep screed shall be placed a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) above the earth or 2 inches (51 mm) above paved areas and shall be of a type that will allow trapped water to drain to the exterior of the building. The weather -resistant barrier shall lap the attachment flange. The exterior lath shall cover and terminate on the attachment flange of the weep screed. R703.6.3 Water -resistive barriers. Water -resistive barriers shall be installed as required in Section R703.2 and, where applied over wood -based sheathing, shall include a water -resistive vapor -permeable barrier with a performance at least equivalent to two layers of Grade D paper. The individual layers shall be installed independently such that each layer provides a separate continuous plane and any flashing (installed in accordance with Section R703.8) intended to drain to the water -resistive barrier is directed between the layers. Exception: Where the water -resistive barrier that is applied over wood -based sheathing has a water resistance equal to or greater than that of 60 -minute Grade D paper and is separated from the stucco by an intervening, substantially non water -absorbing layer or designed drainage space. 4 6 R703.6.4 Application. Each coat shall be kept in a moist condition for at least 48 hours prior to application of the next coat. Exception: Applications installed in accordance with ASTMC926. R703.6. S Curing. The finish coat for two -coat cement plaster shall not be applied sooner than seven days after application of the first coat. For three -coat cement plaster, the second coat shall not be applied sooner than 48 hours after application of the first coat. The finish coat for threecoat cement plaster shall not be applied sooner than seven days after application of the second coat. 5 7 Attachment 4 Hydraulic Lime Binders, History and Comparison Bill Revie, Construction Materials Consultants Ltd. Lime Lime has been used as a binder in mortar and concrete for centuries with records detailing its use by the Greeks, with the earliest examples being found in Crete, from where it is indicated the Romans learnt the technique of burning lime and using this, in association with certain volcanic materials, to produce a "mortar" which could be used to bond stone and both set and perform, as stone, under water. To this day there are examples of Roman concrete which still exist and retain inclusions of uncarbonated lime, demonstrating that when produced and compacted a material both resistant to water permeability and erosion can be made. Detailed information on the sampling and analysis of materials from marine structures dating from the Roman period can be obtained from "The Roman Maritime Concrete Study" Journal of Mediterranean Geography, January 2009, index 1952, p25-29. Although high calcium (pure) lime mortars were those first employed by the Greeks, and that this was made by burning limestone and slaking the product, to produce a good building material the Greeks also found that by mixing lime with finely ground volcanic ash they produced a much stronger material which set under water (which non -hydraulic lime does not). For this purpose the Greeks used the volcanic tuff from the island of Thera (now called Santorin), which is still used to this day, in the Mediterranean and is supplied as a pozzolana under the term "Santorin Earth". The Roman builders used a similar material from the volcanic Tuff found in and around the Bay of Naples, with the best form of this finely ground volcanic rock originally coming from Pozzuoli (Puteoli) from where the term Pozzolana is derived. Vitruvius Pollio wrote in his Treatise on Architecture "There is a species of sand which, naturally, posses extraordinary qualities. It is found under Baix and the territory in the neighbourhood of Mount Vesuvius; if mixed with lime and rubble, it hardens as well under water as in ordinary building". The Romans later found that by adding ground pottery and tile the same properties could be produced. The original volcanic ash used as a Pozzolana has an approximate composition to rhyolite and reacts with lime and water, i.e. calcium hydroxide, to produce calcium silicate hydrates and calcium aluminium hydrates, the building blocks of a hydraulic binding material. Pozzolana — is a term now used for all materials having the valuable properties similar to those of the rhyolite ash and which help buffer the pH of the pore fluids in mortar and concrete. Many major structures from this period which were built from Lime, Pozzolana and Aggregate mixes, including the Pantheon Dome, survive to this today. Concrete Concrete of the form employed by the Romans was used successfully throughout Europe and the Middle East, for. centuries, many examples which remain today. With examples of concrete breakwaters, canals aqueducts and harbours still in existence in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean isles. This form of concrete was generally made following the methods developed at that time and things did not change significantly until 1756 when Smeaton built the third Eddystone lighthouse. Initially the works commenced using a mixture of pure lime and Dutch Tarras (from Andernach on the Rhine) and finally a burnt argillaceous limestone from Wales (a hydraulic lime) and an Italian Pozzolana from Civita Vecchia were used. And although the latter produced a superior concrete, this form of binder was really only a hydraulic lime and not a "cement", as we know it now. Page 1 of 12 93 This mixture was eminently hydraulic meaning that it set under water and produced a strong concrete, but it was not a cement, as it is currently defined. In fact the term "cement" in its Late Latin or Old French forms was employed to describe what later became known as mortar, i.e. a mixture of lime sand and water, and, therefore, this has to be borne in mind when reading early text on the subject of lime cement and concretes. Following this development of utilising hydraulic and modified limes, by the addition of pozzolanas, to achieve concrete that would set under water and give early setting properties, there were many further developments in the search for a fast setting strong binder that would work equally well both in a concrete or mortar placed in air and under water. Such as "Natural Cement" and the so called "Roman Cements" the latter patented by James Parker in 1798, was made by calcining nodules of argillaceous limestone, known as Septaria. This was used by Thomas Telford to build the Pier at Lochbay in Skye in 1796-1802, which is a development on the technology used to build the harbour at Cromarty by John Smeaton in 1781-84, where a mixture of hydraulic lime and trass (Tarras) was employed, which in itself was a continuation of the technology developed on the Eddystone Lighthouse. However, it was not until Joseph Aspdin patented his "Portland Cement" on the 21st October 1824, which was for a mixture of hard limestone and clay, which was ground and calcined to produce a material that was the forerunner of today's modern Portland cement. The name Portland Cement was given to the material by Aspdin as the set material was similar to Portland stone, in colour. As Portland Stone had a high reputation for quality and durability and Aspdin wished that reputation to be extended to his product. During the late 18th and early 19th centuries natural pozzolanas were widely used in engineering works, with materials being imported from a selection of areas, including pozzolana, which came from Puozzoli, in Italy, volvic pozzolan from South-east France, trass from the Rhinelands and tuff from the Aegean Islands, with crushed pumice also being imported to the UK for this purpose. Subsequently the pozzolana was added to natural hydraulic limes as it became recognised as this blend of active ingredients when mixed with sand and aggregate produced a "concrete" that was particularly appropriate for marine engineering works and in difficult wet conditions. Concretes and mortars made from modified hydraulic lime binders were used extensively in the construction of canals, both in Scotland (including the Caledonian canal 1803-1822) and in the industrial areas of England, in railway tunnels and bridges until the development and production of, initially, Natural and Roman cements, and latterly, by Portland Cements. Therefore, there is a great industrial heritage, still in existence, where significant engineering construction was carried out employing "lime" based mortars and concretes. This period also coincided with the construction boom in America associated both with the industrialisation of the country and the demand for coastal fortifications. Much of the Page 2 of 12 0 development work undertaken to devise mortars, concrete and masonry construction for use in military construction is detailed in "Practical Treatise on Limes, Hydraulic Cements, and Mortars" by Q A Gillmore, of the US Army Corps of Engineers, published 1861, with this mirroring the development of binders in Europe and documented in "A practical and scientific Treatise on calcareous Mortars and Cements, artificial and natural" by L J Vicat, published 1837. One of the earliest examples of Lime Concrete is that used to form a Fishermans cottage on the banks of the Euphrates River, dating back 11000 years with a polished lime concrete floor recently being uncovered at Yifta El, in Northern Israel, dating back 9000 years. Therefore, it is of no surprise that there is an abundance of Greek and Roman examples of lime concrete construction remaining to stand testament to the durability of this material, not to forget the later constructions of the industrial revolution, which initially employed the same basic technology. Why use Lime in preference to Cement. There are three main aspects that were considered in the decision to use lime in this project: i. Energy Conservation ii. Historical appropriateness iii. Environmental compatibility Energy. It is documented that the energy consumed in the production of lime is significantly less than that used in the production of Portland cements. In addition the carbon dioxide (CO2) generated by both processes is significantly different with the added benefit that lime based binders re -absorb a significant quantity of this CO2 during their hardening and maturing, relative to that re -absorbed by Portland cement binders. Non hydraulic lime is produced by burning limestone, marble or shell, dependent on the available form of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) or magnesium carbonate (Ca,Mg(CO)3) available, at temperatures in the region of 700 to 750°C. During burning carbon dioxide is released leaving pure lime, in the form of quicklime (CaO). The lime can be, and was historically, used in the form of a quicklime, where it is added to damp sand and aggregate and the binder allowed to slake along with the aggregate. It is used in the form of a pre -slaked material (putty lime) or as a hydrate (powder). The reactions occurring during the burning, slaking and subsequent carbonation being as follows: Production CaCO3 Limestone Heat Processing/use CaO + H2O Lime + Water Carbonation, hardening Ca(OH)2 (Portlandite) CO2 CaO + CO2 Lime (quicklime) Carbon Dioxide —No. Ca(OH)2 (Hydrated lime, or Lime Putty Calcium Hydroxide (Portlandite) dependent on quantity of water added) C Carbon Dioxide (environmental) CaCO3 + H2O Limestone Water Non -hydraulic limes stiffen by loss of moisture and harden in response to the absorption of carbon dioxide. Therefore, mortars and concrete made from pure limes will not harden unless they can re -absorb carbon dioxide from the air (i.e. carbonation), and hence the reason that they are called Air limes (refer to BS EN 459). They are commonly produced from the burning and slaking of calcareous/dolomitic limestone, with little or no silica, alumina or iron oxide present in the feed stock. Page 3 of 12 10 A stone is classed as calcareous when it contains more than 50% calcium carbonate (CaCO3), with this forming the bulk of the rock used in lime production in the UK, whereas, elsewhere dolomitic rocks abound and in those locations the bulk of the lime used in construction are dolomitic limes, as in the USA. The main components of Air limes are : Calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) - 70 to 95% Residual limestone (CaCO3) — remainder. The hardening is slow and can be further impeded in the presence of moisture, where the presence of a water film inhibits the re -absorption of CO2. Therefore, in the wet state they cannot absorb carbon dioxide and they will not harden and thereby cannot be employed in wet conditions. It was the need to find a resolution to this problem that resulted in the discovery that when pozzolanas were added to lime mixes they produced a material that would harden and set in wet environments and under water. This property was also later found to be present in limes produced by burning impure limestone, i.e. one that contained a proportion of clay, or other silicates and aluminates (from feldspar, etc.). These form the binders known as Natural Hydraulic Limes. Hydraulic limes are so called because they set in contact with water, with a degree of secondary hardening also likely when in contact with air as they also contain a proportion of Air lime (CaO) in their composition. They are produced by the burning and slaking of calcareous stone containing silica, alumina and occasionally iron. As little as 2% silica is sufficient to produce hydraulic properties in the lime. It is the burning of the impure limestone at temperatures in the region of 900 to 1100°C that result in the formation of the reactive ingredients, these are typically: Dominated by Belite (di -Calcium silicate) Free Lime (Calcium hydroxide) Trace proportions of Alite (tri -Calcium silicate — formed in hot spots within the kiln) Calcium aluminates (typically 2%) Ferrites (typically <1%) Page 4 of 12 11 In addition a proportion of amorphous silica i.e. that which has not reacted with calcium during calcining, will also be present in the form of glass, and this will act as a natural pozzolana. The reactions are: detailed below: REACTIONS OF LIMESTONE WITH CLAY (MARL) IN A LIME KILN Heat 2A1203ASiO2.41-12O s 2A1203 + 4SiO2 + 4H2O.............................................1 Kaolinite alumina silica water CaCO3s Cao + CO2................................................................................. 2 I Limestone 25102 + SCaO S 3CaO.Si02 (C3S) + 2CaO.Si02 (C2S)........... 3 Tri -calcium silicate Di -calcium silicate (Al te) (Be ite) A1203 + 3CaO s 3Ca0.A1203.......................................................................4 Tri -calcium aluminate (C3A) ON HYDRATION 3CaO.A1203 + 12H2O S CaO.A1203. (OH) ,o (CAH10) + 2Ca(OH) 2 (CH2)..... 5 Calcium aluminium oxide hydrate calcium hydroxide (Portlandite) 3CaO.SiO2 + xH2O s "C -S -H" + Ca(OH)2.....................................................6 2CaO.SiO2 + xH2O S "C -S -H" + Ca(OH)2.......................................................7 NB In addition to the silica and alumina hydrates, Ca (OH)2 is produced in all the hydration reactions of equations 5,6&7. The more hydraulic the lime the greater the content of Belite and Aluminates present, and often a higher Alite content. The latter in response to the higher the burning temperatures employed, with temperatures up to 1100°C commonly reached in modern kilns. All kilns have hot spots in which cintering temperatures can be reached, and in these locations glass phases can form, along with Alite. The reactions resulting from the heating (Calcining) of the impure limestone are complex and are covered in detail in many textbooks on the subject of cement chemistry; however, a clear description of the reactions is given in the SLCT publication "How Hydraulic Lime Binders Work", by Dr Alan Forster. Calcining pure limestone at temperatures below 1000°C produces fat lime (Air Lime); in hydraulic limes there is included clay mineral (hydrated aluminosilicates) `d quartz (silica) in the limestone feedstock. Natural cement has marl as raw material and, in some cases; it may be calcined at higher temperature, but still below the clinkering temperature of 1450°C, the temperature above which it is necessary to burn the feedstock in the production of Portland cements. Page 5 of 12 12 Reactions below 1300°C a) The decomposition of calcite (calcining) b) The decomposition of clay minerals (dehydration with loss of structure) c) Reaction of calcite, or the lime formed from it, with quartz and clay mineral decomposition products to give Belite, lime, aluminate and ferrite. The schematic diagram below shows the general phase relationships (after Wolter, A. [1985] Zem. -Kalk-Gips V.38, p. 612): Hvdraulic Limes /x4 Natural Cements CALCITE i LIKE 19E�sTE 10UART7 CLAY MINERALS 19011 0300ES •— �' RIS. ERRITE Calcite Dissociation T° at Atmospheric Pressure. ALITE L 11MIKATE LIQUID ERRITE �o� - goo - rtoo caaur� TEMPERATURE ;'CF The overlain Mineral Composition — Temperature fields for hydraulic limes and natural cements are those dictated by phasal compositions of the products and the dissociation temperatures of calcite and clay minerals at atmospheric pressure. Temperature (°C) 700 800 882 900 Dissociation P (bars) 0.04 0.27 1.00 1.30 According to this scenario, hydraulic limes will contain Belite but no Alite and the proportion of Belite will increase with increase in clay mineral in the feedstock, however, in reality there is always a proportion of Alite formed, in response to hot spots in the kiln, with the hydraulicity of the increasing with an increase in both clay content and the increase in temperature. The main difference between Hydraulic Limes, Natural Cements and Portland Cements, in addition to the elevated temperatures required to produce Portland cements (typically 1450°C) are that in the latter the proportions of the raw materials added to the kiln are selected or designed and blended to increase the proportion of aluminates present, in the production of Natural cements, and to increase the components necessary to ensure that an adequate proportion of Belite and Alite are present in the production of Portland cements. Page 6 of 12 13 Gypsum (calcium sulphate) is also added to the Portland cement clinker, as a retarder, when the clinker is ground to produce the cement powder, otherwise a flash set would occur on the addition of water, this is not required in hydraulic limes and is not added to Natural cements or Roman cements'. The energy required to produce lime in comparison to cement is shown below: Energy Material Portland Cement Hydrated Lime (Air Lime) CL90 Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL 2.5 Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL3.5 Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL 5 (Data provided by St Astier) Kilowatts/hour/Tonne of Binder 120 50 28 25 27 The reason for the reduced energy requirement in the production of hydraulic lime is both the lower burning temperaturc and the fact that the reaction between the silica and lime, in the formation of the hydraulic phases, is exothermic, whereas, the de -carbonation of limestone, as in the production of Air lime, is purely endothermic. Emissions In the production of binders the following CO2 is emitted: including that from burning fuel & de -carbonation. Material Portland Cement Hydrated Lime (Air Lime) CL90 Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL 2.5 Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL3.5 Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL 5 (Data provided by St Astier) CO2 kg/Tonne of Binder Emission during Production Re -absorbed 819 Negligible 872 535 660 320 606 270 635 220 From the above it can be seen that the lime based binders use both less energy in their production and that they produce less net pollution, in the form of CO2 emissions than Portland cement binders. Pozzolanic Limes Where the components are either not present, to permit a natural hydraulic lime to be produced, or for economic reasons its production would be not be viable, there is another option, and that is to go back and adopt the early Greek or Roman approach and add a pozzolana to a non -hydraulic lime, thereby producing a pozzolanic lime, or hydraulic Lime (HL. grade lime). This is the basis of the HL limes produced by Virginia Lime Works (VLW).. In the United States no NHL grade limes are produced at present, with all of those currently available being imported mostly from Europe. This increases the cost, both with respect to the financial impact on the projects on which they are used, but more critically it increases the carbon footprint of these projects, particularly when the costs of transport (Carbon miles) are included in the calculations. As an importer user and supplier of Lime materials VLW could understand the detrimental effect of this on both individual projects, but more significantly, the ultimate impact on the environment. Therefore the decision was made to produce a lime that would perform as well as the Natural Hydraulic Limes, but without the added financial or environmental costs. Page 7 of 12 14 VLW already had experience in the production of high quality High Calcium quicklime, which was produced both from a local limestone and from oyster shell. These products were used both by themselves and others mostly in the form of Lime putty, for use in quality plasterwork and in the conservation of non -hydraulic lime mortars. However, as there was no local deposits that would be suitable for the production of a NHL product in their kilns, and as there was no producer of NHL in the US, it was decided to look to history and learn from the past and produce a hydraulic lime based on a pozzolana. After some research and carrying out a number of trials, involving different lime types, including their own product, and a selection of different forms of pozzolana, VLW found that a blend of their selected pozzolana and a readily available Dolomitic SA lime. This achieved a binder that both imparted a good degree of workability to the fresh mortars in which it was included, due to the high free lime content of the mix and the dolomitic nature of the lime, which also aided in the development of excellent adhesion properties, a function of Dolomitic and high Calcium limes. The mortars were found to provide adequate strength, with a rate of strength gain in line with modern NHL grade materials. The mortars also display good durability, due to the entrained air imparted by the air entrainer added to the SA lime. The lime mortars produced from this lime displayed porosity characteristics in line with most NHL grade limes, and in thin section a high connected pore structure is apparent. Analysis by X-ray diffraction on hydrated samples confirmed that the pozzolana reacts with the lime producing the calcium silicate hydrates required to impart a measure of hydraulicity to the binder. For comparison with other Hydraulic limes and natural Hydraulic Limes samples of VLW binders were analysed, with the following results: Ref. BL150 30.4 C2S Ref. BL200 Ca(OH)2 40.9 Chemical composition (%w/w) Ca Mg(OH)2 Chemical composition (%w/ w) 16.4 SiO2 11.40 10.59 SiO2 11.15 10.43 Al2O3 3.76 3.49 Al2O3 5.09 4.76 Fe2O3 0.41 0.38 Fe2O3 0.24 0.22 CaO 47.18 43.85 CaO 46.67 43.66 MgO 24.49 22.76 MgO 24.86 23.26 K2O 0.11 0.10 K2O 0.11 0.10 Na2O 0.05 0.05 Na2O 0.10 0.09 TiO 0.18 0.17 TiO 0.16 0.15 MnO 0.15 0.14 MnO 0.14 0.13 P205 0.01 0.01 P205 0.05 0.05 SO3 0.62 0.58 SO3 0.34 0.32 CI 0.04 0.04 CI 0.05 0.05 Loss On Ignition 19.20 17.84 Loss On Ignition 17.92 16.77 Total 107.60 100.00 Total 106.89 100.00 Compounds by calculation (%w/w Compounds by calculation (%w/w C2S 30.4 C2S 29.9 Ca(OH)2 40.9 Ca(OH)2 40.3 Ca Mg(OH)2 18.3 Ca Mg(OH)2 16.4 CaCO3 1.9 CaCO3 3.0 CaSO4 0.9 CaSO4 0.5 CAF 1.2 CAF 0.7 CA 4.1 CA 5.5 Total 97.6 Total 96.2 Page 8 of 12 15 Compounds by Wet Chemistry (%w/w Loss on Ignition 20.21 Insoluble residue 17.99 Soluble S03 0.52 Soluble CaO 38.79 Soluble Si02 2.07 Total 79.58 Available Lime as 0.39 Ca(OH)Z 32.20 Total Lime as Ca(OH)2 47.50 Compounds by XRD Analysis & Rietveld Refinement NHL3.5 Portlandite 58.4 Brucite 31.1 Calcite 1.9 Periclase 4.8 C2S 3.8 Glass trace Total 100.0 Compounds by Wet Chemistry (%w/w Loss on Ignition 18.34 Insoluble residue 17.29 Soluble S03 0.63 Soluble CaO 41.96 Soluble Si02 2.13 Total 80.35 Available Lime as 0.39 Ca(OH)2 31.80 Total Lime as Ca(OH)2 51.30 55.2 28.5 3.0 4.2 9.1 trace 100.0 From the results of the chemical analysis, in the above table, it can be concluded that the limes analysed contain the necessary oxides, in sufficient proportions to produce a hydraulic lime. This is also confirmed, firstly by calculation, and secondly by analysis of the hydraulic components present in the lime produced by X-ray Diffraction. There is no universally accepted direct measure of hydraulicity, but historically two methods have been employed, calculation of the Hydraulicity and Cementation Index. However, there are differences of opinion as to the appropriateness of applying the Cementation index (CI) or the Hydraulicity index (1) to assess the degree of hydraulicity'. With some bodies favouring one index over the other, whilst others suggest that neither is appropriate, with respect to Natural Hydraulic Limes. No preference for either argument is given, or inferred, in this paper, with the indices calculated and included, purely for comparison purposes, with values determined on similar products, by other manufacturers. This, thereby, permitting the values obtained from the analysis, on the samples received, with those determined from other products, to be evaluated comparatively. The classification historically used for both of these indices is also reproduced below, for information. Manufacturer Product Si02 (CI) (I) VLW' BL150 10.43 0.45 0.33 Singleton Birch NHL3.5 6.60 0.39 0.17 Otterbine2 NHL3.5 10.6 0.50 0.23 St. Astier2 NHL3.5 16.8 0.78 0.30 Typical values on3 CL90 0.99 0.04 0.02 Typical values on3 NHL 2 8.84 0.41 0.18 Typical values on3 NHL5 15.2 0.81 0.35 ' Mean value calculated from found values on samples supplied. ' The Test of Lime, by M Lawrence, paper published in the Natural Stone Specialist (July 2005). Calcareous Hydraulic Binders from a Historical Perspective, by G Mertens and J Elsen (2007). Lime after Vicat - Considerations, paper by Pierre Bergoin, presented at the BLF gathering (1998). Page 9 of 12 16 2 Data obtained by analysis on samples submitted. 3 Calculated on the basis of the chemical data provided by manufacturers. The Hydraulicity Index', calculated from the sum of the SiO2+Al2O3+Fe2O3 divided by the total CaO, has inherent defects, as there is no allowance for the magnesia commonly present in the raw materials used in the production of limes and cements, and is based on the supposition that the silica and alumina are quantitatively interchangeable, which makes it not an ideal method in the assessment of certain classes of cement and, hence, the Cementation Index was substituted, and used historically. The Cementation index can, however, be used in quantifying and assessing the hydraulicity of a cementitious binder, whether it is a hydraulic lime, natural cement or Portland cement, but only if the affect of the calcining temperature, and other processing variations, are also taken into consideration. Therefore, when used purely comparatively, as in this instance, on products of the same genre then the indices can be a useful aid in assessing the potential performance of a particular product of that type, but not necessarily for assessing compliance with a particular specification or requirement. The historic guidance given for classifying binders is as follows: Indices Hydraulicity Cementation High calcium lime (Air Lime) <0.10 <0.30 Feebly Hydraulic 0.10 to 0.20 0.30 to 0.5 Moderately Hydraulic 0.50 to 0.70 Eminently Hydraulic 0.20 to 0.40 0.70 to 1.10 Portland Cement 0.40 to 0.60 Natural Cements 0.60 to 1.50 >1.7 In arriving at the data reported in the Table above, the compounds were determined on the basis of the chemistry determined by XRF analysis. The calculated proportion of hydraulic compounds was then compared with the measured values, for hydraulic compounds as determined by XRD analysis. From the data obtained it would be expected that VLW's BL 150 would have properties similar to a moderately hydraulic lime, akin to an NHL 3.5, particularly one of the weaker variety, similar to that produced by Otterbein, rather than the stronger form produced by St. Astier. The results of the XRD analysis is appended showing the form of hydrated components present in a hydrated binder sample of BL 150 after 5 days curing. For comparison with the CO2 generation and consumption quoted earlier for typical bindersit was found that, based on the composition of the BL150 binder with 43.09% calcium oxide and 28.23% magnesium oxide, it can be calculated that for a given quantity of this lime, when fully hydrated it will have increased by mass by 37%. Therefore on carbonation this hydroxide will absorb 39.2% of its mass of CO2. This compares favourably with the values for non -hydraulic and NHL type binders: 2 A Practical and Scientific Treatise on Calcareous Mortars and Cements, Artificial and Natural, by L. J. Vicat (1837). Cements, Limes and Plasters, their Materials, Manufacture and Properties, By Edwin C. Eckel, C.E. (1927). Lime and Lime Mortars by A. D. Cowper (1927). Chemistry and Technology of Lime and Limestone by R. S Boynton (1980). Building with Lime, A practical Introduction, by Stafford Holmes and Michael Wingate (1997) Page 10 of 12 17 Material CO2 re -absorbed in service Hydrated Lime (Air Lime) CL90 65.3% by mass Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL 2.5 48.5 " Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL3.5 44.5 " Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL 5 34.6 " VLW BL150 39.2 18 Page 11 of 12 s Z i O 4a u m m N O s O M ++ 3 O a N O Ln r -I ++ s as v cc 3 to N N O OR LO N C � N +' E s �N U Q n r -I O N } CQ C 0 W H H W H �O rl O p N W } Q OC z Q F m p � W = ~ n 2 O 3 3 zz 7 O � x ' 0 3 W v z Om 3 N W V 3 zz 0 N O � 3 Attachment 6 Published on GreenBuildingAdvisor.com (http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com) Home > Printer -friendly All About Climate Zones 2 Helpful? Building...................................................................................................... ................................................. The nuts and bolts of building H All About Climate Zones Do you know the two parameters behind hygrothermal regions and climate zones? Posted on May 1 2013 by Allison A. Bailes III, PhD Building Science Corporation's map of hygrothermal regions. All of North America is divided into climate zones based on the two parameters of temperature and moisture. [3] One of the fundamental principles of building science [4] is that buildings must be suited to their 20 climate. When they're not, problems can ensue. Maybe it's just that they're not as efficient as they should be. Maybe it's worse. Put plastic between the drywall and framing of your exterior walls in Ottawa, and it can help control vapor drive from the interior air and its associated moisture problems (rare in all but excer)t in extremely cold climates [51). Put that plastic in the same place in Georgia, and you're going to rot the walls. The first thing to know about climate zones is that we divide them up based on two parameters: temperature and moisture. The map at the top of this article, from Building Science Corporation [6], is one that seems to be in a lot of the curricula for home energy rater i71 and other energy auditor classes. The fancy word for this type of division is hygrothermal, and Building Science Corp. has a nice interactive map of hvarothermal reqions ia]. The map above divides all of North America into broad regions based on temperature and then humidity. My friend and former colleague Mike Barcik [9] likes to say that the color of the zone shows what color your skin turns in winter. The International Code Council has a more fine-grained approach to climate zones,t as shown below in the map of the US from the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Each zone has a number, starting with 1 for the hottest US climate, the southernmost tip of Florida, and going up to 8, the coldest parts in Alaska. D!Vv B5 Moist (A) �y „ten YItS�^ r.uet ,0, 77` 1 ♦ 6 B I+j �IjJrr. 51nu�lNp i 7B �wrsaMi w �h. 5 �Y Iti.�•� I. Lu k04 46 _JUjJ1I OWlr�mna L� C P` . J. Ba Ila al InZ r 7 wZ On 1n J1ra °M'^ �p`..w.2 a ��Yrldr Temperature divisions Ilr.11l.1— C- •1' ilr aiilnril y.Ir'r9rh rio r -nn PhJ.Ja phl. Ynlm�npbon lnrnii. Gc _—pVhBin ■ Yh F�IId 9��C9R Rid �+R4 .-. 2 A F The number of each zone tells you how warm or cold it is. I wrote above that temperature is the 21 parameter, but that's not a full description, of course. It's not just how cold or how hot the place gets. It's based on accumulated temperature calculations called degree days [,oi. Basically, degree days combine the amount of time and the temperature difference below some base temperature. For example, the most common base temperature for heating is 65° F. If the temperature stays at 55° F for 24 hours, you've just accumulated 10 heating degree days (HDD). It's the same for cooling degree days (CDD). The IECC uses 50° F for the cooling bas�mperature, so if the temperature is 90° F for 24 hours, you've got 40 CDD. For heating and cooling, you add up the total number of HDD or CDD for the whole year, and that tells you how hot, cold, or mild the climate is. (A great source of data for degree days is the degreedays.net website [„i. Check it out.) TABLE 301.3(2) INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE ZONE DEFiNMON5 ZONE NUMBER 1 2 THERMAL CRXTERI IP Units 9000 < COD50°F 6300 < CDD50°F 5 9000 SI Units 5000 < COD10°C 3500 < CDD100C 5 5000 The table above shows how the IECC uses the RELATED ARTICLES An Overview of the 2012 Enerav Code [131 Calculatina the Minimum Thickness of Riaid Foam Sheathing [14] Efficiencv Programs Struggle to Stav Ahead of Energy_ Codes [15] Moisture divisions Notice that the IECC map also shows how moisture impacts the climate zones. Generally, it's moist to the east, dry to the west, and marine along the West Coast. I remember driving across Texas, from west to east, in the summer of '88 and feeling the humidity hit us when we crossed that black line. At the time I had no idea what that big black line was when we drove over it, but now it's clear. People have known about that line since the 19th century, as a matter of fact. It lies pretty close to the 100th meridian [171 of longitude, and divides the part of the US that gets enough rain to farm without irrigation from the dry side that requires irrigation. Are Enerav Codes Workina? The three main moisture divisions are: 22 3A and 30 45OG c COD50111F 5 6,300 2500 c CDD10-C S 3500 number of AND HDD65°F 5 5400 AND HDDL8°C :5 3000 cooling 4A and 4B CDD501)F 5 4500 AND CDD10°C 15 2500 AND degree HDD65°F 5 5400 HDD180C S 3000 days for 3C HDD65°F 5 3600 HDD18°C 5 2000 climate 4C 3600 < HDD65°F s 5400 2000 < HDp18c1C S 3000 zones 1 5 5400 < HDD650F 5 7200 30043 c H13D184C 5 4000 through 4 6 7200 < HDD650F s 90oO 4000 < HDD18OC s 5000 and the 7 9000 < HDD65°F <_ 12600 5000 < HDD18°C -S 7000 number of 8 126M < HDD65°F 7000 < HDD18°C heating degree days for climate zones 3 through 8. In zones 1 and 2, cooling is the only important factor. In zones 3 and 4, it's heating and coolinq. In zones 5 and higher, it's all about heating. Atlanta has about 3000 HDD (in "those annoyina imperial units" [121) and is in climate zone 3. RELATED ARTICLES An Overview of the 2012 Enerav Code [131 Calculatina the Minimum Thickness of Riaid Foam Sheathing [14] Efficiencv Programs Struggle to Stav Ahead of Energy_ Codes [15] Moisture divisions Notice that the IECC map also shows how moisture impacts the climate zones. Generally, it's moist to the east, dry to the west, and marine along the West Coast. I remember driving across Texas, from west to east, in the summer of '88 and feeling the humidity hit us when we crossed that black line. At the time I had no idea what that big black line was when we drove over it, but now it's clear. People have known about that line since the 19th century, as a matter of fact. It lies pretty close to the 100th meridian [171 of longitude, and divides the part of the US that gets enough rain to farm without irrigation from the dry side that requires irrigation. Are Enerav Codes Workina? The three main moisture divisions are: 22 [16] • Moist (A). This is designated by the letter A after the climate zone number. Here in Atlanta, we're in climate zone 3A. The primary factor is precipitation. If it doesn't meet the dry climate definition below, it may be moist. The other necessary condition is that it's got to fall outside the marine climate conditions. —� • Dry (B). This is based on the amount of precipitation and the annual mean temperature. The calculation is 0.44 x (TF - 19.5), where TF is the annual mean temperature in degrees Fahrenheit. If the annual precipitation is less than the number you get, it's a dry climate and the zone number has a B after it. EI Paso, Texas, for example, is in climate zone 3B. • Marine (C). This is the Goldilocks climate, in a way. It's not too hot in the summer (warmest month mean temperature < 72° F), not too cold or too warm in winter (between 27 and 65° F), has at least four months with mean temperatures above 50° F, and has its dry season in the summer. We're talking Santa Barbara (3C), Portland (4C), and Seattle (4C). Actually, there's a 4th moisture division shown on the map. Notice the red line going horizontally across the Southeast. It divides the eastern, moist side of the US into moist and moister, basically. This division isn't based on precipitation, though. It's based on humidity. A climate zone is called warm -humid if the wet bulb temperature [18] is: • >_ 67° F for 3000 hours or more • >_ 73° F for 1500 hours or more It's all in the IECC Wherever you read building science, you're likely to run into someone talking about climate zones. Here on GBA, sometimes you'll see commenters putting a number after their name in the comments—and—nofjust nutty guys like me who always put a number after their name. They're indicating their climate zone because it often colors how we think about buildings. If you don't know the exact definitions, it can be a bit confusing. Now you've got my summary here, but you can always get yourself a cop)( of the IECC [19] as well. Most states are still on the 2009 version. Maryland and Illinois have moved up to the tougher 2012 already. The climate zone definitions are the same in both versions. In addition to the basic definitions above, the IECC also tells you county -by -county what the local climate zone is. Now get out there and design, build, and renovate in ways that work for your climate. Footnote: t The International Code Council is based in the US and, like the World Series, has little foothold outside our borders. Although the IECC climate zone map here shows only the U.S., you can use the definitions of the climate zones for any location in the world. For example, most of Canada is in climate zone 750. Just kidding. Most Canadians probably live in climate zones 5 and 6. By looking up heating degree days on degreedays.net [11], I found the following: Climate Zone 4C - Vancouver; CZ 5A - Toronto; CZ 6A - Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec; CZ 7B - Calgary. (Thanks to commenter Christopher Solar of Ottawa for straightening me out on this.) 23 Allison Bailes of Decatur, Georgia, is a speaker, writer, energy consultant, RESNET-certified trainer, and the author of the EnergyVanguard Blog �20�. You can follow him on Twitter at aEnergyVanguard rev. Tags: Building Science [22], climate [23], climate zone [24], cold [25], ft [26], energy code [27], frigid. wet. damp [231, hot [29], humid [301, byarothermal [311, IECC [321 Image Credits: 1. Building Science Corporation ©2015 Green Building Advisor. From The Taunton Press, Inc., publisher of Fine Homebuildinq Maaazine. 4 About Us 4 Contact Us 4 Advertise on GBA 4 Privacy_ 4 Safety Statement 4 Terms & Conditions 4 Press room 4 Subscribe to RSS Source URL: httD://www.areenbuildinaadvisor.com/bloas/deDt/buildina-science/all-about-climate-zones Links: [1] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/building-science [2] http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?iu=/6134/ttn.gba//print&t=window&sz=275x60;&c=355210936 [3] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/sites/default/files/climate-zone-map-north-america-building-science- corporation.png [4] http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-building-science-HERS-BPI/bid/35077/Building-Science-101 [5] http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-building-science-HERS-BPI/bid/54110/You-Don-t-Need-a-Vapor-Barrier- Probably [6] http://buildingscience.com [7] http://www.energyvanguard.com/green-jobs-training/hers-rater-training-class/ [8] http://www.buildingscience.com/doctypes/enclosures-that-work/etw-building-profiles [9] http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-building-science-HERS-BPI/bid/27946/Mike-Barcik-A-Stellar-Advocate-for-the- Georgia-Energy-Code [10] http://www.degreedays.net/ [11] http://deg reed ays.net [12] http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-building-science-HERS-BPI/bid/57506/Those-Annoying-Imperial-Units [13] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/overview-2012-energy-code [14] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/calculating-minimum-thickness-rigid-foam-sheathing [15] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/building-science/efficiency-programs-struggle-stay-ahead-energy- codes [16] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/are-energy-codes-working [17] http://geography.about.com/od/Iearnabouttheearth/a/100thmeridian.htm [18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature [19] http://shop.iccsafe.org/2009-international-energy-conservation-code.html [20] http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-building-science-HERS-BPI/ [21] http://twitter.com/EnergyVanguard 24 [22] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/building-science [23] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/climate [24] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/climate-zone [25] http://www.greenbuiIdingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/cold [26] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/dry [27] http://www.greenbuiIdingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/energy-code [28] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/frigid-wet-damp [29] http://www.greenbuiIdingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/hot [30] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/humid [31] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/hygrothermal [32] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/iecc 25 Attachment 7 © 2008 Building Science Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. Wood Durability Research Report - 0997 1999 Joseph Lstiburek Abstract: "We have accepted that design and construction must be responsive to varying seismic regions, wind loads and snow loads. Yet we typically ignore temperature, humidity, rain and the interior climate. " This article puts the durability of wood in the proper context—the environmental context in which we ask it to perform. 26 Wood Durability The general principle of building durability has two components: Buildings should be suited to their environment; and the laws of physics must be followed. We tend to ignore the first and find the second inconvenient. It is irrational to expect to construct the same manner of building in Montreal, Memphis, Monterrey and Miami. It's cold in Montreal, it's humid in Memphis, it's hot and dry in Monterrey and it's hot and wet in Miami. And that's just the outside environment. It is equally irrational to expect to construct the same manner of building to enclose a warehouse, a house or a health club with a swimming pool. The interior environment also clearly matters. We have accepted that design and construction must be responsive to varying seismic regions, wind loads and snow loads. We also consider soil conditions and frost depth, orientation and solar radiation. Yet we typically ignore temperature, humidity, rain and the interior climate. The concept of limit states should play a key role in building durability. In structural engineering, loads and load resistance are considered and limiting states such as deflection are specified. We can apply a similar approach to building durability. We should consider rain, temperature, humidity and the interior climate as environmental loads with principal limiting states such as rot, decay, mold and corrosion. A damage function analysis is then used to determine whether a limit state such as mold growth is achieved. With wood (and other materials) we seem to not understand or pay attention to the load part while complaining about the limiting states part. In applying limit states design to durability, building enclosures and mechanical systems should be designed for a specific hygro-thermal region, rain exposure zone and interior climate class in addition to the previously mentioned structural loads: Hygro-Thermal Regions ■ Very Cold ■ Cold ■ Mixed -Humid ■ Hot-Dry/Mixed Dry ■ Hot -Humid Rain Exposure Zones ■ Extreme (above 60 inches annual precipitation) 27 ■ High (40 to 60 inches annual precipitation) ■ Moderate (20 to 40 inches annual precipitation) ■ Low (less than 20 inches annual precipitation) Interior Climate Classes I. Temperature moderated Vapor pressure uncontrolled Air pressure uncontrolled (warehouses, garages, storage rooms) II. Temperature controlled ■ Vapor pressure moderated ■ Air pressure moderated (houses, apartments, offices, schools, commercial and retail spaces) III. Temperature controlled Vapor pressure controlled Air Pressure controlled (hospitals, museums, swimming pool enclosures and computer facilities) Let us examine constructing a house in Montreal, PQ. Montreal is in a very cold hygro-thermal region and a moderate rain exposure zone. Constructing a house typically involves a class II interior climate assuming no interior swimming pool. A Class II interior climate involves temperature control within several degrees and an interior relative humidity range of between 20 percent and 60 percent. Air pressures are typically moderated within a 5 Pascal range to allow safe operation of combustion appliances and to control contaminant transport. Attic assemblies are vented. A design solution could involve an interior polyethylene vapor diffusion barrier and air barrier with unfaced fiberglass batt insulation installed in the cavities. A drainage plane of vapor permeable housewrap could be installed under a vinyl siding that allows for a drainage space to function in conjunction with the drainage plane. The sheathing could be a moisture diode such as plywood or OSB where the permeability of the sheathing varies with relative humidity and moisture content. A controlled ventilation system involving heat recovery would limit interior winter relative humidities. This being a wood industry publication, the vinyl siding could be replaced with backprimed wood on a 6 to 8 mm spacer strip. Alternatively, the spacer strip and wood siding could be replaced with a manufactured wood siding with integral plastic "thumb tacks" on a coated back surface (assuming we could convince a manufacturer to actually produce such a product). Moving the Montreal house to Boston, MA changes the hygro-thermal region and rain exposure zone. The interior polyethylene vapor diffusion barrier would be dropped in favor of a vapor diffusion retarder such as two coats of interior latex paint. The air barrier would now consist of the interior gypsum board glued to framing members. Backprimed wood siding would be installed over a thicker spacer strip (12 to 18 mm) to facilitate back venting of the cladding due to the more severe rain exposure. Either an exhaust only or 28 supply only controlled ventilation system with out heat recover would be installed. Moving the Boston house to Richmond, VA changes the hygro-thermal region once again and reduces the rain exposure zone. The vapor permeable housewrap would be replaced with a semi vapor permeable #30 felt and the spacing under the wood siding could be reduced back to the Montreal spacing range. Only a single coat of interior latex paint is applied as an interior vapor diffusion retarder. A supply only ventilation system would be installed. Moving the Richmond house to Orlando, FL changes the hygro-thermal region. The supply only ventilation system would be supplemented with a dehumidifier to address the part load humidity issues. The attic would be constructed to be unvented and conditioned. Venting attics in hot -humid hygro thermal regions is a bad idea if mold and humidity control is considered important. Finally, moving the Orlando house to Las Vegas, NV changes both the hygro-thermal region and the rain exposure zone. The backpriming and ventilation of the siding could be eliminated. Additionally, the dehumidifier is dropped and the #30 felt is replaced with a housewrap. If the mechanical system and ductwork are inside the conditioned space of the house, the attic could be vented ? otherwise the attic should be unvented and conditioned. The preceding examples highlight some important design recommendations based on varying environmental loads: ■ A polyethylene vapor diffusion barrier and air barrier should only be used in very cold hygro-thermal regions. If it is used in other regions it reduces drying potentials to the interior more than it reduces wetting potentials from the interior. ■ Flow through design (drying to both the interior and exterior) should be applied in mixed -humid hygro-thermal regions. ■ Vapor diffusion retarders should be installed on the exterior of assemblies in hot -humid hygro-thermal regions. Housewraps should not be used in these regions as they are too vapor permeable and not sufficiently water resistive. ■ Roof assemblies should not be vented in hot -humid hygro-thermal regions. ■ Backpriming of wood cladding is necessary except in low rain exposure zones. ■ Backpriming and back venting of wood cladding are both necessary in high rain exposure zones. ■ Pressure equalization and backpriming of wood cladding are recommended in extreme rain exposure zones. Examining some recent failures in the context of limit states design can provide further insight on durability. Vancouver, BC has experienced some traditional stucco failures on wood frame condominium structures (an understatement if there ever was one) and Wilmington, NC has experienced some EIFS failures on wood frame single family dwellings (also an understatement). 29 Wilmington, NC is in a hot -humid hygro-thermal region with an extreme rain exposure. Vancouver, BC is in a mixed -humid hygro-thermal region with a high rain exposure. Wall assemblies in both locations used interior polyethylene as a vapor diffusion retarder that prevented drying towards the interior. Wall assemblies in both locations were effectively "face -sealed" in that they did not provide drainage of penetrating rain water back to the exterior. Wall assemblies in both locations were also effectively air tight due to the inherent nature of traditional stucco and EIFS. And finally, wall assemblies in both locations used cladding systems that were not back vented. Traditional rain control systems rely on drainage planes or barriers. With drainage planes, building paper or a housewrap is installed shingle fashion underneath a cladding system to provide a method of shedding rain water that penetrates through the cladding system. With the barrier approach, a durable material such as masonry, stone or concrete is used as a storage reservoir to absorb penetrating rain water and then subsequently release the stored moisture to either the exterior or interior environment. Both approaches have relied on significant energy flows (heat gains, heat losses and air flows: infiltrating, exfiltrating and interstitial) and permeable and semi -permeable materials in order to provide acceptable performance. Current construction practice has lead to a significant increase in thermal insulation levels and airtightness of wall assemblies resulting in a reduction in drying potential. Furthermore, the introduction of polyethylene film vapor barriers and impermeable and semi -permeable sheathings has lead to further reductions in drying potentials. This has been further exacerbated by the loss of water repellency of plastic housewrap materials due to increases in surface energy from contaminants such as surfactants. Although the rate of rain water entry or penetration into building assemblies has not significantly increased over the past 50 years, the rate of moisture removal from building assemblies has significantly decreased. The hygric balance has become skewed: the rate out is now significantly less than the rate in. It has become obvious from our investigations, field research and laboratory testing that most wall assemblies leak rain water ? and furthermore that most wall assemblies have always historically leaked rain water. The reason that traditional wall assemblies have provided successful performance in the past, is that although rain wetting occurred, the rain wetting was followed by hygric redistribution and drying to both interior and exterior environments. Poorly insulated or uninsulated assemblies constructed in a leaky (to air) manner with vapor permeable materials (no polyethylene, vinyl wall coverings or foam sheathings) that did not loose their water repellency (no plastic housewraps) dried before problems arose. EIFS failures in Wilmington, NC occurred for the following reasons: rain water that entered was not able to be removed because a secondary drainage mechanism did not exist ? no drainage plane coupled with a drainage space was provided. Additionally, the rain water that penetrated and was not drained, was absorbed by moisture sensitive materials (OSB, gypsum sheathing or plywood) that were unable to dry towards either the interior or exterior due to a lack of energy flows (including air flow) and the presence of impermeable and semi permeable materials. EIFS, like traditional stucco systems, are significantly more airtight than typical wall assemblies. No air flow, no drying due to air flow. EIFS assemblies are also more heavily insulated. No heat flow, no drying due to thermal gradient diffusion and concentration gradient diffusion. Additionally, most codes required the installation of interior 30 vapor barriers. Drying mechanisms were further reduced by impermeable interior wall finishes such as vinyl wall coverings and semi permeable exterior foam insulation's and polymer based (PB) and polymer modified (PM) ? elastomerically coated laminas. The lack of permeable interior and exterior surfaces magnified the problems. To fix EIFS, a drainage plane with a vented drainage space is necessary. This needs to be coupled with a drainage plane material that either allows no rain water penetration or that simultaneously sheds and absorbs rainwater while subsequently allowing the absorbed rain water to migrate to both the exterior and interior environments via diffusion, capillary and ventilation. And all this needs to be coupled with interior and exterior materials that are sufficiently vapor permeable to allow diffusion drying. Some EIFS manufacturer's recognize the need for drainage planes and vented drainage spaces. However, the required characteristics of drainage plane materials and vapor permeable and semi -vapor permeable interior surfaces are not yet recognized. Traditional stucco failures in Vancouver, BC occurred for reasons that are similar (but not identical) to the EIFS failures in Wilmington, NC. Due to a lack of understanding, the use of two layers of building paper under traditional stucco was omitted. Historically, the use of two layers of building paper lead to wrinkling and debonding of the papers from the stucco basecoats resulting in a drainage space. The drainage space (albeit small and tortuous) coupled with traditional drainage plane materials (building papers that provided some absorption of rain water that penetrated at staples and nails) provided successful performance as long as redistribution and drying of moisture to the interior also occurred. In Vancouver, single layers of building paper became the norm coupled with interior polyethylene vapor barriers and highly insulated air tight wall assemblies. Additionally, traditional building papers were replaced with plastic housewraps that bonded to stucco basecoats resulting in the elimination of the drainage space. The plastic housewraps were also sensitive to surfactants in the stucco basecoats and the OSB and plywood sheathings leading to a loss of water repellency. Where single layers of traditional building paper or plastic housewraps were used, drainage spaces were compromised and water was held at the building paper -stucco -sheathing interfaces leading to loss of water repellency of the building papers, rotting of the building papers, and ultimately to rotting of the sheathings and deterioration of the structural elements. To fix traditional stucco, a similar strategy to the EIFS system fix described above is required: a drainage plane with a vented drainage space is necessary. This needs to be coupled with a drainage plane material that either allows no rain water penetration or that simultaneously sheds and absorbs rainwater while subsequently allowing the absorbed rain water to migrate to both the exterior and interior environments via diffusion, capillary and ventilation. And all this needs to be coupled with interior and exterior materials that are sufficiently vapor permeable to allow diffusion drying. In both Vancouver and Wilmington we had the wrong type of building for the environment. Move these buildings to Edmonton or Denver, and a different result would have occurred. 31 Air Barriers vs. Vapor Barriers About the Author Joseph Lstiburek, Ph.D., P.Eng., is a principal of Building Science Corporation in Westford, Massachusetts. He has twenty-five years of experience in design, construction, investigation, and building science research. Joe is an ASHRAE Fellow and an internationally recognized authority on indoor air quality, moisture, and condensation in buildings. More information about Joseph Lstiburek can be found at www.buildingscienceconsulting.com Direct all correspondence to: Building Science Corporation, 30 Forest Street, Somerville, MA 02143 Limits of Liability and Disclaimer of Warranty: Building Science documents are intended for professionals. The author and the publisher of this article have used their best efforts to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. The author and publisher make no warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, with regard to the information contained in this article. The information presented in this article must be used with care by professionals who understand the implications of what they are doing. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional shall be sought. The author and publisher shall not be liable in the event of incidental or consequential damages in connection with, or arising from, the use of the information contained within this Building Science document. 32 Search All Documents About . Portfolio P Conversations • Contact • Log in Building Science Corporation Our Services Articles and Papers Guidance Popular Topics Bookstore Events and Training 1. Home 2. » Building Science Digests 3. » BSD -112: Building Science for Strawbale Buildings BSD -112: Building Science for Strawbale Buildings John Straube January 30, 2009 Abstract: This digest will begin with a brief description of the system and materials, review moisture problems in buildings, and summarize how moisture control should be dealt with in strawbale buildings. The System The classic and time -proven strawbale wall assembly consists of strawbales laid flat with a 1 to 1.5 inches (25 to 38 mm) thick metal mesh reinforced cement and/or lime stucco .................. skin applied directly to each face. Earth plasters, usually somewhat thicker, have also been widely used. It behaves in most respects like a sandwich panel system, e.g., Structura Insulated Panel Svstems (skins of OSB glued to foam plastic cores), reinforced cement skins glued to a polystyrene core, etc. The reinforced skins take almost all of the load since these are the stiffest and strongest materials in the system. The strawbales act as a substrate for the stucco and as effective insulation. Photographs I and 2: Strawbale walls can be built with locally available materials and community labor (left) and are often chosen for their sculpted, massive aesthetics (right The Materials The primary constituents of the classic strawbale wall system are stucco and strawbales. The properties of each are examined below. Properties of Stucco The stucco used in strawbale walls can range from high-strength gunite or shotcrete to earth -based plasters. In most buildings the better understood cement -based stuccos are used, although lime and earth plasters will tend to have better drying performance. Typical mixes are 1 part cement to 3 parts sand and 1 part cement, 0.5 parts lime and 4.5 part; sand. Although the straw to stucco bond is very strong, and straw tends to act as a reinforcement for the applied stucco, metal mesh is often added to provide structural ductility ........................... to the skins. The mesh should be galvanized to protect it from corrosion as required by most codes. ............................... Mesh reinforced cement -lime based stucco will typically have compressive strengths of 15 to 35 MPa (2000 to 5000 psi) and equivalent tensile strengths of 0.2 to 0.7 MPa (20 t 100 psi), depending on the quality and quantity of wire mesh reinforcing. The stiffness of such stucco is in the range of 10 000 to 25 000 MPa (1.4 to 3.6 x 106 psi). 33 Photograph 3: Window framing (with subsill)4!k! O, shear bracing and wire mesh reinforcement. This wall is ready for plaster. The vapour permeance for 25 mm (one inch) thick cement -based stucco tends to lie in the range of 200 to 500 metric perms (ng/Pa s m2) or 4 to 9 US perms. The addition of lime tends to increase the vapour permeance to the range of 400 to about 800 perms or 7 to 14 US perms. Pure lime and earth stuccos have an even higher vapour permeance, of as much as 1000 perms (18 US perms). Properties of Strawbales Straw is defined as the dead stalks of small grain -bearing cereals. In this part of the world, wheat, barley and oat straw are the most commonly available. Bales are formed by compressing and tying strings around packages of straw. There are two common sizes of bales, 18" wide and 14" high or 24" wide and 16 to 18" high. The length is somewhat variable and adjustable, although the length is generally in the range of 32 to 40". Strawbales can have a wide range of densities. Most strawbale codes in the US have chosen to use a minimum density of 7 pounds per cubic foot, (110 kg/m3) since it is generally agreed that higher density bales are superior (e.g., bales up to 12 pcf are available). Several tests of the properties of the strawbales themselves have been conducted. In many respects, strawbales behave like cellulose insulation, sawdust, or wood shavings, cellulose -based materials with which we have many years of widespread experience in cold, warm, and mixed climates. The advantage of straw is the tubular shape of its stalk. This creates more void ratio for the same density of cellulose material and provides good R -value as well as reduced capillary suction, e.g., strawbales do not "wick" water very effectively. The very limited capillary suction of straw means that a separate capillary break in the form of building paper is not strictly necessary (water will definitely not wick from the exterior stucco to the interior!). Water vapour is stored in strawbales in the same way as wood or cellulose insulation, e.g., in the winter the equilibrium moisture content will be about 8-12% moisture content by dry weight, and the moisture content can rise to at least 20% before moisture problems begin. Hence, for a 8 pcf bale, more than 1 pound of water in vapour form can safely be stored per square foot of wall area. Testing for R -value has been conducted several times. Only a few tests of full-scale walls (rather than bales) have been conducted (by Oak Ridge National Labs and the Technic University, TUNS, of Nova Scotia). The R -value for these walls were found to be between 26 and 30, about double that which can be expected from a wall built to most code requirements. (Note that a 2x6 wood frame wall with R-20 batts has an R -value of about R-13 when the thermal bridging through the studs is considered). Strawbales are comprised of over 90% air voids, easily connected to one another. Hence, they acts as highly vapour permeable insulation (about half the vapour permeance of batt insulation), with a permeance in the order of 200 to 400 metric perms (3 to 6 imperial perms) for a 450 mm (18") thick wall. Strawbales are also quite air permeable, although much less tha batt insulation, provided that the bales are sufficiently dense. They cannot be relied upon to control airflow without the addition of a supplementary air barrier system (such as stucco). The stiffness (E -modulus) of strawbales have been found to be between about 0.1 and 0.2 MPa (15 to 30 psi), depending on density. The bales did not fail or crush in tests whicl subjected them to over 25% compression, but the useful level of stress was approximately 0.01 to 0.02 MPa (1.5 to 3 psi). These values are based on tests conducted by TUNS c oat, barley, and wheat bales from various suppliers, with a density of 55 kg/m3 (3.4 pcf) to 115 kg/m3 (7 pcf). Higher density bales are stiffer. Tests by the author have shown that the bond of stucco to straw is in the order of 0.07 to 0.15 MPa (10 to 20 psi). As supplemental attachment, wire ties in each course of bales can be used to tire the two wire meshes, and hence the stucco, together. This detail is normally only used in earthquake prone areas like New Zealand and California. The stiffness of stucco is much higher (at least several thousand times!) than that of the straw bales, and the area only about 1/9 as much (e.g., two one inch skins over an 18" bale). The stiffness ensures that the skins take 95-99% of all vertical load applied. Walls which are plastered with the softer earth plasters usually use thicker plasters (2 or 3") and hence the same proportion of the load is usually taken by these skins. Therefore, a strawbale wall system is truly a sandwich panel, and the strawbale core acts predominate] as insulation and a core. The bond strength of the stucco to the straw and the compressive resistance of the straw act to prevent buckling or delamination of the skins. Durability and Performance: Moisture .......................... Moisture is one of the most important factors affecting building enclosure durability and performance. Moisture is required for most common performance problems, such as rot dissolution, staining, mould growth (IAQ), corrosion, freeze -thaw damage, cracking and swelling. In the case of a strawbale building the potential moisture -related concerns are ...................................... mould growth, rot of the wood components, and corrosion of steel. These are the same types of problems that must be avoided in normal wood frame walls. Different materials have different moisture performance thresholds. Corrosion of steel occurs as a function of its time of wetness (how many hours per year is it damp) the salt content of the vapour (e.g. from the ocean or deicing salts), the acid content of the vapour (from industry) and the temperature (the warmer the faster corrosion occurs). Corrosic begins at a surface relative humidity of over 80%RH. Mould growth on wood and straw can occur when either is exposed to prolonged periods over 80%RH (about 20% ....................................................... moisture content). Wood rots if exposed to liquid water or over 95%RH for several months at warm temperatures. We know that wood will not rot below about 28 to 30% moisture content. It is believed that straw will rot at a slightly lower moisture content because of its much higher surface area. For a moisture -related problem to occur, at least four conditions must be satisfied: 34 1. a moisture source must be available, 2. there must be a route or means for this moisture to travel, 3. there must be some driving force to cause moisture movement, and 4. the materials and/or assembly must be susceptible to moisture damage. To avoid a moisture problem one could, in theory, choose to eliminate any one of the four conditions listed above. In reality, it is practically and/or economically impossible to remove all moisture sources, to build walls without imperfection, to remove all forces causing moisture movement, or to only use materials which are never susceptible to moisture damage. Therefore, controlling moisture and reducing the risk of failure by judicious design, assembly and material choices must be the approach taken in the design o durable building enclosures. The Moisture Balance If a balance between wetting and drying is maintained, moisture will not accumulate over time, and moisture -related problems are unlikely. A review of the major sources and sinks of moisture and the transport mechanisms typically involved in moisture movement in walls, especially strawbale walls, is provided below. Wetting The three major sources of moisture for the above -grade building enclosure are: 1. condensationof water vapour transported by diffusion and/or air movement through the wall (from either the interior or exterior), 2. precipitation, especially driving rain, both by penetration and capillary absorption, ....................... ..... .... .... .... .... _ 3. built-in and stored moisture. 4. (Enclosures at or below grade also need to deal with moisture from ground sources such as surface run off, melt water, high water tables, etc.) Driving rain is usually the largest moisture source for above -grade walls. Rain deposition on one or more faces of an exposed building in many parts of North America has bee] measured to be in the order of 200 kg/m2/yr. The addition of an overhang, pitched roof, and protection from neighbouring buildings can reduce this exposure by a factor of 10. The majority of any rain deposited tends to be shed by stucco, with a significant amount absorbed while a small amount penetrates through cracks. The majority of water penetration problems with stucco occurs at penetrations. Driving rain control is dealt with in a subsequent section. Condensation of the water vapour in exfiltrating air during cold weather or infiltrating air during hot -humid conditions can also deposit significant amounts of water within a wall. While diffusion wetting is typically not a powerful wetting mechanism, diffusion is an important means of moisture movement between the stucco layers and straw in a strawbale wall. Built-in moisture can be important in some wall assemblies. The use of wet framing lumber, saturated concrete block, or green concrete within a wall may provide a large initial source of moisture. The built-in moisture from concrete foundations and stucco must be allowed to dry out. Thus, SB walls should be designed to allows drying by choosing properly vapour permeable materials. The major source of built-in moisture, the stucco skins, can dry very quickly because of their location. licking and splashing from the ground can be a problem for walls close to grade. Both can be controlled by flashing, well -drained soils, good eavestrough and site drainage, etc The stucco -coated strawbale must be kept at least 6" (150 mm) above grade, although 8-12" (200-300 mm) is recommended. �]elrrla� II < n.a 1 1. +tppour tldhNor aee 64kppe wRhlry A. WO*9 ■an grade MW cp OWPO 4 . Figure 1: Wetting mechanisms in strawbale walls Moisture control strategies for many modern walls have tended to focus on reducing the potential for wetting by, for example, increasing air tightness and interior vapour resistance, reducing the volume of water penetration and absorption, etc. However, it has become generally accepted that most building construction will not be perfect, and thm wetting will occur. Therefore, attention must be given to design approaches that increase a wall's drying and/or storage potential. Drying An assembly's drying potential is an important factor in assessing its vulnerability to moisture problems. Strawbale walls, like solid multi-wythe brick walls, adobe and straw- .................... clay walls, are more susceptible to wetting than a modern wood frame wall. But as history has shown, these types of walls can be quite durable so long as drying is allowed. Moisture is usually removed from a wall by: 1. evaporation from the inside or outside surfaces, 2. drainage, driven by gravity, 3. vapour transport by diffusion either outward or inward or both; and 35 4. air flow either outward or inward or both. Drainage is the mechanism capable of removing the greatest volume of water in the shortest period of time. Hence it is can be a very important mechanism for moisture control. Provided a clear drainage path exists (e.g. cavities, slopes, drainage openings), a large proportion of rain water penetration or condensation can flow out of certain walls, such as brick veneer, vinyl, etc. However, drainage is not the only mechanism or even sufficient on its own, to provide drying. Stucco clad walls, solid masonry walls, and strawbale .............. walls can function well by using other drying mechanisms, and attempting to incorporate drainage in these time -proven designs often creates an inferior wall system. Drainage within strawbale walls is not a reliable rain control strategy as the straw becomes too wet during the drainage process. Drainage of windows, doors, and any penetrations IS effective and should always be incorporated into a strawbale wall. &aiacoo nPowlon} i 1, Vkmrdiil of airrk�� lmkuge dr" I C Figure 2: Drying mechanisms in strawbale walls Under the right conditions the moisture from rain penetration and condensation not drained from a wall will dry by evaporation or desorption. The resulting water vapour can be transported out of and redistributed within a wall system either by diffusion or air leakage or both acting together. Diffusive drying is one of the two mechanisms that can remove moisture that is absorbed or trapped in a wall. Diffusion outward, especially when driven by large vapour gradients in the winter, can remove a significant amount of moisture and be an effective drying mechanism. Outward drying for strawbale walls can occur in most parts of Canada since exterior stucco has a relatively high vapour permeance and the outdoor vapour pressure is often quite low in winter. Diffusion drying can only occur in an outward direction if very low permeance polyethylene vapour barriers are located on the exterior side of the interior finish. In walls exposed to solar heating, inward drvin$ can be significant if it is allowed by the use of relatively vapour permeable interior lavers. For example, a significant proportion of drying can occur to the inside in strawbale walls, so long as polyethylene or similar vapour resistant layers are not used. Airflow (or leakage) through the enclosure can, under the proper conditions, move a large quantity of moisture. While air leakage usually leads to condensation wetting under many winter conditions, it can also remove moisture during warmer weather. Periodic reversals of air flow from exfiltration to infiltration (when the wind changes direction for example) can allow drying even under winter conditions. Similarly, cold weather stack -effect -driven infiltration and warm weather exfiltration can cause drying. Since the amount of air leakage drying and wetting cannot easily be predicted or controlled the recommended approach is to control all air movement and secure drying by other mechanisms. Capillary transport, often termed wicking, is not itself a drying mechanism but it does act to redistribute moisture within a system. Stucco is highly capillary active and wicks water quite effectively. This means that water that is deposited on one face of the stucco can be transported to the other. In practice, water that penetrates stucco (from any source) will evaporate, diffuse to the back of the stucco and either pass through to the exterior or condense on the back face. Any vapour that condenses will wick to the exterior surface from where it can quickly evaporate. This drying mechanism is one reason not to introduce building paper between the stucco and straw. Drying almost never occurs at the same time as wetting. Therefore, to bridge the gap in time between wetting and drying, some safe storage capacity within the wall is needed. Storage The ability of a wall assembly to store moisture may be an important measure of its durability because storage acts as a vital buffer, or capacitor, between the deposition and removal of moisture. However, if the volume of stored water exceeds the safe level for a material and is present for long enough, deterioration can occur, i.e. rot of wood and straw, freeze -thaw damage of masonry, and corrosion of metal. Therefore, the two most important characteristics of moisture storage are: how much moisture can be stored and for what duration without crossing a performance threshold. Sorption of water vapour by hygroscopic materials is an important storage mechanism. A significant amount of moisture can be stored within a porous material as water vapour molecules adsorb to the large internal surface areas of materials such as straw, wood, concrete and masonry. When a porous material has adsorbed all the moisture it can, further moisture will be stored in the pores and cracks within the material by capillary suction, or by absorption. Only when all pores are filled with water is a material saturated. For example, wood will adsorb moisture up to approximately 30% of its mass in the adsorbed state and fully saturated wood can hold two to four times this amount of water. When all easily filled pores of a material are filled with water, the material is capillary saturated. A capillary saturated material will generally not be able to store any more moisture. Water stored in pores generally must leave in vapour form. Safe storage capacity depends on the material. Wood and straw can generally store about 20% moisture by weight without danger of mold growth. Steel cannot store any water safely—hence, any water in the studspace can immediately act to corrode the steel. The ability to safely store significant amounts of moisture means that the drying period can occur a long time after wetting, perhaps several months. This improves the chance of a moisture balance being struck. Rain Penetration Control for Strawbale Buildings Precipitation, often the largest source of moisture in buildings, is always a concern for strawbale buildings. Designers have a choice of three primary rain control strategies in all enclosure systems. Enclosure elements and the joints between these elements may be, and often should be, designed with different strategies. Perfect barrier systems employ a single layer through which no rain may penetrate. If this perfect layer is on the exterior, the wall can be sub -classified as a face -sealed system. 2. Mass or storage walls control rain penetration by absorbing and storing rain water which penetrates the exterior surface. In a functional mass wall this moisture is eventually removed by evaporative diffusive drying before the accumulated moisture causes damage. 36 3. The screened and drained design philosophy accepts that water penetration will occur and provides drainage at several planes to remove it. A rainscreen, pressure - equalised rainscreen, and two-stage weather tightening are all sub -classifications of the screened and drained enclosure type. Providing a water-resistant barrier (drainage plane) behind the stucco is not practical in strawbale construction because it breaks the structural bond between the plaster and the strawbale and reduces the ability of a wall to dry outward. Hence, rain control in strawbale walls employs the mass/storage approach. The ability of a wall to store and dry rain water deposited on the surface is very important for mass wall systems, no less for stawbale systems. The mass and absorption provided in every mass system must be balanced with the drying capacity and the exposure to driving rain. For example, split -faced concrete block is a highly absorptive, but highly massive wall system. Provided such walls ar not exposed to too much rain, they will not leak and they will dry out. It is for these same reasons that good drying capacity and reduced driving rain exposure are so important 1 strawbale walls. Stucco is less massive, but less absorptive than split -faced block. Research and long experience has shown that overhangs are very effective in reducing the amount of rain deposition. Buildings, trees and terrain around a house can also provid significant protection. Finally, the closer to the ground a building is, the less driving rain deposition that occurs. Driving rain deposition can be reduced to such a level by even one or two of these measures acting alone that even the storage mass of the 25 mm stucco skin can store the rain that penetrates and is absorbed. All strawbale houses should control rain exposure through the use of generous overhangs, eavestroughs, and by keeping walls to two -storeys or less in height. The size of the overhang will depend on exposure and building shape, but a minimum of 400 mm (16") for a one storey building and 600 mm (24") for a two-storey building is recommended by this author. Experience with strawbale and other stucco houses has shown that rain penetration almost always occurs at penetrations though the wall. Therefore, windows, doors, balconies and other large penetrations need to be detailed with more than average care to eliminate the potential for rain penetration. As a minimum, detailed sections of window and door sills, jambs and heads should be provided to the building code official to demonstrate that care has been taken in the design of these features. Clearly it is in these areas that waterproof membranes and flashings should be used. For strawbale walls exposed to high rain exposures (tall houses with little overhangs) a drained system is recommended: on the exterior of a typical plastered strawbale assembl, a small drainage gap and an external finish can be provided. This drainage gap need only be 1/16" or even less and can be formed by special creped housewrap, or strips of woo The exterior finish can be a plaster, siding, wood, or any other lightweight system. .............. Air Leakage Condensation Control for Strawbale Buildings The second largest potential source of wetting for strawbale walls is condensation of the water vapor in the air. This moisture can be transported by diffusion (the movement of something from high concentration to low, such as the smell of an onion from one end of a room to the other without air movement) or air movement itself (the movement of th( onion odor from one room to another by moving the air itself, with a fan or by wind, etc). Vapour diffusion is not a concern for strawbale homes because the interior plaster is able to resist a sufficient amount of vapour diffusion to control diffusion. Air leakage however might be a concern, and an effective air barrier system must be provided. It should be noted that condensation will occur on any surface which is colder than the dewpoint of the air around it. In practice, condensation does not occur within batt insulation or strawbales, since neither presents a sufficiently attractive surface (they are mostly composed of air and are very vapour permeable). Condensation in framed walls and strawbale walls tends to concentrate on the first surface on the cold side of the dewpoint. The condensation surface in cold weather is usuallv the back of the sheathing in framed walls, or the back of the stucco in a strawbale wall. Any moisture that condenses here must dry to the outside. This occurs in sheathed walls by drying directly to the outside via ventilation of the cladding. In strawbale walls, condensate will be wicked into the ........................ plaster, and will subsequently evaporate from the exterior surface. This is an effr�ient mg mechanism. Placing building paper between the stucco and the straw will eliminate this condensation -wicking -drying mechanism and force any water to evaporate t oug the building paper and the full thickness of the stucco. The air barrier provided by applied reinforced stucco is excellent, better than most other systems. Laboratory tests have confirmed that the small cracks that typify a stucco finisl are not big enough or continuous enough to allow significant airflow. Just as for rain, the majority of air leakage will be at penetrations and interfaces with different wall surface It is recommended that the interior and exterior skins be detailed as part of the air barrier system. This can be accomplished by caulking to hard surfaces (interior caulk has a lon lifespan) and by applying one -component polyurethane foam or peel and stick membrane to the more difficult, convoluted or to surfaces. Project drawings should specificall identify the air barrier system and indicate how continuity of the system is to be achieved (from the floor slab to the roof via the walls and windows). Summary In summary there are no real technical obstacles to the use of strawbales in a manner that meets the intent of all building codes. The practical experience with thousands of such buildings provides more than sufficient confidence in the conclusions of this technical review. Practical moisture -related concerns such as the need for air, vapour, and rain control can be met. This is not to say that all strawbale buildings are necessarily durable and performing—good performance and durability depends very much on the construction details used and the exposure of the site. Rain control is the most important issue, and an air barrier system must always be provided in cold or hot -humid climates. Vapour diffusion control can easily be provided in cold climate walls: in a standard cement -stucco ........................ strawbale house wall by interior painted stucco (with a permeance of no more than about 300 metric perms). Proper rain control means deflecting as much rain as possible through the proper use of overhangs, eavestroughs, base details, protected sites, etc. Large-scale details of all penetrations, showing how rain and air flow will be controlled, especially at windows and balconies, must be developed for each project and each wall arrangement. Such detail; should ideally be part of the project drawings submitted for building permit approval. Photographs 4 and 5. Generous roof overhangs provide shading and shelter for these strawbale buildings The use of sheet barriers to liquid and vapour movement is always a double-edged sword—the barrier that prevents wetting also slows drying. These types of barriers are likely to cause the very problems they are intended to solve in strawbale construction and should be avoided. Both practical experience and building science provides ample evidence 1 support this approach. 37 Reference The definitive handbook of technical strawbale design is "Design of Strawbale Buildings" edited by Bruce King, PE, available from Green Building Press. Upcoming Events Buildino Science Fundamentals Renovation and Rehabilitation Building Science Experts' Session Related Documents RR -0105: Brick. Stucco. Housewrap and Building Paper PA -0301: Water-Manaaed Wall Svstems BSI -033: Evolution BSD -042: Historical Development of the Buildin¢ Enclosure BSI -049: Confusion About Diffusion BSD -105: Understanding Drainaee Planes Info -610: Central Fan Integrated Ventilation Svstems BSD -112: Building Science for Strawbale Buildinga 38 4/17/2017 Attachment 9 Perm (unit) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A perm is a unit of permeance or "water vapor transmission" given a certain differential in partial pressures on either side of a material or membrane. Definitions US perm The US perm is defined as 1 grain of water vapor per hour, per square foot, per inch of mercury. 1 US perm = 0.659045 metric perms z 57.2135 ng•s 1•m 2•Pa 1 Metric perm The metric perm (not an SI unit) is defined as 1 gram of water vapor per day, per square meter, per millimeter of mercury. 1 metric perm = 1.51735 US perms z 86.8127 ng•s 1•m 2•Pa 1 Equivalent SI unit The equivalent SI measure is the nanogram per second per square meter per pascal. 1 ng -s -1 -m -2 -pa -1 z 0.0174784 US perms z 0.0115191 metric perms The base normal SI unit for permeance is the kilogram per second per square meter per pascal. 1 kg•s 1•m 2•Pa 1 -Z 1.74784x10+10 US perms z 1.15191x10+10 metric perms German Institute for Standardization unit A variant of the metric perm is used in DIN Standard 53122, where permeance is also expressed in grams per square meter per day, but at a fixed, "standard" vapor -pressure difference of 17.918 mmHg. This unit is thus 17.918 times smaller than a metric perm, corresponding to about 0.084683 of a US perm. References ■ Michon, G6rard P. (April 29, 2003) "Permeability and permeance (http://www.numericana.com/answer/gas.h tm#perm)". Final Answers: Physics of Gases and Fluids. - accessed August 13, 2007 Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perm (unit)&oldid=532195950" Categories: Customary units of measurement in the United States I Units of measurement 39 https://en.wi ki pedia.orglwi ki/Perm_(unit) 1/2 4/17/2017 Perm (unit) - Wikipedia ■ This page was last modified on 9 January 2013, at 15:57. ■ Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. 40 https:Hen.wi ki pedia.orglwi ki/Perm_( unit) 2/2 Construction Materials m f Civil Engineers Volume 164 Issue CM1 Construction Materials 164 February 2011 Issue CMI Pages 13-20 dor 10. 1 680/coma.900053 Building limes in the United Kingdom Paper 900053 Livesey Received 09/09/2009 Accepted 18/11/2009 Published online 29/11/2010 Keywords: buildings, structures & design/history/materials technology ICE Publishing: All rights reserved Building limes in the United Kingdom Paul Livesey Consultant, Paul Livesey Consultancy, Clitheroe, UK �J This paper traces the development of lime as a building material, from ancient times to classical Roman technology, its loss in the Dark Ages, its restoration in the technical revolution until superseded by cement and its re-emergence in recent times. It follows the developing product with evolving production technology and its classification with increased understanding of materials science. The modern understanding of microstructure is used to explain the benefits of porosity and plasticity, and examples are given of mixes for exposure conditions. The environmental benefits are compared with those of alternative binders. 1. Introduction Lime, in its basic form of calcium oxide, is fundamental to the whole of the UK building industry. It is the major ingredient in hydrated calcium lime and natural hydraulic limes, and is a production intermediate in the whole spectrum of cements from prompt cement to Portland cements and calcium aluminate cements (Taylor, 1997). It is an essential ingredient in the production of iron and steel, being used to extract impurities during the fusion process to form slag, the granulated form being a major constituent of composite cements. One might even claim that iron is a by-product of its manufacture. Even the current vogue for the use of glass as a structural building component is not immune: lime is an essential ingredient for the refining of glass properties. This paper considers that part of the lime—cement spectrum occupied by the pure limes (termed `air limes') and natural hydraulic limes. When the subject of lime is raised, the immediate and common thought is ancient or even pre -historic construction. This is unsurprising since lime production is believed to have developed in the Middle East around 10 000 years ago (Cowper, 1927); recent archaeological excavations in western China (CASS, 2009) suggest similar or even earlier evidence. The technology was developed and further refined by the ancient Greeks, with the advantages of matured putty and finely ground lime being extolled by Pliny the Younger. It was, however, the Romans, particularly Director of Ordnance, Vitruvius, to whom we owe the most developed and authoritative writings (Vitruvius, 1880 (trans.)). A major innovation at this time was the introduction of hydraulic constituents such as volcanic ash, pozzolana and crushed tile or brick ceramic to the lime to improve strength and particularly resistance to marine environments. Subsequently, in the Dark Ages much of this skill was lost, preserved only by a small number of religious builders. 41 The development of classical learning in Renaissance times led to the rediscovery of the arts of plaster and incorporation of gypsum that were to result in the major palaces that survive today. The principle of Vitruvius — that the best mortar was to be produced from the purest of lime, gauged by its whiteness, combined with hydraulic constituents — persisted until the mid -eighteenth century. Despite this, masons in the south of England had observed from experience that limes made from the grey chalk beds had superior strength to white limes, albeit the term `semi - hydraulic' was unknown at that time (Hohnes, 2006). The scientific basis for hydraulicity was established by two eminent workers of the time. John Smeaton carried out a review of English limes produced from a variety of sources of limestones and chalks, and found that the necessary quick setting and strong characteristics he needed for the reconstruction of the Eddystone lighthouse (Smeaton, 179 1) came from those with a proportion of insoluble (in acid) clay, particularly from the Blue Lias limestones in the viscinity of Aberthaw. Not content with this discovery, Smeaton also applied the Roman technique of adding volcanic pozzolana to his mortars. Subsequent to this, the French civil engineer Vicat researched the limestones and chalks of France (Vicat, 1837), refining Smeaton's findings and arriving at a series of classifications for hydraulicity — feebly, moderate and eminently — that exists to the present day. As production techniques improved throughout the following century, lime and clay began to be heated to higher temperatures to increase hydraulicity, eventually reaching fusion and the formation of hard `clinker' at which point they became known as `cements'. From this time, their use overtook that of even hydraulic limes so that by the early twentieth century, limes had almost disappeared from normal construction and, by the mid-century, from building codes of practice (except as mortar plasticisers). 2. Lime production The chemical process involved in lime burning basically consists of the dissociation by heat of calcium (or magnesium) 13 Construction Materials Volume 164 Issue CM1 carbonates. Magnesium limes are not normally encountered in the UK, so this paper concentrates on calcium limes. Sources of calcium carbonate are the various forms of limestone rock, including chalk. Other rarer sources include oyster and other shells and even, potentially, egg shells (Edwards, 2009). Application of heat causes dissociation of calcium carbonate, releasing gaseous carbon dioxide and leaving calcium oxide (quicklime), which is then cooled in ambient air to limit re - carbonation. These high -purity limes are known as air limes. Where the source limestone contains finely dispersed argillac- eous (clayey) or siliceous material, generally referred to as the `clay' constituent, the resulting lime contains activated silicates and is referred to as `natural hydraulic lime'. Other `hydraulic' limes are produced by mixing Portland cement with air limes, but these are not covered in this paper. During burning, as the temperature rises, quicklime released from the calcium carbonate reacts with the clay constituents, mainly silica, to form dicalcium silicate, also known as belite. A schematic representation of the reactions is shown in Figure 1. This is, of course, a simplification of a complex series of reactions, many of which occur in the solid phase and are dependent on highly localised microclimates. For instance, a kiln operating tem- perature of 950°C would, theoretically, avoid formation of any tricalcium silicate (alite); in fact, there is always a trace formed in localised hot spots in the kiln. Similarly, depending on stone size and local carbon dioxide concentrations, not all of the stone is automatically calcined at this optimum temperature. In its simplest form, the lime `kiln' consisted of alternate layers of broken limestone and fuel, mainly wood, built into a pile (Wingate, 1985). Sometimes, to concentrate the heat, the base Optimum 950°C I I Calcium carbonate /I Alite rn I .3 I a I c I Calcium oxide 0 1 a o I a I Belite Clay �- 400 600 800 1000 1200 Temperature: 'C Building limes in the United Kingdom Livesey was dug down into a depression and the whole covered by a layer of clay. It was necessary to be able to provide air for combustion and this was achieved by leaving opening vents around the base of the clay or digging trenches to the sides of the pit. These developed into the various stages of shaft kilns, the remains of which are commonly seen in the UK country- side. Initially stone built into the side of a quarry, limestone and fuel were fed into the top and the resulting lime was drawn from the base. The more sophisticated of these developed into continuous feed and draw units, often in multiple banks as shown in Figure 2, which shows the lime works at Charlestown, Scotland. This was one of the largest production units in existence in the early nineteenth century, producing 90 000 t/year. Key factors in control of the kiln and the resultant lime quality were: selection and size of the stone feed; quality, quantity and dispersion of fuel; and control of air to ensure complete combustion over the entire kiln. The size of stone feed affects the reaction time and flow of air through the kiln; a smaller size presents more surface area to react with the hot gas but, if too small, leaves little space for the gas to pass through, thus blocking the release of carbon dioxide and choking the burn. The temperature of the burn is controlled by the relative amounts of fuel and air. If the temperature is too low, or the burn is not allowed to continue to completion, unburnt stone will result. The most reactive lime is obtained from a slow burn at a relatively low temperature of around 900-950'C. As the clay content of the feed increases, extra time and a higher temperature are required to allow the quicklime formed to react with the silica in the clay. Burning at too high a Figure 1. Phase changes during the calcination of natural hydraulic Figure 2. Shaft kilns at Charlestown, Fife (photograph permission lime constituents of the Scottish Lime Centre Trust) 14 42 Construction Materials Volume 164 Issue CM1 temperature will result in a more dense form of quicklime that is less reactive and, in the extreme, is inert. As kiln technology developed, higher temperatures were able to be achieved and emphasis shifted to the production of increasingly hydraulic cements. In the residual lime industry, kiln technology proceeded at a slower rate, learning from cement technology but without the commercial incentive of volumes and hence investment. In the later part of the twentieth century, interest in lime (particularly natural hydraulic lime) increased, so that customised technology began to be applied to development of lime kilns. The modern lime kiln is now characterised by a complex gas-fired shaft kiln (Figure 3) capable of close control of temperature and hence quality and fuel efficiency. The final stage in lime production (little is sold as quicklime and only then to specialist users) is the slaking process. Quicklime is unstable, reacting with moisture in the air, and therefore requires careful storage to prevent deterioration. The addition of water to quicklime releases large amounts of heat that can cause the water to boil, thus necessitating careful control and protective equipment. Lime used for most building purposes is the hydrated form, that is, it has undergone a slaking process whereby water is added in controlled amounts. In the case of air limes where the water addition is just sufficient to hydrate the calcium oxide quicklime content to dry powder calcium hydroxide, the product is referred to as hydrated lime. Use of an excess of water in the slaking process, accompanied by good agitation, produces a milky suspension of calcium hydroxide. In time, the solids in this `milk of lime' settle and, if excess water is drained off, the product is lime putty. Storage for longer periods causes the calcium hydroxide particles to repeatedly dissolve and recrystallise to finer and finer crystal- lites, producing matured lime putty. Lime putty can be produced from hydrated lime but then needs a long period of maturation to approach the quality of putty produced from milk of lime. Lime putty needs to be stored with sufficient water to cover the surface to prevent carbonation. Slaking of the free calcium oxide in hydraulic lime is necessary to avoid reaction of the unstable quicklime in subsequent work. This requires careful control to ensure full hydration without hydrating and reducing the reactivity of the hydraulic constitu- ents; it is often carried out in association with grinding the hydraulic lime to produce dry powdered natural hydraulic lime. 3. Classification of building limes Building limes are, in most cases, not mixed products. Depending on type, they harden by absorbing carbon dioxide from the air and/or by combining with water hydraulically. On Building limes in the United Kingdom Livesey Figure 3. The compact nature of a modern lime kiln (photograph permission of SOCLI Limes, France) mixing with water, building limes form a paste that improves the workability (flow and penetration) and water retention of mortars in the plastic state. During the life of lime -based mortars, carbonation occurs and this results in the filling of small cracks and voids. This increases compressive, flexural and bond strength and reduces rain penetration. This beneficial process, which enhances durability, is known as autogenous healing. For these reasons, the classification criteria required for building limes differ from those for cements. By the time British standards were developed for building limes, the use of hydraulic limes had ceased in mainstream building work and so BS 890 for building limes (BSI, 1995) only covered the various forms of air limes. Indeed, it was partly due to the lack of standards for hydraulic limes that their use was discouraged, as noted by Cowper (1927): ... lack of uniformity and absence heretofore of any exact standards of quality greatly handicap these natural lime products in competition with the artificial and closely controlled product. The 43 15 Construction Materials Volume 164 Issue CM1 latter is therefore likely to continue to be preferred for exacting work. It was only in 1995 with the publication of a draft European standard (ENV 459: Part 1: Building lime: definitions, specifications and conformity criteria) that hydraulic limes came into the UK specification arena, becoming the full BS EN 459 standard in 2001 (BSI, 2001). Until these standards were introduced, purchasers of lime could only refer to the classification produced by Vicat (1837): Rich limes are such as may have their volume doubled, or more, by slaking and whose consistency after many years of immersion remains nearly the same; Feebly hydraulic limes set within fifteen or twenty days, after immersion in water of a container two-thirds full of lime, and continue to harden slowly to six or eight months; Moderately hydraulic limes set within six to eight days and continue to harden even to the twelfth month; whilst Eminently hydraulic limes set from the second to the fourth day and, after one month, are already very hard. Vicat also introduced a classification based on the clay content of the raw material: rich limes having less than 6% clay; feebly hydraulic limes having 6-12% clay; moderately hydraulic limes having 12-18% clay; and eminently hydraulic limes having 18- 25% clay. There was also an intermediate class of `poor' or `semi -hydraulic' limes between the rich and feebly hydraulic. From Dibdin's reported analysis (Dibdin, 1911) it appears that Dorking greystone lime, at 6% clay, fell into this category. Vicat also introduced a `hydraulic index' based upon chemical analysis that compared the silica percentage plus the alumina percentage with the lime percentage. Relevant values were considered to be: rich limes less than 0.1; feebly hydraulic 0.1- 0.2; `good' hydraulic 0.2-0.4. A further development was the `cementation index' introduced by Eckel (1905), which was based on the potential hydraulic compounds and the propor- tion of the compounds combining with lime so that 2.8 times silica plus 1.1 times alumina plus 0.7 times the iron oxide were compared with the lime content. The problem with these ratios and indices is that they only indicate the potential hydraulicity and, as already noted, the final properties are determined by the quality of the burning process, hence the drawbacks reported by Cowper. These ratios and indices are therefore more relevant to the exploration for suitable raw materials than as a guide to the quality of the burnt lime. These shortcomings were addressed for the so-called rich limes in BS 890 (BSI, 1995) in which the term `air limes' was confirmed on account of their ability to harden in air by carbonation. They were categorised according to their calcium oxide content into CL90 (--85%), CL80 (_-75%) and CL70 (>65%), with limits on Building limes in the United Kingdom Livesey contents of magnesia, carbonate and sulfate and a test for soundness. This classification and the tests apply to all forms of calcium lime — whether quicklime, hydrated lime or lime putty — and have carried through to the European standard (BSI, 2001). The air lime most often encountered in UK building work is CL90 hydrated calcium lime. The introduction of the European standard brought a clearer specification for hydraulic limes. A strength test (BSI, 2005a) was introduced based on a convenient mortar formulation that would provide results at the reasonably quick age of 28 days. While the actual numbers are not directly relatable to everyday mortar strengths, they do provide a reproducible test and allow a system of classification based on the actual hydraulicity of the finished product. Natural hydraulic limes are now classified according to their minimum and maximum 28 -day strength as NHL 2 (2.0-7.0 N/mm2); NHL 3.5 (3.5-10.0 N/mm2) and NHL 5 (5.0-15.0 N/mm2). At first glance this classification appears confusing as a strength of 5.0 N/mm2 could qualify for all three classes. In fact, the classification is based on a statistical assessment requiring a safety margin at both upper and lower limits based on the variability of the producer. In practice, the compliance criteria become close to NHL 2 (3.5- 6.0 N/mm2), NHL 3.5 (6.0-9.0 N/mm2) and NHL 5 (9.0- 12.5 N/mm2). A quality control system was introduced with the European standard based on the level 2 procedure. While this was a step in the right direction, there were seen to be limitations in that level 2 only required certification that a producer had an initial system and relied on unaudited producer declarations there- after. The current revision will change this to a level 2+ system whereby the initial system is backed by annual third -party inspection. A move by the UK to introduce a CEN classification of NHL 1 is ongoing but unlikely to be successful in the current revision as insufficient information on performance is available. 4. Properties and applications The applications for building limes in modern building — which apply equally well to modern construction and conservation, and brick cavity and solid rubble stone walls — are numerous and well documented. The thorough discussion given by Blundell (2007) is summarised here. The microstructure of hydrating lime systems becomes increas- ingly complex from air limes to eminently hydraulic limes. The first stage is the precipitation of calcium hydroxide as portlandite crystals. In the case of hydraulic limes, this is followed by the hydration of silicate phases to the `glue' that holds the system together, calcium -silicate -hydrate (CSH). The greater proportion of portlandite and relatively smaller amount 16 44 Construction Materials Volume 164 Issue CM1 of CSH compared with a cement system produces the more open microstructure that gives the lower strengths, lower brittleness and greater permeability of lime systems. The presence of silicate as dicalcium silicate (belite) compared with the tricalcium silicate (alite) in Portland cement has a fundamental effect on properties. While both are unstable in the presence of water, decomposing and releasing heat, alite releases three times more heat than belite (Taylor, 1997). Belite thus reacts more slowly and is more affected by cooler conditions. In practical terms, this means that greater care has to be taken with hydrating lime: protecting for longer periods and avoiding low-temperature conditions (it is generally advised not to work with lime in temperatures below 5Q. Lime applied as mortar or render benefits from the superior permeable and flexible properties. The first thought in making a building resistant to water ingress is usually to apply a waterproof coating in the form of paint, cement render or some other coating product or system. However, the problem with these is that inevitably there will be some movement or deterioration that will result in cracks, allowing the ingress of water liquid or vapour. As the crack is a miniscule part of the structure, water is prevented from release by evaporation through the remaining impervious coating, causing the internal concentration to grow with subsequent onset of internal damp, rot and loss of the thermal insulation properties reducing building efficiency. Lime, however, allows a building to `breathe'. In wet conditions, water is absorbed into the wall but, as soon as the rain stops, the movement is reversed, accelerated by wind, and the wall dries out, thus preventing dampness and rot. Similar advantages are to be found with regard to structural movement either from ground conditions or solar effects. The flexibility of a lime mortar reduces the risk of cracking and the ability of lime to heal cracks autogenously by precipitation of calcium carbonate helps to seal those cracks that do occur. Again, overall weathertightness is retained. The permeability properties of lime assist in the prevention of frost damage to masonry units. Using a mortar that is less permeable than the masonry units causes moisture to be retained in the units themselves. The use of lime mortar, which is more permeable than the masonry, provides a breathing route for the masonry to dry out. In freezing conditions it is the wet part that freezes, with accompanying risk of frost damage. Lime -mortared masonry provides a uniform monolith that withstands weathering more effectively. Figure 4 demonstrates the corrosive effect cement mortar can have on sandstone masonry: the stone is eroded while the dense mortar has remained unaffected. Figure 5 shows the use of lime mortar in a traditional role and Figure 6 shows a less familiar modern application in the recently completed award- winning Joseph Chamberlain sixth form college. Building limes in the United Kingdom Livesey Figure 4. Eroded cement -mortared stone masonry (photograph permission of the Scottish Lime Centre Trust) The major ingredient in a mortar is sand, and this component is even more important in a lime mortar. Lime is a finely dispersed powder of significantly lower density than sand, and therefore a special mix design procedure is required. In particular, with so much fine material present, a rather coarser sand is required than would be the case for a cement mortar. The most important investigation into the effects of mix design at the time when lime mortars predominated was that carried out by Dibdin (1911). His conclusion was that a hydraulic lime mortar produced the best results when clean, coarse, well - graded sand was used. The term `well -graded' is commonly used to mean sand for which the size fractions are approxi- mately evenly distributed across several intermediate sizes. Figure 5. Example of traditional use of lime mortar: Ardverikie House, Scottish Highlands. The house was used as the setting for Glenbogle House in the Monarch of the Glen television series (photograph permission of the Scottish Lime Centre Trust) ,eliveV' all-ibrary corn to: r': 704. _ 1 1.5.4 On, Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:05:12 IN Construction Materials Volume 164 Issue CM1 ■ri 1l T1 11 r, . l Figure 6. Royal Institute of British Architects award-winning Joseph Chamberlain college, Birmingham (photograph permission of Limetechnology Limited) Table 1 compares the grading of Dibdin's choice Thames sand with that of more recent standards for sand, currently termed `fine aggregate' and more suited to cement mortars. It can be seen that specifications have become less precise and drifted further from the `ideal' over the past 100 years. In the UK, guidance (BSI, 2005c) on the most recent standard notes: `For lime based mortars the requirements in this (BS EN 13139) specification should be reviewed using expert advice'. For this reason, the UK continues to retain BS 1199/1200 for specialist sand specification for lime mortars (BSI, 1976a). The applications of lime mortars are numerous and are summarised in Table 2. This general guide is subject to consideration of the many variables and possible permutations, including location, microclimate and design lifetime. Table 3 gives a guide to the possible permutations of mix proportions and lime strength classes to produce mortars meeting the application durability classes. Again, variations due to individual limes and sands should be taken into account. Building limes in the United Kingdom Livesey 5. Environmental factors Examination of the so-called carbon footprint of everything we do and use is becoming increasingly common. However, the methodology for determination of this footprint is indistinct and often relies on folklore or dubious data. The fact that lime is burnt at lower temperatures than required for cement leads to the assumption that lime must be more environmentally friendly, without consideration of all the factors involved. A variety of kilns are used to produce lime and their energy efficiency is equally variable. Wingate (1985) gives comparative data ranging from 2500 kcal/kg for a basic batch kiln to 750 kcal/kg for an exceptionally efficient shaft kiln. For major producers of hydraulic lime, a value of 800 kcal/kg is a reasonable estimate of performance (Livesey, 2007). This is comparable to a general cement kiln, which has the benefit of much higher throughput and hence economy of scale. In calculating carbon footprint, it is necessary to convert the measure of efficiency to carbon dioxide emitted per kilogram of product. In the case of rich air limes, the calcium carbonate calcination requirement is much greater than that for hydraulic limes or cement. The emitted carbon dioxide for CL90 could be estimated as 0.88 kg CO2/kg compared with around 0.77 kg CO2/kg for natural hydraulic lime and Portland cement. The mortar design is a further factor, varying from 1:6 for a Portland cement (PC):sand aerated mortar to 1:2 for NHL 2:sand (1:3 for NHL 3.5:sand and 1:4 for NHL 5:sand). This results in carbon dioxide emissions of 175 t/m3 for PC:sand, 250 t/m3 for NHL 2:sand, 210 t/m3 for NHL 3.5:sand and 170 t/m3 for NHL 5:sand. Lime mortars will reabsorb carbon dioxide more quickly than do cement mortars. Some authorities have concluded that this varies depending on the wall design and thickness and the lime type. Thus, a CL90 mortar will carbonate rapidly while a (BSI, 2000) Table 1. Distribution of sand fractions across the size range (mean value %w/w in each size) 18 46 Size range: mm Below Above 5.0 2.4-5.0 1.2-2.4 0.6-1.2 0.3-0.6 0.15-0.3 0.15 Thames sand (Dibdin, 1911) 0.8 5.2 12.6 11.8 53.2 12.8 3.6 BS 882: 1965 Zone 3 (BSI, 1965) 5.0 2.5 10.0 12.5 44.0 21.0 5.0 BS 1200: 1976 Type S (BSI, 1976a) 1.0 4.0 10.0 15.0 34.0 30.0 5.0 BS 882: 1976 Zone 3 (BSI, 1976b) 5.0 2.5 5.0 18.0 43.5 21.0 5.0 CEN reference sand (BSI, 2005a) 0.0 0.0 7.0 26.0 34.0 20.0 13.0 BS EN 13139: 2000 Class 0/4 MP 2.5 5.5 - - 30-70 (BSI, 2000) Table 1. Distribution of sand fractions across the size range (mean value %w/w in each size) 18 46 Construction Materials Building limes in the United Kingdom Volume 164 Issue CM1 Livesey Building element Inner leaf of cavity wall and internal walls Backing to external solid walls External walls including outer leaf of cavity walls in sheltered and moderate locations Unrendered Rendered External walls as facing to solid construction Work below or near to ground level Below damp-proof course but no more than 150 mm above finished ground level Below ground or above ground not within 150 mm of ground level Sills and cornices External free-standing walls excluding capping or coping Parapets (excluding capping or coping) Rendered Unrendered Copings, cappings and plinths Chimneys and finials Retaining walls Sewer -bed walls and other unlined walls intended for water retention externally Embankment walls, culverts, sluices and engineering work normally below water Table 2. Applications of lime mortars and durability classes (Allen et al., 2003) (copyright Donhead Publishing Limited) NHL 5 mortar is slower and Portland cement even slower still. Nevertheless, it is claimed (Lagarblad, 2005) that most mortars will reach a high degree of carbonation by the end of their working life. Hence it is problematic to claim any significant advantage from the embodied carbon in masonry mortar. Lime mortars can, however, claim their largest environmental benefit from the fact that, in a wall, the highest embodied carbon is in the masonry unit. Because lime -mortared masonry has a lower bond strength between the mortar and the masonry units than cement -mortared masonry, it is easier to recover and reuse masonry units from a lime -mortared structure. Suitable mortar durability class 1-2 2-4 1-4 3-4 2-7 5-7 5-7 5-8 5-7 5-8 5-8 5-9 6-9 6-10 8-10 9-10 6. Specification of lime mortars Tables 2 and 3 provide a guide to the selection of appropriate lime mortars. Current UK codes and specifications are based on Portland cement mortars. Reference to lime mortars barely survived the final revision of CP 121 (BSI, 1973) and totally disappeared with the publication of BS 5628 (BSI, 2005b). However, there is some progress being made following the publication of a draft for development of BS 5628: Part 4 (NHBC, 2008), which gives engineers a basis for evaluation and specification of lime mortars. This draft for development standard provides the specific technical data and guidance needed to enable the structural design of unreinforced brick Hydraulic lime mortar class NHL 2:sand NHL 3.5:sand NHL 5:sand Compressive strength at 91 days: N/mm2 Mortar durability class HLM 5 — 1:1 1:2 5.0 9-10 HLM 3.5 — 1:1.5 1:3 3.5 7-8 HLM 2.5 — 1:2 1:4 2.5 5-6 HLM 1 1:2 1:3 — 1.0 3-4 HLM 0.5 1:3 1:4 — 0.5 1-2 Table 3. Equivalent hydraulic lime mortar (HLM) mixes (Allen et al., 2003) (copyright Donhead Publishing Limited) 47 19 Construction Materials Volume 164 Issue CM1 Building limes in the United Kingdom Livesey masonry units used in combination with natural hydraulic CASS (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) (2009) More light lime -based mortars rather than cement -based mortars. In the drafting of this publication, it has been assumed that the design of masonry made with lime mortar is entrusted to chartered structural or civil engineers or other appropriately qualified persons, for whose guidance it has been prepared, and that the execution of the work is carried out under the direction of appropriately qualified supervisors. Many aspects of the drafting of specifications, mix approval, workmanship on site, aftercare of work and health and safety precautions are fundamental. Details of many of these are to be found in the literature (Allen et al., 2003). 7. Conclusions The advantages of lime mortars are being increasingly recognised, initially driven by the desire to reduce embodied carbon and enable masonry to be reused. The technological base for lime and its applications are developing from a century of techniques applied to cement mortar and (mainly) concrete, but are being delayed by a lack of research funding for what is seen as `old technology'. The relevance of some taboos, such as the now lifted ban on `gauged lime', has been clarified by relevant research, albeit remaining in the trade folklore. The opportunities to be presented by the new standard and the classes of hydraulic and pre -formulated limes are endless, and will lead to limes that have superior properties and are more user-friendly. Uptake by a conservative and sceptical market will inevitably be slow and will require strong advocates backed by sound science. REFERENCES Allen GC, Allen J, Elton N et al. (2003) Hydraulic Lime Mortars. Donhead, Shaftesbury. Blundell C (2007) Precious Inheritance— The Conservation of Welsh Vernacular Buildings. Lime Company of West Wales, Crymych. BSI (British Standards Institution) (1965) BS 882: Specification for aggregates for concrete. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (1973) CP 121: Part 1: Code of practice for walling — brick and block masonry. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (1976a) BS 1200: Sands for mortar. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (1976b) BS 882: Specification for aggregates for concrete. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (1995) BS 890: Building limes. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (2000) BS EN 13139: Aggregates for mortar. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (2001) BS EN 459: Part 1: Building limes. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (2005a) BS EN 196: Part 1: Determination of strength. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (2005b) BS 5628: Code of practice for the use of masonry. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (2005c) PD 6678: Guide to the specification of masonry mortar. BSI, Milton Keynes. shed on China's ancient past. See www.cass.net.cn for further details (accessed 17/11/2009). Cowper AD (1927) Lime and Lime Mortars. Donhead, Shaftsbury (Reprinted 1998). Dibd1n WJ (1911) The Composition and Strength of Mortars. Royal Institute of British Architects, London. Eckel EC (1905) Cements, Limes and Plasters. Donhead, Shaftesbury. Edwards DD (2009) Sustainable Lime Mortars. PhD thesis, Bristol University. Holmes S (2006) To wake a gentle giant — grey chalk limes test the standard. Journal of the Building Limes Forum 13: 9-24. Lagarblad B (2005) Carbon Dioxide Uptake During Concrete Life Cycle — State of the Art. Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute, Stockholm, CBI report 2. Livesey P (2007) Reducing the carbon footprint of masonry mortar. Journal of the Building Limes Forum 14: 76-82. NHBC (National House -Building Council) (2008) NF12, DD 5628, Part 4: The structural use of unreinforced masonry made with natural hydraulic lime mortars — technical annex for use with BS 5628-1: 2005: The use of lime -based mortars in new build. NHBC, Amersham. Smeaton J (1791) Narrative of the Building, &c, of the Eddystone Lighthouse. Smeaton, London. Taylor HFW (1997) Cement Chemistry, 2nd edn. Thomas Telford, London. Vicat LJ (1837) Mortars and Cements (Smith JT (transl.). Weale, London (reprinted 1997, Donhead, Shaftesbury). Vitruvius (1880) Architecture, Books II and VII. Gwilt, London. Wingate M (1985) Small Scale Lime Burning. Intermediate Technology Publications, London. WHAT DO YOU THINK? To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as discussion in a future issue of the journal. Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu- dents. Papers should be 2000-5000 words long (briefing papers should be 1000-2000 words long), with adequate illustrations and references. You can submit your paper online via www.icevirtuaIIibrary.com/content/journals, where you will also find detailed author guidelines. 20 48 Attachment 11�# 5 % 111 i Construction Materials consultants Wallace House, Whitehouse Road, Stirling, FK7 7TA Tel 01786 434708 Fax 01786 475133 �T E-mail mail@cmcstirling.co.uk Virginia Lime Works. Our Ref: M/0429/08/C 1 111 Highview Drive Your Ref: Madison Heights Virginia 24572 USA 3`d July 2008 CERTIFICATE OF TEST POROSITY & SATURATION COEFFICIENT Project Reference Eco -Mortar Sample Description Cubes of Mortar Sample Source VLW Date Received 16' May 2008 Sample Ref SR1346 Date of Test completed 3`d July 2008 Method of Test BRE Publication 141. Durability Tests for Building Stone Results Specimen Ref: Masons Mark Samples MM2 MM3 Max -Blend Samples MB -Dry MB -Wet Quality Statement: Saturation Coefficient Porosity 0.97 22.8 0.97 24.0 0.97 26.4 0.97 25.5 We confirm that in the preparation of this report we have exercised reasonable skill and care. The results presented and any comments offered relate purely to the samples received in the laboratory for examination and analysis. CMC Registered in Scotland 140220 VAT No. 5616504 48 49 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 12 Bill Revie, Materials and Testing Engineer, Scientist Construction Materials Consultants Wallace House, Whitehouse Road, Stirling, FK7 7TA Tel 01786 434708 Fax 01786 475133 E-mail mail@cmcstirling.co.uk Pozzolanic Limes Where the components are either not present, to permit a natural hydraulic lime to be produced, or for economic reasons its production would be not be viable, there is another option, and that is to go back and adopt the early Greek or Roman approach and add a pozzolana to a non -hydraulic lime, thereby producing a pozzolanic lime, or hydraulic Lime (HL grade lime). This is the basis of the HL limes produced by Virginia Lime Works (VLW). In the United States no NHL grade limes are produced at present, with all of those currently available being imported mostly from Europe. This increases the cost, both with respect to the financial impact on the projects on which they are used, but more critically it increases the carbon footprint of these projects, particularly when the costs of transport (Carbon miles) are included in the calculations. As an importer user and supplier of Lime materials VLW could understand the detrimental effect of this on both individual projects, but more significantly, the ultimate impact on the environment. Therefore the decision was made to produce a lime that would perform as well as the Natural Hydraulic Limes, but without the added financial or environmental costs. VLW already had experience in the production of high quality High Calcium quicklime, which was produced both from a local limestone and from oyster shell. These products were used both by themselves and others mostly in the form of Lime putty, for use in quality plasterwork and in the conservation of non -hydraulic lime mortars. However, as there was no local deposits that would be suitable for the production of a NHL product in their kilns, and as there was no producer of NHL in the US, it was decided to look to history and learn from the past and produce a hydraulic lime based on a pozzolana. After some research and carrying out a number of trials, involving different lime types, including their own product, and a selection of different forms of pozzolana, VLW found that a blend of their selected pozzolana and a readily available Dolomitic SA lime. This achieved a binder that both imparted a good degree of workability to the fresh mortars in which it was included, due to the high free lime content of the mix and the dolomitic nature of the lime, which also aided in the development of excellent adhesion properties, a function of Dolomitic and high Calcium limes. The mortars were found to provide adequate strength, with a rate of strength gain in line with modern NHL grade materials. The mortars also display good durability, due to the entrained air imparted by the air entrainer added to the SA lime. The lime mortars produced from this lime displayed Page 1 of 6 50 porosity characteristics in line with most NHL grade limes, and in thin section a high connected pore structure is apparent. Analysis by X-ray diffraction on hydrated samples confirmed that the pozzolana reacts with the lime producing the calcium silicate hydrates required to impart a measure of hydraulicity to the binder. For comparison with other Hydraulic limes and natural Hydraulic Limes samples of VLW binders were analysed, with the following results: ser. BLIW C6emiml COm�IO 1�14R Sdr AI3p3 fteDy Cab Mgo KiD Nx.0 7;4 Mui) I'li}x M33 C1 Iris%OR rpiliom Total CbloPwuNNh by ru emlulion ( %wiw ) C,5 C� C� MOS S C_$04 C*4f ToW p.11 00� Dill 0.1$ 0.41 0.6? ON 19x 30.4 10 4 18.3 1.9 09 1? 41 97 6 Compwunds hs 3Ser C6mktry (%W1W) Lass 4o Ip d6c4 2421 Insoluble mudoe 17.94 CAG I &F. B1200 0.1100 6S {{"rw.h•1 010 CLrnlirul eomp4jili4m (7e+F1 w.3 MID 1144 1059 0.14 It IS toll 3.76 3.47 A120) 5.04 4.76 0.41 0.38 X203 0-24 0.32 J17 18 41 8 S Ca{} 461$2 43 65 2149 n 36 Mgi1 24 M 1126 CbloPwuNNh by ru emlulion ( %wiw ) C,5 C� C� MOS S C_$04 C*4f ToW p.11 00� Dill 0.1$ 0.41 0.6? ON 19x 30.4 10 4 18.3 1.9 09 1? 41 97 6 Compwunds hs 3Ser C6mktry (%W1W) Lass 4o Ip d6c4 2421 Insoluble mudoe 17.94 CAG AV 0-11 0.1100 6S y1�.i� N610 010 009 1017 MID 016 0 l i 0.14 1(no 0.14 4.13 4.41 10.0 4.05 0-n $03 0-4 0.33 OA1 Cl 0.05 0.05 _ 17 84 leas 041 Ivauian 1792 10 77 00A0 Tale] _10619 ('a®pn,.R1x 6ya.le,Juti4o { �x..h.1 100A0 Cts 19.9 C�(ON}t 401 3 16A Cha ¢ S CAP 0.7 C -*A 515 T -W 96,2 {`"b"Imik h -r We Chrmiirx I %W/WP Lues a IgmoiZ 3U 18 Lawln6k d 1"w 132!1 BELOW: The thin section plates are for the 150 (85H15S) and 200 (80H20S) grade binders and the perlite and lime insulate material. The blue dye indicates areas of porosity in the sample. Lime and Perilite Insulation - Insulate 1.JPG Page 2 of 6 51 1p 4b* 9"A a 9,6 low a BL 200 - 80H2OS-3.JPG MJ 4 y 5.h: BL 200 - 80H2OS-4.JPG Page 4 of 6 53 ACI50-S5Hl5S-!.i#G .. . . �d2«, - .-•» :� . � . . . .�y - � . � AClj§-85Hl5S-j.ƒ#G Page 5of6 54 BL 150 - 85H15S-5.JPG (875.86KB) BL 150 - 85H15S-6.JPG (814.16KB) Page 6 of 6 55 i}¢�.•�. � f � �� atiYT k' .lk - � • - � n � c _ y'nry�4ti BL 150 - 85H15S-5.JPG (875.86KB) BL 150 - 85H15S-6.JPG (814.16KB) Page 6 of 6 55 Attachment 13 Bill Revie, Materials and Testing Engineer, Scientist Construction Materials Consultants Wallace House, Whitehouse Road, Stirling, FK7 7TA Tel 01786 434708 Fax 01786 475133 E-mail mail@cmcstirling.co.uk Plates No. 1 and 2: The above two images show the fabric condition of a traditional lime putty sand mortar mix. The blue dyed epoxy impregnation resin highlights the well connected open pore structure via the connected channel ways present in the mortar. These provide the mortar with a high porosity and permeability. It is this that imparts the high moisture and vapour permeability to these forms of mortar and allows lime mortared masonry structures to breathe and dry. Page 1 of 4 Plate No. 3: Where modern Natural Hydraulic Lime (NHL) mortars are used in mortar production the resultant mortars also display a relatively high vapour permeability. The above image is of a thin section prepared from an NHL 3.5 binder mixed at a ratio of 1 part Lime to 3 Parts sand. This image is of a carbonated sample, note that the presence of the blue resin again highlights a high porosity, but the shrinkage channel ways are not so apparent, albeit that they are present, although they are much finer and shorter in length. This still permits the mortar to breathe and vent moisture from the masonry in which it is incorporated. Plate No. 4: The above image is of a relatively fresh NHL 3.5 Lime Mortar, mixed at a ratio of 1 Part NHL to 2 parts sand, but here the mortar has not dried or carbonated. The presence of fine shrinkage cracks (channel ways) will appear as the mortar dries, with the paste shrinking due to a change in volume as it carbonates, i.e. as the binder alters from Portlandite to Calcite, due to the absorption of and reaction with environmental carbon dioxide (CO2). The resultant crystallisation is accompanied by a reduction in volume that will increase the microporosity of the paste similar to that which is apparent in the above plate. Page 2 of 4 57 Plate No. 5: A photomicrograph of a thin section prepared from a modern Natural Hydraulic Limes (NHL). Note that in this image, the abundance of blue dyed resin appears to be lower but the pore structure is still open and well connected, but the pore structure is finer and paste denser than in the mortar made from an NHL 3.5 binder. Mortars made with this grade of binder are more resilient to weathering than NHL 3.5 or NHL 2 based mortars but their water permeability and vapour diffusion is also much reduced, in comparison, making the selection of where to use each grade of binder important. Plate No. 6: This shows a photomicrograph of a Portland cement sand mix at ratio of 1 part cement to 3.0 parts sand. This plate gives an indication of the greater density and lower porosity commonly observed in Portland cement mortars, note apparent absence of dyed impregnation resin. With in this instance the crack seen to transect the plate is a drying shrinkage crack, which skirts aggregate particles and is wider than that seen in the NHL mortars. This crack, at 0.4mm in width, can act as a channel way drawing moisture into, and through, the mortar. Page 3 of 4 In traditional historic masonry where lime putty or hot lime mortars were used the high porosity in these mortars allowed the wall fabric to breathe by allowing moisture to enter the masonry during periods of precipitation, and also vent and dry the masonry during drying conditions. The high permeability also aided the drying of wet structures. Lime based mortars gained their initial strength by drying and loss of excess mixing waters, with the slow carbonation of the lime binder over time giving additional strength and increased porosity. Due to the presence of excess lime in these forms of mortar where they cracked due to thermal, vibration or other induced movement the high porosity permitted both moisture and carbon dioxide to enter the mortar joints and encourage the crystalline bridging phenomenon (known as the autogenous healing, or the self -healing properties of lime mortar), to occur, by permitting the migration of and concentration of free lime to the location of the crack, where the excess moisture evaporates depositing the lime (in the form of Portlandite) which then reacts with atmospheric carbon dioxide to carbonate to form calcite which bridges and stitches the cracks or fissures, with e excess moisture evaporates back into the atmosphere. Natural Hydraulic Limes (NHL) are convenient to use as they are used in the form of hydrates, i.e. dry powders. These are finding favour in both conservation, restoration and in new build situation, but not all NHL grades of lime impart the same properties to a mortar, and therefore it is essential to understand the properties of each grade, and form of binder, if the work in which they are incorporated is to progress well. The lower grade limes are more suitable for locations where softer more permeable mortars are required, with the higher grades used where more strength and harder mortars are required, however, this is accompanied by a lower porosity and permeability. NHL 5 grade binders are suitable for mortars for use in more severe environments, i.e. at copings, parging and pointing in extremely wet conditions including sea driven rain, etc. Page 4 of 4 -M @ U LU a @ x / E E § E Q qLO _ - / 2 0 ¥ vk ¥ _ n a w m « \ .g \ LU > kE Lo @ /\ / r neI / ggr @G» &� o/�\ /2 \ƒ ®# \%$ 6 ooa K// J E \ V o 0 � J § 2 2 / //�\ r m / $/ / / /$$ f 90& 00 -� E \ƒ NO &r# 0 064 Amn � [ /2 s- � � 2 JE� m.n .F ( .� � 1 c ƒ O � � y k =m @ = % / � E 0-7 a o = 0 ® EZ a. m@ 2E�f n 77///. En k^ �E#= °� 0� m J J J 2 r--4 � 2 �oC/)E a) CZ �6/// X22 %� 5 5 2 _ L: E # Co e ®\ 3 r\ U< n n = 2 2 � §%¥ ��\ b¢\\����\ _§ \k-�0kkkE� 2 f S "$ " k/ w o f � IM @ Attachment 15 On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 12:12 PM, WILLIAM REVIE < HYPERLINK mailto:bill@cmcstirling.co.uk bill@cmcstirling.co.uk> wrote: Ken, agree with all you say, wood only rots because the moisture content reaches a level to support rot which over here is 24% with the "At risk" band set between 17 and 22% with a high risk of rot between 22 and 24%. A well constructed lime mortar wall should not reach levels above 7% WME (wood Moisture Equivalent). You could perhaps suggest installing some permanent moisture sensors in the wall, on embedded timbers to demonstrate that the timbers are not at risk, or to act as an early warning should something happen to saturate the walls, then the rate of drying can be monitored. But then again it should not be necessary as if your building regulations allow for straw bale and hemperete buildings what you are proposing is based on the same technology that lime walls and surface coatings breathe. Can you use the argument that the building is being built to prove a new technology and will be monitored to demonstrate performance of a new (old) technology. Temperature, humidity and moisture content monitors are relatively inexpensive. Bill From: Ken Duce [mailto:kencathyduce@rahoo.com] Sent: 17 March 2017 23:22To: WILLIAM REVIESubject: Re: Building official's review of my wall/ceiling roof assembly LIM I am working on my discussion points with the building official - hopefully a monday meeting. I have found documents that discuss PERMS this is from: BSD -112: Building Science for Strawbale BuildingsJohn Straube Properties of Stucco The stucco used in strawbale walls can range from high-strength gunite or shotcrete to earth -based plasters. In most buildings the better understood cement -based stuccos are used, although lime and earth plasters will tend to have better drying performance. Typical mixes are 1 part cement to 3 parts sand and 1 part cement, 0.5 parts lime and 4.5 parts sand. Although the straw to stucco bond is very strong, and straw tends to act as a reinforcement for the applied stucco, metal mesh is often added to provide structural ductility to the skins. The mesh should be galvanized to protect it from corrosion as required by most codes. Mesh reinforced cement -lime based stucco will typically have compressive strengths of 15 to 35 MPa (2000 to 5000 psi) and equivalent tensile strengths of 0.2 to 0.7 MPa (20 to 100 psi), depending on the quality and quantity of wire mesh reinforcing. The stiffness of such stucco is in the range of 10 000 to 25 000 MPa (1.4 to 3.6 x 106 psi). The vapour permeance for 25 mm (one inch) thick cement -based stucco tends to lie in the range of 200 to 500 metric perms (ng/Pa s m2) or 4 to 9 US perms. The addition of lime tends to increase the vapour permeance to the range of 400 to about 800 perms or 7 to 14 US perms. Pure lime and earth stuccos have an even higher vapour permeance, of as much as 1000 perms (18 US perms). In your test of BL 150, Jimmy's hydraulic lime: CERTIFICATE OF TEST POROSITY & SATURATION COEFFICIENT Project Reference: Eco -Mortar Sample Description : Cubes of Mortar Sample Source : VLW Date Received : 16th May 2008 Sample Ref : SR1346Date of Test : completed 3rd July 2008 Specimen Ref: Saturation Coefficient Porosity % Masons Mark Samples 61 MM2 0.97 Saturation Coefficient 22.8 % Porosity MM3 0.97 Saturation Coefficient 24.0% Porosity Max -Blend Samples MB -Dry 0.97Saturation Coefficient 26.4 % Porosity MB -Wet 0.975Saturation Coefficient 25. % Porosity For Comparison is there a per cent porosity to PERMS or US PERMS ???? Am I not understanding MOISTURE CONTENT, POROSITY AND PERMEABILITY ?? Ken would offer a few comments on your text, they are: Strawbale buildings built over here tend to use Hydraulic lime renders rather than cement based renders as with the latter there has been problems with the straw getting wet, both due to leakage (inappropriate roof or wall opening detailing) or through cracks in the render and the cementitious render inhibits the walls drying. Those built with either hydraulic, or in one instance that I know of, non hydraulic lime, or clay based renders externally and plaster internally perform much better and the walls remain dry and the buildings warm. They build a lot of these in France using both clay and hydraulic limes, but not (Portland) cements. A lath is required to support the render and plaster, here we use either a stainless steel lath or timber lath. We do not look for a high compressive strength in the render as a low strength (3 to 7N/mm2) is adequate and the low strength allows for movement and creep and limits the risk of cracking, due to drying shrinkage, movement within the core and thermal movement (expansion). The porosity values are a measure of the total void space in the material and the coefficient of saturation (CoS)is a measure of the connectivity of the pores. A CoS value of 1.0 would indicate a well connected pore structure and that moisture could migrate through the fabric easily, the size of the pores restricting the movement of water but allow the flow of moisture vapour, whereas a value of 0.2 would suggest a very poorly connected pore structure, in a fabric that will not wet readily, but if it does it will not dry easily. There is no direct correlation between the porosity and perms. The main benefit of using lime mortar in renders and plasters were to act as poultices and help dry the wet walls as built and to limit water penetration, but not waterproof them, but let them breathe. If the timber is in a breathing wall it will not saturate and therefore will not rot. IN Attachment 16 L1L '� Designation: C 1707 — 09 C�1 �J'y I � INTERNATIONAL Standard Specification for Specification for Pozzolanic Hydraulic Lime for Structural Purposes' This standard is issued under the fixed designation C 1707; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval. 1. Scope 1.1 This standard covers four types of pozzolanic hydraulic lime for structural purposes which include use in mortare scratch, brown, and finish (stucco) coats of interior or exterior plaster. 1.1.1 PHL—Pozzolanic hydraulic lime for 1.1.2 PHLS PHL with a maximum 20 % binder weight of hydraulic cement. 1.1.3 PHL-A—Air-entrained PHL. 1. 1.4 PHL,-A—Air-entrained PHLr. 1.2 This specification classifies pozzolanic hydraulic lime by minimum hydrated lime content, maximum hydraulic ce- ment content, and specific performance requirements. 1.3 The values stated in inch -pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard. Appropriate conversion can be done using IEEE/ASTM SI 10. 1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro- priate safety and health practices and determine the applica- bility of regulatory limitations prior to use. 2. Referenced Documents 2.1 ASTM Standards:2 C 25 Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Limestone, Quicklime, and Hydrated Lime C 50 Practice for Sampling, Sample Preparation, Packag- ing, and Marking of Lime and Limestone Products C 51 Terminology Relating to Lime and Limestone (as used by the Industry) ' This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee C07 on Lime and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee C07.02 on Specifications and Guidelines. Current edition approved March 1, 2009. Published March 2009. 'For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM Standards volume information, refer to the standard's Document Summary page on the ASTM website. C 109/C 109M Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2 -in. or [50 -mm] Cube Specimens) C 110 Test Methods for Physical Testing of Quicklime, Hydrated Lime, and Limestone C 114 Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cement C 141 Specification for Hydraulic Hydrated Lime for Struc- tural Purposes C 150 Specification for Portland Cement C 207 Specification for Hydrated Lime for Masonry Pur- poses C 260 Specification for Air -Entraining Admixtures for Con- crete C 266 Test Method for Time of Setting of Hydraulic - Cement Paste by Gillmore Needles C 270 Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry C 305 Practice for Mechanical Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes and Mortars of Plastic Consistency C 511 Specification for Mixing Rooms, Moist Cabinets, Moist Rooms, and Water Storage Tanks Used in the Testing of Hydraulic Cements and Concretes C 595 Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements C 778 Specification for Standard Sand C 1157 Performance Specification for Hydraulic Cement IEEE/ASTM SI 10 Standard for use of the International System of Units (SI): (the Modern Metric System) 3. Terminology 3.1 Definitions: 3.2 Unless otherwise specified, for definitions of terms used in this standard see Terminology C 51. 3.3 air entraining pozzolanic hydraulic lime (PHL-A), n—as PHL with the exception that Type SA hydrated lime of Specification C 207, or Type NA of Specification C 207 shall be used if shown not detrimental to the soundness of the material. If Type SA or Type NA hydrated limes are used, an additional air entraining agent shall not be used. 3.4 air entraining pozzolanic hydraulic lime with hydraulic cement (PHLe-A), n—as PHLe with exception that Type SA hydrated lime of Specification C 207 shall be used, or Type NA Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States. N. `moi' C 1707 - 09 of Specification C 207 shall be used if shown not detrimental to the soundness of the material. If Type SA or Type NA hydrated limes are used, an additional air entraining agent shall not be used. 3.5 pozzolanic hydraulic lime (PHL), n -a powder pro- duced by the blending or intergrinding of not less than 25 % by binder weight of Specification C 207 Type S hydrated lime with one or more pozzolan and inert filler. Type N hydrated lime of Specification C 207 shall be used if shown not detrimental to the soundness of the material. 3.6 pozzolanic hydraulic lime with hydraulic cement (PHL,,), n -as PHL with not more than 20 % by binder weight of hydraulic cement of Specification C 150, Specification C 595, or Performance Specification C 1157 blended or inter - ground. 4. Requirements 4.1 PHL, PHLS PHL-A and PHLS A shall conform to the requirements prescribed in Table 1. 5. Test Methods 5.1 Water Soluble Alkali -Water soluble alkali shall be tested according to the procedure in Test Methods C 114, Section 17.2. 5.2 S03 -Sulfur trioxide content shall be tested according to the procedure of Test Methods C 25, Section 23. 5.3 CO2 -Carbon dioxide content shall be tested according to the procedure of Test Methods C 25, Section 22. 5.4 Fineness -Fineness shall be tested according to the wet sieve method of Test Methods C 110, Section 5. 5.5 Time of Set -Determine the time of initial and final set according to Test Method C 266, the Gilmore needle proce- dure, with the following changes: 5.5.1 Determine the first penetration value after 1 h of rest, and every 4 ± 2 h after that. 5.6 Autoclave Expansion -Autoclave Expansion shall be measured using the method described in Test Methods C 110, Section 9.3, with the following modification: 5.6.1 Weigh 25 ± 0.1 g of one of four types of PHL. Add 3.0 ± 1.0 ml water to the weighed sample and mix by hand until wetted. If the balance allows it, work directly in the specimen mold. If this is not possible, work in an intermediate container and transfer the mixture to the specimen mold in as TABLE 1 Standard Requirements Properties PHL, PHL, PHL-A, PHLS A water soluble alkali, max % 0.2 0.2 S03, max % 3.0 3.0 CO2, max % (as produced basis) 16.0 16.0 Fineness retained on 30 mesh sieve, max % <0.5 <0.5 retained on 200 mesh sieve, max % <15 <15 Time of initial set, max h 24 24 Time of final set, max h 48 48 Autoclave expansion, max % 0.80 0.80 Air content max % 7.0 12.0 min % >7.0 Water retention, min % 70 70 Compressive strength min, >2.4 (>350) >2.4 (>350) N/m2(psi), 28 days complete a state as possible. Press to 5.0 ± 1.5 N/m2 (725 ± 218 psi) for 10 s and demold the specimen and autoclave as described. 5.7 Preparation of Mortar -Mortar, plasters and grout are specified by volume proportion of the binder materials to the aggregate in a ratio of 1 volume part binder to 3 volume part aggregate or sand. Laboratory mixed mortars used for air entrainment, water retention and compressive strength testing for this specification shall be measured by weight by convert- ing proportions by volume to proportion by weight. NOTE 1 -Appendix X4 of Specification C 270 provides examples of calculating material proportioning. 1440 Batch factor = (80 X 3 (sand volume proportion)) _ - 6 (1) Determine weight one of the four PHL as follows: Weight of PHL (g) = 1(PHL Volume Proportion) X Bulk Density (Packed Density) of PHL X Batch Factor (2) Bulk density of PHL will vary and shall be provided by the manufacturer or determined according to Test Methods C 110 Section 20. Sand will be a 50-50 blend of graded and 20-30 standard sand meeting Specification C 778. 5.8 Air Content -Air content shall be measured according to the procedure of: 5.8.1 Test Methods C 110, Section 8. W1, W2, S1, and S2 are dropped from the equation to be replaced by W4 (weight of one of four PHL, g) and S4 (specific gravity of one of four PHL). The specific gravity of the PHL shall be provided by the manufacturer as determined by the method of Test Methods C 110, Section 21, or determined by a gas pychnometer. NOTE 2 -The specific gravity of the four PHL will vary with compo- sition and a single value cannot be recommended. 5.8.2 Test Methods C 110, Section 8.4.3, using the air pail method. 5.9 Water Retention -The water retention value shall be measured following Test Methods C 110, Section 7. 5.10 Compressive Strength -Prepare the mortar in accor- dance with Practice C 305 with the exception that the binder and water are initially placed in the mixing bowl together and allowed to wet for 11/2 min prior to mixing. Store the mortar in the molds for 60 ± 12 h in sealed plastic bags prior to de -molding. Determine compressive strength in accordance with Test Method C 109/C 109M. A minimum of three 2 -in. cubes is required. 5.11 Specimen Storage -Test specimens shall be stored at not less than 95 % R.H. in a moist room or cabinet following the requirements of Specification C 511. The storage surface shall be in equilibrium with the space to ensure no moisture loss. 6. Sampling and Inspection 6.1 The sampling, rejection, retesting, packing, and marking shall be conducted in accordance with Practice C 50. C 1707 — 09 UP 7. Special Package Marking 7.1 When delivered in packages, the name and brand of the manufacturer, the type under this specification, and the words "AIR ENTRAINING" shall be plainly indicated on the pack- age or in the case of bulk shipments, so indicated on shipping notices. 8. Keywords 8.1 hydrated lime; mortar; plaster grout; pozzolan; poz- zolanic hydraulic lime ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility. This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below. This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or service@astm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website (www.astm.org). .3 El M n WE P \_ \ E LU g 0 E \ \ % § 4 04 (nE E )/ ± \ \ \ � / 7 m 2 \ -o E � \ / 2 E (D ( > ° / / / § E ] ) 8 / m 7 x / 4 Ln 1-: E LU \ / $ j $ 0 \ o k \ E \ fCD / - ; E j § \ ) ° f ) 7 S E o % M \ 0 \ » 0 \ + § E \ f }CD 2 ) a m - E E E � E CL w t ± d w ) 7 § k E 0 / 0 2 ( 2 §+-r \ ) ® / / o k $ ! \ / . / / E a 6 G > k \ ) , b a k § ] J m _ 7 (D > » f E 2 E 0)m i.= / » § ° = a E aI S F& f b E\ k 'E \ \ } / \ o E » » S = \ ~ T \ @ + w e § % } E ) 0 cc ° \ } 0 \ \ f L3 a)0 m� E E \ _r_ %} \ \ ) ) ) ( ) ! - ƒ E § 0 } E E § E 3 § E k m / / cu 0 % % 0 c § / _ § c / 2 o $ o c / @ / C: U) \ C) ( % \ Cf) $ E : \ k � e Q 7 From: Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 10:22 AM To: Ihrke, Bill Cc: Burt Hanada; Frank Spevacek; Neville Pereira (neville@pereira5.com); Robert Radi; Peter MacDonald Subject: RE: Update re Mr. & Mrs. Duce Application and Review Attachments: 170705 Scientists crack mystery of ancient Roman concrete's 2,000 -year life span - The Washington Post.pdf Good morning Bill and Burt, For your review of the Duce April 19, 2017 proposal to use hydraulic lime as a building material on their single family home, here is an article from today's Washington Post describing it (Roman concrete) as the most durable material in human history. 0 Peter MacDonald Law Office of Peter MacDonald 400 Main Street, Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: 925.462.0191 From: Peter MacDonald Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 10:35 AM To: Ihrke, Bill <bihrke@rutan.com> Cc: Burt Hanada (bhanada@la-quinta.org) <bhanada@la-quinta.org>; Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net> Subject: RE: Update re Mr. & Mrs. Duce Application and Review Thank you Bill. Please help get this reasonably done. The Duce's still hope to get to construction this Fall. Peter MacDonald Law Office of Peter MacDonald 400 Main Street, Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: 925.462.0191 From: Ihrke, Bill fmailto:bihrke@rutan.coml Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 8:06 AM To: Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net> Subject: RE: Update re Mr. & Mrs. Duce Application and Review Peter — my apologies for the delayed reply. I was under the weather last week, which delayed everyone. I am meeting with staff to discuss your client's application, and I will follow up with you as soon as I have more information or if I have any questions. Thanks. Bill William H. Ihrke Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 338-1863 (direct) bihrke@rutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. From: Peter MacDonald fmailto:pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.netj Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 5:34 PM To: Ihrke, Bill <bihrke@rutan.com> Cc: Burt Hanada <bhanada@la-quinta.org>; Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net> Subject: RE: Update re Mr. & Mrs. Duce Application and Review I sure am glad the Duces did not wait around for the decision. When will a decision be forthcoming? Peter MacDonald Law Office of Peter MacDonald 400 Main Street, Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: 925.462.0191 From: Peter MacDonald Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 3:26 PM To: Ihrke, Bill <bihrke@rutan.com> Cc: Burt Hanada <bhanada@la-quinta.org.>; Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net> Subject: RE: Update re Mr. & Mrs. Duce Application and Review Thank you Bill. I won't trouble Tim anymore with our concerns. He has been a pleasure to deal with and a worthy public servant. Peter MacDonald Law Office of Peter MacDonald 400 Main Street, Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: 925.462.0191 From: Ihrke, Bill fmailto:bihrke@rutan.comj Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 3:22 PM To: Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net> Cc: Burt Hanada <bhanada@la-quinta.org> Subject: RE: Update re Mr. & Mrs. Duce Application and Review Hi Peter— I can give you an update, and please direct emails to me because Tim has officially retired from La Quinta. I'm working with city staff and our consultant to prepare a director decision, and in connection with that we've reviewed the documents that have been provided. I need to confirm with staff, but working on a time frame to have the decision completed and issued next week. Bill William H. Ihrke Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 338-1863 (direct) bihrke@rutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. From: Peter MacDonald fmailto:pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.netj Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 2:10 PM To: Tim Jonasson <tionasson@la-quinta.org>; Ihrke, Bill <bihrke@rutan.com> Cc: Burt Hanada <bhanada@la-quinta.orF,>; Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net> Subject: RE: Update re Mr. & Mrs. Duce Application and Review Hi Tim, Please update me on the schedule for a response to the Duce proposal. Peter MacDonald Law Office of Peter MacDonald 400 Main Street, Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: 925.462.0191 From: Tim Jonasson fmailto:tionasson@la-quinta.org] Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:49 AM To: Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net>; Ihirke, Bill <bihrke@rutan.com> Cc: Burt Hanada <bhanada@la-quinta.org> Subject: RE: Update re Mr. & Mrs. Duce Application and Review Peter— Neville apologized for falling about a week behind. He said he would have the report to us by Monday. We will keep you posted when it comes in. Thanks. Timothy R. Jonasson PE Director of Design and Development/City Engineer City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Ph. 760-777-7042 Website I Map tionasson@la-quinta.ora OQGQ - From: Peter MacDonald fmaiIto: pmacdonaId0macdonaIdlaw. netl Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 6:29 PM To: Ihrke, Bill; Tim Jonasson Cc: Burt Hanada; Peter MacDonald Subject: RE: Update re Mr. & Mrs. Duce Application and Review Good evening Tim and Burt, When can we expect to hear regarding Ken and Cathy Duce's application to build their home using alternate methods and materials in La Quinta? Peter MacDonald Law Office of Peter MacDonald 400 Main Street, Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: 925.462.0191 From: Peter MacDonald Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:41 PM To: Ihrke, Bill <bihrke@rutan.com> Cc: Burt Hanada <bhanada@la-quinta.org>; Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net> Subject: RE: Update re Mr. & Mrs. Duce Application and Review Thank you Bill. Hopefully from our standpoint, that will be an approval with reasonable conditions. Then, Ken can get going on the testing plan and ultimately to building his new home. Peter MacDonald Law Office of Peter MacDonald 400 Main Street, Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: 925.462.0191 From: Ihrke, Bill rmailto:bihrke@rutan.coml Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:38 PM To: Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net> Cc: Burt Hanada <bhanada@la-quinta.orp,> Subject: RE: Update re Mr. & Mrs. Duce Application and Review Peter — FYI update: The City of La Quinta is targeting the delivery of findings and comments early next week, on or after Memorial Day Monday. Sincerely, Bill Ihrke La Quinta City Attorney William H. Ihrke Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 338-1863 (direct) bihrke@rutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. From: Peter MacDonald f mailto:pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.netj Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 1:27 PM To: Ihrke, Bill <bihrke@rutan.com> Cc: Burt Hanada <bhanada@la-quinta.org>; Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net> Subject: RE: Update re Mr. & Mrs. Duce Application and Review Thank you Bill and Burt, We look forward to hearing a response, or approval of, the Duce Proposal. Ken has a consultant who specializes in laying out the testing locations for sensors in wood buildings. Ken does not want to start paying the consultant until the proposed approach is approved in concept. Please keep in mind the Duce's desire to start construction of their home by this Fall. Peter MacDonald Law Office of Peter MacDonald 400 Main Street, Suite 210 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: 925.462.0191 From: Ihrke, Bill fmailto:bihrke@rutan.comj Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 7:47 PM To: Peter MacDonald <pmacdonald@macdonaldlaw.net> Cc: Burt Hanada <phanada@la-quinta.org> Subject: Update re Mr. & Mrs. Duce Application and Review Hi Pete — Burt mentioned that you left a voicemail re status. I can pass along that staff and consultant are reviewing the documents that have been sent. We will have a better sense of timing on written comments on Friday or early part of next week. Have a good evening, Bill William H. Ihrke Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 338-1863 (direct) bihrke@rutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. 054e t0nsbimtun dust Speaking of Science Ancient Romans made world's `most durable' concrete. We might use it to stop rising seas. By Ben Guarino July4 Two thousand years ago, Roman builders constructed vast sea walls and harbor piers. The concrete they used outlasted the empire — and still holds lessons for modern engineers, scientists say. A bunch of half -sunken structures off the Italian coast might sound less impressive than a gladiatorial colosseum. But underwater, the marvel is in the material. The harbor concrete, a mixture of volcanic ash and quicklime, has withstood the sea for two millennia and counting. What's more, it is stronger than when it was first mixed. The Roman stuff is "an extraordinarily rich material in terms of scientific possibility," said Philip Brune, a research scientist at DuPont Pioneer who has studied the engineering properties of Roman monuments. "It's the most durable building material in human history, and I say that as an engineer not prone to hyperbole." By contrast, modern concrete exposed to saltwater corrodes within decades. The mystery has been why the ancient material endured. "Archaeologists will say they have the recipe," said Marie Jackson, an expert in ancient Roman concrete at the University of Utah. (Pliny the Elder once wrote an ode to concrete "that as soon as it comes into contact with the waves of the sea and is submerged becomes a single stone mass, impregnable to the waves.") But it's not the complete picture: It's one thing to assemble the ingredients, another to know how to bake the cake. To that end, Jackson and her colleagues peered into the microscopic structures of concrete samples, extracted from the sea walls and piers as part of a project called the Roman Maritime Concrete Study. "This rocklike concrete is behaving, in many ways, like volcanic deposits in submarine environments," Jackson said. Where modern concrete is designed to ignore the environment, Roman concrete embraces it. As the scientists report in a study published Monday in the journal American Mineralogist, Roman concrete is filled with tiny growing crystals. The crystals, like tiny armor plates, may keep the concrete from fracturing. The scientists subjected the concrete samples to a battery of advanced imaging techniques and spectroscopic tests. The tests revealed a rare chemical reaction, with aluminous tobermorite crystals growing out of another mineral called phillipsite. Brune, who was not involved with the study, called the work a "significant accomplishment." He likened it to the scientists biting into a cake of mysterious flavor and determining that the baker used organically sourced dark chocolate. In this instance, the key ingredient proved to be seawater. As seawater percolated within the tiny cracks in the Roman concrete, Jackson said, it reacted with the phillipsite naturally found in the volcanic rock and created the tobermorite crystals. "Aluminous tobermorite is very difficult to produce," she said, and requires very high temperatures to synthesize small amounts. Cribbing from the ancient Romans might lead to better production of tobermorite, which is prized for its industrial applications, she noted. The Romans mined a specific type of volcanic ash from a quarry in Italy. Jackson is attempting to recreate this durable concrete using San Francisco seawater and more abundant volcanic rocks. She has several samples sitting in ovens and jars in her lab, which she will test for evidence of similar chemical reactions. If her effort is successful, the concrete could yet have a role to play in human history — "if one was indeed interested in making sea walls" and "forced to protect shoreline environments," Jackson said. (In one 2014 study, a team of European climate scientists predicted that, if the next go years follow the trend of the past 30, the cost of constructing barriers to hold back the sea might rise to as high as $71 billion per year. The alternative, coastal flooding, could do trillions of dollars in damage annually.) Modern sea walls require steel reinforcements; a future in which "large relic walls of twisted steel" dot the coast would be "very troubling," Jackson said. The Romans didn't use steel. Their reactive concrete was strong enough on its own. "It's not just a historical curiosity," Brune said. "It may yet have a part to play." Read more: The world's oldest computer is still revealing its secrets Ancient Romans depicted Huns as barbarians. Their bones tell a different story. How Roman toilets (and fish sauce) may have helped spread parasites across Europe Ben Guarino writes for The Washington Post's Speaking of Science section. V Follow 4bguari ATTACHMENT B APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATE MATERIALS OR METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION Under the authority of [A] 104.11of the 2016 CBC, and/or R104.11 of the 2016 CRC, as amended by the City of La Quinta, the undersigned requests approval of alternate materials, alternate design and / or methods of construction for: Exterior Wall and Roof systems for construction of a proposed single-family dwelling. Project Name: Ken Proposed Duce Residence Plan Check/Permit #: BRES2016- 0363 Project Address: 51-335 Calle Hueneme Occupancy Group: _R3 Type of Construction: VB Sprinklers (Y/N):_Y #of Stories:1 Floor Area: 1,425 Square Feet Tenant Area: NA Describe Use: Proposed Single-family Dwelling Subject of Alternative (a separate form should be filled out for each alternative item): A brief description of the item must be included if additional documents are attached _Refer to applicant's electronically submitted proposal with attachments dated April 19, 2017 (Received on May 10, 2017 by B. Hanada via Peter MacDonald; supplement received on July 5, 2017 via Peter MacDonald). Code Requirement (specify code section(s): California Residential Code Section R703 Exterior Covering - R703.1.1 Water Resistance; additional code sections referred to in summary apply. Alternate Proposal (A brief description must be included even if additional documents are attached): _ Refer to applicant's submitted proposal dated April 19, 2017 (Received on May 10, 2017 by B. Hanada via Peter MacDonald; supplement received on July 5, 2017 via Peter MacDonald) with attachments. An exterior wall and roof system that utilizes lime masonry blocks and lime treated insulation with a lime plaster finis Justification (Attach copies of any reference, test reports, expert opinions, etc. The Building Official may require that a consultant be hired by the applicant to perform all applicable tests, research and analysis, and submit a full report of evaluation to Building & Safety for consideration a.nd approval). A brief description must be included here even if additional documents are attached. Refer to applicant's submitted proposal dated April 19, 2017 (Received on May 10, 2017 by B. Hanada via Peter MacDonald; supplement received on July 5, 2017 via Peter MacDonald) with attachments. Building Division - Design & Development Dept. 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 PH. 760.777.7125 email: bauildinaft-nuinta.arfl Requested by: Ken and Cathy Duce Owner Name (Print) Phone No.: taQ"�tr�, Refer to proposal dated 4-19-2017, received May 10, 2017 with Supplement dated July 5, 2017 Owner Signature Date BUILDING DIVISION SUMMARY & FINDINGS: This letter is prepared in response to the Alternative Materials and Methods Request sent to Mr. Burt Hanada, Building Official, by Ken and Cathy Duce, dated April 2017. This written request and reference materials was forwarded to me on May 10, 2017, with a notice to proceed with analysis of the request given on May 19, 2017. A supplement to the reference materials was received on July 5, 2017. Based on the date of application for alternate method and materials, this report will reference the 2016 Edition of the California Building Standards Code which was adopted by the City of La Quinta. While the Application for Alternative Materials or Methods of Constructions, dated April 19, received May 10, and with a supplement from email dated July 5, 2017 (collectively, the "application") reference a Building Permit application BRES2016-0363 on December 19, 2016, the application for alternative materials or methods was submitted and received in 2017. As such, the 2016 California Residential Code (CRC), which took effect January 1, 2017, applies even though the provisions of CRC Sections R104.11 and R104.11.1 are substantively the some as they were in the prior 2013 edition of the CRC. The proposal in the application is to utilize a roof and wall system in the construction of a one-story single family dwelling that incorporates lime masonry blocks, lime treated insulation and lime plaster finish (the "project"). The applicants' proposed project is not permitted under the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"), nor has the proposed project's construction materials and methods been approved by either the California Building Code ("CBC") or CRC, both of which are incorporated by reference into the LQMC (subject to modifications that are not relevant to this application). (See generally, LQMC §§ 8.02.010 et seq., 8.06.010 et seq.) Additional state-wide building codes apply to construction in the City and are incorporated by reference into the LQMC, including the California Energy Code ("CEC"). (LQMC § 8.14.010 [CEC]; see also, e.g., LQMC §§ 8.03.010 et seq. [Cal. Electrical Code], 8.04,010 [Cal. Plumbing Code], 6.05.010 [Cal. Mechanical Code].) When, as here, the CRC, CBC, and LQMC have not approved a proposed construction material or method proposed for a single family dwelling, CRC Sections R104.11 and R104.11.1 govern: R104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment. The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, Building Division - Design & Development Dept. 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 PH. 760.777.7125 email: building lazqt)in[p,org ca Qaiwra design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in this code. Compliance with the specific performance-based provisions of the California Codes shall be an alternative to the specific requirements of this code. Where the alternative material, design or method of construction is not approved, the building official shall respond in writing, stating the rea- sons why the alternative was not approved. R104.11.1 Tests. Where there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods, the building official shall have the authority to require tests as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified in this code or by other recognized test standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test methods, the building official shall approve the testing procedures. Tests shall be performed by an approved agency. Reports of such tests shall be retained by the building official for the period required for retention of public records. Because there are no records of any other residence in the City that has used the construction materials and methods proposed by the applications, the Building Official contracted with an outside, independent consultant to review the application. Specifically, the Building Official sought the independent consultant review to determine if the findings can be made that the applicants' proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of the CRC (and other incorporated and relevant state-wide construction codes), and that the material, method or work offered is not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in the CRC (and other incorporated and relevant state-wide construction codes). The findings of the Building Official that follow below are based upon an evaluation by the City's independent consultant -- Transtech - of the applicants' proposal and their supporting documents with attachments: 1. Exterior Wall Covering. CRC Section R703 - Exterior Covering - requires that the building be provided with a weather -resistant exterior wall envelope that demonstrates the prevention of an accumulation of water within the wall assembly by providing a water-resistant barrier (CRC Sections 703.1.1, 703.2) capable of resisting wind driven rain (CRC Section 703.1.2). Testing and validation by an independent evaluation service of the proposed wall system's ability to keep wood framing members from rotting or facilitating mold growth, so that the alternative method and material are no less equivalent of prescribed CRC methods and materials, is recommended prior to issuance of a building permit to the applicants for their proposed project. 2. Roof Weather Protection. CRC Section R903.1 provides that roof assemblies shall be designed and installed in accordance with the CRC and the approved manufacturer's installation instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the building. It is recommended Building Division - Design & Development Dept. 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 PH. 760.777.7125 email: bkOding Ic-gvinta.org ta 62ainra that the proposed roof system assembly be tested and validated by an independent evaluation service, prior to issuance of a building permit to the applicants for their proposed project, so that it may be confirmed that the alternative method and material are no less than the equivalent of prescribed CRC methods and materials. 3. Hydraulic Lime Composite Perlite Insulation. Building Energy Efficiency Standards in CEC Section110.8 - Mandatory Requirements for Insulation, Roofing Products and Radiant Barriers - requires any insulation shall be certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Home Furnishing and Thermal Insulation, that the insulation conductive thermal performance is approved pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 12, Chapters 12-13, Article 3, "Standards for Insulating Material." To confirm compliance with this requirement of the code, it is recommended that the proposed roof system not be approved or be tested because, to date, no other residence in the City has been approved or otherwise demonstrated compliance with this provision of the code with the proposed alternative materials and methods. Such testing and validation by an independent evaluation service is recommended prior to issuance of a building permit to the applicants for their proposed project to ensure that the alternative method and material are no less than the equivalent of prescribed methods and materials for insulation, roofing products, and radiant barriers. 4. Minimum Roof and Wall Insulation. Building Energy Efficiency Standards in CEC Section 150.0(a) and (c) require a mandatory minimum insulation value for roof and walls of R-30 and R-13 respectively, or compliance with CEC Table 150.1-A Component Package "A" Standard Building Design - Climate Zone 15 (Location of City of La Quinta) requires a R-38 insulation value for the roof / ceiling and R-13+5 or R-15+4 insulation value for the wall cavity assemblies. As the proposed roof and wall assemblies fall outside the listing of the Reference Appendices, approval by the Energy Commission for an Alternative Component Package is required. Testing and validation by an independent evaluation service of the proposed roof and wall assemblies to show equivalency to the code is recommended prior to building permit issuance to the applicants for their proposed project. Lime Masonry Block. CRC Section R202 - Definition of Masonry Unit - conforms to the requirements of CBC Section 2103 for "Mortar" (CBC Section 2103.2; CRC Section R606.2.7) and Grout (CBC Section 2103.3). The Lime masonry block specified in the exterior wall of the applicants' proposal does not identify a code -recognized standard that it conforms to and does not conform to the testing requirement of Masonry under the CRC. Therefore, it is recommended that this material must be tested to the standards required by the code prior to installation, and validated by an independent evaluation service specified by the Building Official to show that the proposed method and material are at least the equivalent of that prescribed by the CRC. 6. Mortar for Use in Proposed Lime Masonry Block. Clarification is required prior to building permit issuance in the determination of the masonry wall and whether it is serving as the part Building Division - Design & Development Dept, 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 PH. 760.777.7125 email: bufldln9@lo-c1Ujf1kp.Qrtg cca Q"Ptra of the lateral force resisting system requiring a Type M or S Portland cement -lime or mortar cement mortar per CRC Section R606.2.7.3. CBC Section 2103.2.1 provides that mortar for use in masonry construction shall conform to ASTM C 270 and Articles 2.1 and 2.6 A of TMS 602/ACI 530.1/ASCE 6, except for mortars listed in CBC Sections 2103.2.2, 2103.2.3 and 2103.2.4. ("ASTM" is American Society for Testing and Materials, "TMS" is The Masonry Society, "ACI" is American Concrete Institute, and "ASCE" is American Society of Civil Engineers.) Therefore, it is recommended that testing and validation by an independent evaluation service to confirm the proposed method and material are at least the equivalent of that prescribed by these standards, prior to the installation in the applicants' residence. 7. Grout. CBC Section 2103.3 provides that grout shall comply with Article 2.2 of TMS 602/ACI 530.1/ASCE 6. The standards and specifications of the grout mix were not presented in the applicants' proposal. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicants provide such specifications and have completed testing and validation by an independent evaluation service to confirm the proposed method and material are at least the equivalent of that prescribed by these standards, prior to the installation in the applicants' residence. 8. Clay Tile "Roof Deck". CBC Section 2103.2.3 addresses mortars for ceramic wall and floor tile. Portland cement mortars for installing ceramic wall and floor tile must comply with ANSI A108.1A and ANSI A108.1B and be of the compositions indicated in CBC Table 2103.2.3. ("ANSI" is American National Standards Institute.) The roof system proposed by the applicant shows a type of 1/4 -inch clay tile bedded on a 3 inch thick layer of time motor, sand and perlite that was not identified in Attachment 2 of the applicants' proposal. The bedding composition of perlite concrete, sand and hydraulic lime was not provided in the applicants' proposal to indicate compliance with a recognized standard. The type of clay roof tile was not cleartly identified in the cross section of the applicants' proposal. CRC Section R905.3.2, which addresses deck slope, provides clay and concrete roof tile shall be installed on roof slopes of two and one-half units vertical in 12 units horizontal (21/2:12) or greater. The roof slope indicated in Attachmentl indicates a "A inch slope". The bedding composition and clay the items must be resolved prior to issuance of the building permit to ensure compliance with the these provisions. 9. Ground Contact. CRC Section R317.1.2 provides, "All wood in contact with the ground, embedded in concrete in direct contact with the ground or embedded in concrete exposed to the weather that supports permanent structures intended for human occupancy shall be approved pressure -preservative -treated wood suitable for ground contact use, except untreated wood may be used where entirely below groundwater level or continuously submerged in fresh water." The applicant's proposal did not clearly identify the properties of wood embedded within the hydraulic lime composite Perlite insulation. Therefore, the properties of wood must be accomplished prior to issuance of a building permit to the applicants for their proposed project to ensure compliance with these provisions. Building Division - Design & Development Dept. 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 PH. 760.777.7125 email: buildinq@lo-q int ,gr Conclusion: The City Staff and its agents appreciate the time and effort the applicants have spent in the proposal for a roof and wall system under the alternative material and method of construction in the construction and equipment; however, information presented in the application currently does not demonstrate equivalence to the requirements of the CRC (and other incorporated and relevant state-wide construction codes). The applicants' supporting documents and attachments only address the potential benefits and historical uses of their proposed alternative method and material. Determination: The application is approved with the conditions that (i) the applicants clarify the construction standards to be used as identified in Finding Nos. 8 and 9 above, and (ii) pursuant to CRC Section R104.11.1, the applicants, at no cost to the City, complete testing of the proposed alternative materials and methods, exactly as proposed and presented in their application, with clari fications conditioned by this determination. Based on the City's independent consultant's review of the application, the CRC has no specified test method for the applicants' proposed alternative materials or methods. As such, the testing shall be completed by "other recognized test standards" that will address the independent consultant's and Building Official's findings as set above. The City's Building Official shall approve the testing procedures. The testing procedures shall be performed by an agency approved by the Building Official. The applicants may propose an agency to perform the testing, but the Building Official reserves the right to approve that agency, which determination by the Building Official may be reliant upon an independent evaluation service to review and assess the agency's testing. The completion of the testing and approval thereof by the Building Official shall be completed prior to the,issuance of a building permit for the proposed project as identified in this determination. This determination is the final determination of the Building Official pursuant to CRC Section R104.11.1 as incorporated into LQMC Section 8.06.010. Pursuant to LQMC Sections 2.40.020 and 2.40.050, the applicants may appeal this decision to the La Quinta Construction Board of Appeals ("CBA") by filing written notice of such an appeal with the Building Official within 10 days after the date of this decision. Grounds for the appeal shall be set forth in writing. [continued on next page] Building Division - Design & Development Dept. 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 PH. 760.777.7125 email: buildinaft-gUinta.org cc& Office Use Only ❑Approval Recommended ❑Approval not Recommended [Conditional Approval STAFF MEMBER SIGNATURL-. STAFF MEMBER NAME: Burt Hanada For ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED CONDITIONAL APPROVAL: See Conclusion & Determination Building Official Burt Hanada Date: August _24, 2017 STAFF MEMBER NAME: _Burt Hanada _7.25 hours X $152.00 / Hour = _1,102.00 Total Fee due Payment Information: ❑ Visa ❑ M/C [)Cash _ heck# Receipltr: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR APPLICATIONS FOR ALTERNATE MATERIALS, ALTERNATE DESIGNS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION Building Official may approve the proposed alternate, if sufficient evidence is provided that: • Proposed design complies with the intent of provisions of the current codes. • The alternate material or method proposed is equivalent to code requirements in: 1) Quality. 5) Durability. 2) Strength. 6) Safety. 3) Effectiveness. 4) Fire resistance. Upon approval, all the features of the approved application (including a copy of the application) shall be incorporated into the drawings. DISCLAIMER - Applicants for Alternate Materials, Alternate Design or Alternate Method of Construction shall note that the approval of the proposal is based on the factual documentation provided in support of the alternate at the time of approval. If at any point during the review or inspection process, the Building Official . notices deviations from the original application, the approval becomes null and void. At that time, the applicant has to either revert to the original proposal or file a new application based on the revised plans. For Alternate Proposals Drocessed pria r td sub_rnittpl an¢ gppraval of full set of glans. the aDnroval is only ir1 concent. The aonraval needy t_p-he validated after submittal of tl construction dacumentj Building Division - Design & Development Dept. 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 PH. 760.777.7125 email:ldi ATTACHMENT C i TRANswch June 5, 2017 Neville Pereira, P.E. Transtech Engineers 13367 Benson Ave. Chino, CA 91710 Timothy R. Jonasson, P.E. Director of Design and Development/City Engineer City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Mr. Jonasson, This letter is prepared in response to the Alternative Materials and Methods Request sent to Mr. Burt Hanada, Building Official, by Ken and Cathy Duce, dated April 2017. This written request and reference materials was forwarded to me on May 10, 2017, with a notice to proceed with analysis of the request given on May 19, 2017. Based on the date of application for alternate method and materials, this report will reference the 2016 Edition of the California Building Standards Code which was adopted by the City of La Quinta. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pursuant to California Residential Code (CRC) Section R104.11 Alternative materials and methods of construction and equipment, Mr. & Mrs. Duce have applied to the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) to construct their home using a wall and roof system that is based on extensive use of hydraulic lime. This method of construction is not covered by the prescriptive standards of the California Residential Code (CRC), and requires that the alternative material, design and/or method of construction comply with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in the code. Based on the information provided in the request and accompanying reference materials, it is recommended that this request be approved only on the condition that it comply with the requirements elaborated below. 1. Water Resistive Barrier of Exterior Walls. Notwithstanding the discussion presented by Ken Duce that this wall system is porous and breathable, the code explicitly requires the wall system 13367 Benson Avenue 1 Chino CA 91710 1 T gog 595 8599 1 F gog 590 8599 1 Transtech.org demonstrate a water -resistive barrier to resist wind -driven rain testing the wall envelope, joints, penetrations and intersections with dissimilar materials. Testing and validation of the system's ability to keep wood framing members from rotting or facilitating mold growth must occur prior to issuance of a building permit. Water Resistive Barrier of Roof. The necessity of a waterproof roof seal means that the roof cannot wick moisture immediately to the outside atmosphere. This means that moisture wicked into the roof/insulation assembly must travel a longer distance; horizontally to the exterior walls to exit the system though a relatively narrow area where the roof insulation meets the wall insulation. Since it is preferable to evacuate moisture from the system as quickly as possible to prevent moisture related problems, it is recommended that the proposed roof system be approved if the assembly is tested by an approved agency prior to installation and validated by an independent evaluation service specified by the building official, to show that the method of construction comply with the intent of the provisions of this code Thermal Resistance of Composite Material. California Energy Code Section 110.8 Mandatory Requirement for Insulation, Roofing Products and Radiant Barriers, requires that any insulation be certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Home Furnishing and Thermal Insulation that the insulation conductive thermal performance is approved pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 12, Chapters 12 - 13, Article 3, "Standards for Insulating Material." Whereas Perlite (loose fill) is well documented for it thermal resistance values and is an approved insulation product, the hydraulic lime bound composite product is not. Thus, testing and validation needs to be provided by an approved agency and results certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Home Furnishing and Thermal Insulation. 4. Minimum Thermal Resistance for Roof and Walls. California Energy Code Section 150 (a) and (c) require a mandatory minimum insulation value for roof and walls of R-19 and R-13 respectively. The insulation value of these assemblies must be established by testing of the assembly prior to installation. 5. Structural properties for masonry are derived out of testing data, which is another argument for standards testing to recognized criteria. Without this code prescribed testing data, the building official cannot accept any allowable stress design or load factor resistance design values for the hydraulic lime block, even if it is endorsed by a California licensed design professional. Definition and specification of Masonry Unit. The California Residential Code defines a Masonry Unit as a "brick, tile, stone, glass block or concrete block conforming to the requirements specified in Section 2103 of the California Building Code." Below are a few sections of Section 2103 that require testing to show conformance before the building official can recognize that the assembly is at least the equivalent of that prescribed in the code. The hydraulic lime block specified in the exterior walls of the Duce proposal does not identify a code recognized standard that it conforms to and does not conform to the testing requirement of Masonry under the code. Therefore, this material must be tested to the standards required by code, prior to installation and validated by an independent evaluation service specified by the building official, to show that the material is at least the equivalent of that prescribed in the code. 7. "R606.2.7.3 Masonry in Seismic Design Categories Do, Dl and DZ. Mortar for masonry serving as the lateral -force resisting system in Seismic Design Categories D0, D1 and D2 shall be Type M or S portland cement -lime or mortar cement mortar." "CBC 2103.2 Mortar. Mortar for masonry construction shall comply with Section 2103.2.1, 2103.2.2, 2103.2.3 or 2103.2.4. " Mortars listed in Sections 2103.2.1, 2103.2.2, 2103.2.3 or 2103.2.4 above are irrelevant to this discussion. This section does not allow for the use of Pozzolanic Hydraulic Lime for Structural Purposes (ASTM C1707) as presented in the Duce report, and therefore must be tested to the standards required by code, prior to installation and validated by an independent evaluation service specified by the building official, to show that the material is at least the equivalent of that prescribed in the code. 8. "CBC 2103.3 Grout. Grout shall comply with Article 2.2 of TMS 602/ACI 530.1/ASCE 6." There is no mention of specifications and standards conformity of the "lime concrete fill" that is used as grout in the Duce proposal, and therefore must be tested to the standards required by code, prior to installation and validated by an independent evaluation service specified by the building official, to show that the material is at least the equivalent of that prescribed in the code. 9. The roof system specified in the construction section shows a %" thick clay tile "roof deck" bedded on a 3" thick layer of lime mortar, sand and perlite. CBC 2103.2.3 Mortars for ceramic wall and floor tile. Portland cement mortars for installing ceramic wall and floor tile shall comply with ANSI A108.1A and ANSI A108.113 and be of the compositions indicated in Table 2103.11. Any tile roof is subject to cracking: If not the clay tile, then the grout lines in-between because of the temperature differences experiences during its life cycle. Thus, the bedding material is subject to moisture infiltration, and water logging. In such circumstances, the extra weight of the water-logged roofing material can cause deflection of structural members, ponding, and in extreme cases, structural collapse. The type of clay roof tile is not clear in the cross section or narrative provided. It also appears that the roof slope may be less than that prescribed by code. CRC Section "R905.3.2 Deck slope. Clay and concrete roof tile shall be installed on roof slopes of two and one-half units vertical in 12 units horizontal (2 %2:12) or greater." 10. The applicant proposes to install testing and monitoring equipment during construction to monitor and justify the performance of the alternate method and material after construction instead of testing prior to issuance of the building permit. CRC Section "R104.11.1 Tests. Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods, the building official shall have the authority to require tests as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified in this code or by other recoenized test standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test methods, the building official shall approve the testing procedures. Tests shall be performed by an 3 approved agency. Reports of such tests shall be retained by the building official for the period required for retention of public records." 11. CRC Section "R317.1.2 Ground contact. All wood in contact with the ground, embedded in concrete in direct contact with the ground or embedded in concrete exposed to the weather that supports permanent structures intended for human occupancy shall be approved pressure - preservative -treated wood suitable for ground contact use, except untreated wood may be used where entirely below groundwater level or continuously submerged in fresh water." Whereas the applicant has provided ample commentary to justify the validity of the wall and roof assemblies proposed in the request for alternative materials and methods of construction and equipment, much of this material is outside the confines of recognized code standards, code standards testing, and national code relevance. The importance of standardized testing cannot be understated because there are thousands of products and methods of construction introduced nationally each year that are endorsed by "credentialed experts in their fields", and yet do not pass the standardized tests for their use. There is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code based on the lack of conformance to definitions and standards testing throughout parts of the building standards code and, as such, the building official must require tests and evaluation of those test as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. COMMENTARY This section of the report expands on the points itemized above and addresses the attachments referenced in Mr. Duce's proposal to use alternate material and methods of construction. The request starts out by citing the primary concern of the La Quinta building division regarding the need for testing to determine equivalency with code requirements. As indicated in the executive summary above, this is still the underlying reason for denial of this request as the applicant has chosen to bring forth evidence that does not conform to the testing requirements of the code. Mr. Duce states that "with the information provided, a building official can reasonably make the determination that the Duce Wall System meets the CBC requirement for protection of interior wood wall components from moisture". However, this is not the case, the historical narrative provided by a British firm discusses the use of lime binders in mortar used between solid stone masonry, and has little bearing on the wall assembly being proposed. The relatively thin application of mortar used historically had direct contact with the interior and exterior of the masonry wall and therefore more likely to transport moisture freely and well. There was no wood in the wall assemblies in the historical applications to be of any concern, and there weren't multiple layers as are being proposed here. The energy and environmental compatibility arguments also posed in attachment 4 are of little consequence since this is a request for a one-time approval of a system that is not currently approved by the code for mass use. The pages of chemical and energy consumption equations do not contribute at all to the reason for denial of this system. Mr. Duce is right in that the city of La Quinta provides an appropriate climate zone for use of a system like this, were it to properly tested and approved to be code equivalent. Whereas the official Climate Zone is 15 according to the California Energy Commission, it does occasionally rain and therefore the wall assembly must conform to code prescribed waterproof testing for exterior walls. According to the climatic justifications made to the Building Standards commission, "La Quinta has an arid desert climate with rainfall averaging just over three inches annually, reducing the moisture content of combustible materials. Frequent periods of drought and low humidity contribute to the probability of a year-round fire season. For nearly four months each year, average daily high temperatures in La Quinta reach 100 degrees or higher, reducing the amount of added heat required to bring combustible materials to their ignition point. La Quinta is subject to hot, dry winds that further dry combustible materials, adding to the intensity of fires and their potential to spread rapidly. During the summer months the dry winds and existing vegetation mix to create a hazardous fuel condition which has resulted in large loss in vegetation and structure fires. Severe "Santa Ana" winds frequently occur and can move a fire quickly throughout areas of the City. Multiple shifting wind patterns throughout the canyon areas add to the difficulty in suppressing fires."' That being said, the presence of wood in this wall assembly also potentially affects the fire rating of the exterior wall. Attachment 6, produced by Mr. Duce also touches on the extremes of heating and cooling differences between night and day temperatures which accelerate the effects of cracking in building materials. This effect is particularly problematic for the roof assembly proposed, albeit vague, where cracking of mortar between the clay tiles could allow premature infiltration of rainwater into the porous mortar layer immediately below, which could lead to subsequent structural issues as explained in item 9 above. Attachment 7, titled Wood Durability, is referenced out of context of the type of wall system that is discussed therein. Whereas the article discusses the changing needs of the wall assembly based on geographic location and the relative climates of those locations, the wall assembly being discussed is a framed wood wall with air circulation allowed or not between the framing members. This is not the case of wood encased in a hydraulic lime concrete where there is potentially a greater chance of holding moisture against the wood framing for extended periods. This article also states that "most wall assemblies have always historically leaked rain water" and yet if the wall assembly is constructed without a vapor barrier, the risk of moisture -related problems is reduced. The building division could not agree more however; there needs to be code prescribed evidence produced that the proposed wall system is as "leaky" as it needs to be. Mr. Duce ends item 1d of the Functionality section of his letter with "...then La Quinta is a safe and ideal location in which to test the viability of an alternate method of controlling moisture build up in wall and roof structures." Pursuant to CRC section R104.11.1, the building department can require tests as evidence of compliance but cannot be asked to test alternate methods of construction with its constituents in the community. The life, fire, health and structural safety of construction authorized by the building official should always be thoroughly vetted through code prescribed standards testing that is later evaluated by an independent evaluation service before being applied in production. 1 2016 Code Adoption Climatic Findings to the California Building Standards Commission. It is interesting that Attachment 8 was included in the supporting material for this request because this alternative method for Strawbale Construction was eventually adopted as Appendix S in the 2016 Edition of the California Residential Code. The adoption of this method of construction was largely due to intensive code prescribed testing and years of refining the wall assembly before it was given the approval to be incorporated into the code as a production means of construction. The need for breathable walls and lime plasters are well documented through testing. Attachment 10 is entitled Building limes in the United Kingdom written by Paul Livesey, tracing the history and resurgence of the use of lime mortars. There is a paragraph in the middle of this article which discusses the breathability of lime mortar however it also does not specifically address the wall assembly that is being proposed in this request. In fact, one can deduce that it too discusses the breathability of lime mortar connecting the inner and outer faces of a solid masonry wall with little to no layers before and after. Thus, the article loses its relevancy both technically and geographically. The same paragraph ends with a treatise of structural movement either from ground conditions or solar effects. This is a good argument for the use of lime mortar in a seismic zone however, testing data and independent evaluation of the material is still lacking. "La Quinta is situated near several significant sources capable of producing moderate to large earthquakes, including the San Andreas, Garnet Hill, Banning, Eureka Peak, Burnt Mountain, Pinto Mountain, San Gorgonio Pass, and San Jacinto Faults. Faults near La Quinta are capable of producing earthquakes of Magnitude 7.8 or greater, accompanied by intense shaking, liquefaction, and permanent ground displacement, increasing the risk of property damage, or personal injury or death, caused by the failure of structures, necessitating the permitting and inspection of structures that would otherwise be exempt from permit requirements. Seismic activity within the area occurs yearly. As a result, existing structures and planned new development are subject to serious risks, including fire and collapse, disruption of the water supply for firefighting purposes, and isolation from emergency response as a result of bridge, overpass, and road damage and debris. Severe ground shaking during a seismic event increases the probability that above -ground structures will fail. The inherent danger to the public is increased when power lines are installed above ground because of the danger from falling or fallen power poles and the possibility of contacting live power line S.,,2 The article ends with the following: "The advantages of lime mortars are being increasingly recognized, initially driven by the desire to reduce embodied carbon and enable masonry to be reused. The technological base for lime and its applications are developing from a century of techniques applied to cement mortar and (mainly) concrete, but are being delaved by a lack of research funding for what is seen as `old technology'. The relevance of some taboos, such as the now lifted ban on 'gauged lime', has been clarified by relevant research, albeit remaining in the trade folklore. The opportunities to be presented by the new standard and the classes of hydraulic and pre -formulated limes are endless, and will lead to limes that have superior properties and are more user-friendly. Uptake by a conservative and skeptical market will inevitably be slow and will require strong advocates backed by sound science." Z 2016 Code Adoption Geologic Findings to the California Building Standards Commission. 6 Even the author understands that there is resistance to adopting this method of construction based on lack of research and strong advocates back by sound science (and I would add testing). The Construction Certificate of Test for Porosity and Saturation Coefficient was completed using a testing standard foreign and that is not recognized by the International Building Code, let alone the California Building Code. It shows the porosity of a lime mortar independent of a wall assembly made up of separate components. Based on these facts, this attachment is of little value in favor of this request for alternate material and method of construction. The last two attachments provide the same discussions as earlier attachments to underscore the porosity and self -healing nature of hydraulic and non -hydraulic limes, and how anecdotally this will not rot wood that is embedded in it. The only way that the building official can rely on the validity of this information is to have it tested in an accredited laboratory and evaluated by an independent evaluation service. DISCLAIMER This report is based on information provided to the researcher and information generally available to the public. The opinions rendered are referenced to the building code and recognized standards where possible. No warranty can be expressed or implied by this report because we did not author any of the referenced material. Every effort has been made to base interpretation of tangible evidence and neutral rationale. Questions and concerns about this report should be first brought to the author that may require a re-evaluation of the content of this report. CREDENTIALS Neville Pereira, P.E., CBO • Professional Civil Engineer, State of California C 55991 } Certified Building Official, International Code Council (ICC) Since 2012 * International Accreditation Service Committee Member (IAS) Since 2010 • Certified Plans Examiner, International Code Council (ICC) Since 1996 • Certified Accessibility and Specialist, International Code Council (ICC) Since 1996 • Certified Building Inspector, International Code Council (ICC) Since 1999 City of Za Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 PHONE: 760.777.7000 ATTACHMENT D Received September 7, 2017 City of La Quinta City Clerk's Department DATE PAID STAMP APPLICATION for CASE NUMBER(s) APPEAL OF DIRECTOR or APPL2017-0001 Appealing BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISION BRES2016-0363 [CONSTRUCTION APPEALS BOARD] NOTE: An Appeal Application must be filed with the City within ten days after the City Official's decision is rendered. SECTION A - PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant's Name: Ken and Cathy Duce Applicant's Mailing Address: 701 S 3rd W, Missoula, MT 59801 Appellant's Phone 406-546-1785 e-mail kencathyduce@yahoo.com Project Name: Duce Residence Project Address: 51335 Calle Hueneme, La Quinta, CA 92253 Please identify the type of action being appealed: ❑ Director Decision ❑ X Building Official Determination ❑ Other Please identify each Case No. and/or Condition(s) of Approval being appealed: [note: APPEALS TO THE CONSTRUCTION APPEALS BOARD ARE LIMITED TO MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CHAPTER 8.01 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE] We are appealing all of the findings of the Building Official: 1. Exterior Wall Covering 2. Roof Weather Protection 3. Hydraulic Lime Composite Perlite Insulation 4. Minimum Roof and Wall Insulation 5. Lime Masonry Block 6. Mortar for Use in Proposed Lime Masonry Block 7. Grout 8. Clay Tile "Roof Deck". 9. Ground Contact. We are appealing the denial of our detailed exterior wall and roof system that works as a system to control water moisture in our wall and ceiling/roof system. Appeal Application [Construction Appeals Board] 5/5/2017 SECTION B — STATEMENT OF APPEAL Please provide sufficient information so as to make clear each issue being appealed and the grounds upon which your appeal is based. Please use additional sheets if needed and attach any additional information to support your appeal. See attached Statement of Appeal Applicant. Certification I certify that 1 have read this application pack -6t in its entirety and understand the City's a,ppeaI process. _ Applicant's Signature: rap Date- 9-6-2017 Print Name_ Kenneth B Duce Owner Certification I certify under the penalty of the laws of the State of California that l am the property Owner of the property that is the subject matter of this application and I arra authorizing and hereby do consent to the filing of this application and acknowledge that the final approval by the City of La Quinta, if any, may result in restrictions, limitations and construction obligations being imposed on this real property. Owner/Authorized Agent Signature": Date- -6-2017 Pant Name(s): Kenneth B Duce SECTION C - APPLICATION SU BMITTAL RE UIREMENTS Additional information may be required based on review of the project description. Submittal waivers may be obtained through staff consultation, a pre -submittal meeting, or a preliminary review application. No applications will be accepted by mail. SECTION D — SUBMITTAL ITEM DESCRIPTIONS APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS — INMAL BE COMPLEMD BY MYSTAFF7 0 of ? Each of the following Items is required for submittal. paper copies FILING FEES ❑ Flung Few Receipt APPLICATION IHFORMFATM p I Application wl tatem lit of Appeal 9ofE- aopws In PDF format (on C€>~ - ROM) Waiver OK'd by (initials) Filing Fees: Filing Fees are to be paid at the time the appeal appfiication is submitted. Appeal Application [Construction Appeals Board] 5/5/2017 SECTION B — STATEMENT OF APPEAL Please provide sufficient information so as to make clear each issue being appealed and the grounds upon which your appeal is based. Please use additional sheets if needed and attach any additional information to support your appeal. Summary After review of your submittal there is still a lack of evidence to issue a building permit based on the alternative designs proposed. Our main concern is the absence of water -resistive barrier on the exterior walls of the home. Traditionally, the Code utilizes this water resistive barrier to protect the components of the wall assembly. Our concerns are for these wall components, and how exactly the proposed design will perform. Under the proposed design the wood studs are suscevtible to the exposure of moisture. thus votentially causing decay. mold growth. etc. These wood materials may retain moisture, even if contained within materials that "breathe, " such as the perlite insulation. With no testing of the performance of this assembly it is difficult to confirm that equivalence of the code requirements will be reached or exceeded. (Underlining added) "The main benefit of using lime mortar in renders andplasters were to act as poultices and help dry the wet walls as built and to limit water penetration, but not waterproof them, but let them breathe. If the timber is in a breathing wall it will not saturate and therefore will not rot." (underlining added) Page 1 of 8 1. Exterior Wall Covering. Please read our April 19 Proposal for a thorough explanation of why the wood studs will not rot despite the absence of a water resistant barrier behind the exterior hydraulic lime stucco. 2. Roof Weather Protection. The proposed roofing is the best PVC single ply roofing available and will be installed according to the manufacturer's instructions (Manufacturers spec, Attachment 4). The PVC single ply roofing will be protected from the sun by the installation of 3 inches of light weight insulating perlite, sand, and lime mortar with clay tile on the surface. It is the sun's ultraviolet rays which cause disintegration of PVC roofing material, and no rays will penetrate the 3 inch bed of mortar and tile. 3. Hydraulic Lime Composite Perlite Insulation. The insulation proposed meets ASTM C 549 Standard Specification for Perlite Loose Fill Insulation. Our proposal is to mix this with a small amount of hydraulic lime binder to make the perlite hold together as a solid so as to not pour through any small holes in the wall or ceiling system such as from electrical or plumbing penetrations. Building Energy Efficiency Standards are in CEC Section 110.8: Page 2 of 8 4. Minimum Roof and Wall Insulation. The BO (and Building Code) ask for an R-38 minimum roof insulation and an R-19 minimum wall insulation. Perlite has an R - value of 2.7 plus per inch (e.g. see Attachment 5). Our ceiling/roof insulation with an average depth of 22 inches of perlite would have an R value of R-59.4, well in excess of the R-38 requirement. Our wall insulation at 10.5 inches depth would have an R value of R-28.35, well in excess of the R-19 requirement. This issue is more appropriately addressed as part of the comprehensive Title 24 Energy Analysis required for any California building permit. 5. Lime Masonry Block. In Items 5, 6, and 7, the BO questions the structural qualities of the lime masonry block, the lime mortar, and the lime grout. For its structural review, the City of La Quinta hires EsGil Corporation, a firm specializing in code review for building structural systems. Our structural system has been designed by a California registered professional structural engineer. The lime block, mortar and grout are not part of the lateral structural components of the building. In our proposed plans, the structural system is primarily an internal steel post and beam system carrying both vertical and horizontal loads. These issues are not within the expertise of the City's Building Official (or Transtech), and that structural review process should be allowed to proceed as it normally does — before issuance of any building permit. 6. Mortar for Use in Proposed Lime Masonry Block. See response at Item 5. 7. Grout. See response at Item 5. 8. Clay Tile "Roof Deck". The BO cites CRC Section R905.3.2 for the proposition that the roof slope is required to be 2 1/2:12 slope. The applicable Building Code Section for flat roofs is CRC R905.13.1, which calls for "a design slope of'not less than one fourth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2 percent slope)." Attachment 6. The clay tile is included on the roof deck of our proposal to provide a walking surface — and to protect the mortar bed and PVC roofing underneath the clay tile. 9. Ground Contact. Our proposed plans provide pressure -preservative - treated wood between the concrete and sill plates (see Attachment 2 to our April 19 Proposal). The BO's apparent concern is that the perlite insulation with lime binder would soak and rot the wood wall studs. As discussed in our April 19 Proposal, the perlite with lime binder is a vapor permeable material that dries readily to match ambient moisture levels (See Attachment 5 to our April 19 Proposal, in which the completely soaked perlite and lime sample dried completely within 33.5 hours.) Summary The Transtech criticisms of our proposed alternate methods and materials of Page 3 of 8 construction are unfounded and deliberately unreasonable. The Building Official had the responsibility to correct the Transtech recommendations, but did not. The Construction Appeals Board now has the opportunity and responsibility to correct this unreasonable treatment of La Quinta property owners. CRC Section 1.8.7.1 states: "The provisions of this code as adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development are not intended to prevent the use of any alternate material, appliance, installation, device, arrangement, design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code. " (boldface added) We have provided credible information to demonstrate that the proposed methods and materials will perform equivalent to standard building code practice, and a method to determine conclusively whether the proposal performs as expected. Recommended Decision: An alternate material, design, or method of construction be approved where the building official i.e. Appeals Board] finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, and safety. Page 4 of 8 Disclosure Covenant Respectfully Submitted, Kenneth Duce and Catherine Duce Page 5 of 8 List of Attachments to Statement of Appeal 1. Duce Letter to Burt Hanada Dated April 19, 2017 and Attachments 2. Building Official Findings and Determination DUCE Dated Aug 24, 2017 3. Transtech Report Duce Application Dated Aug 24,2017 4. PVC Single Ply Roofing Data Sheet 5. Perlite Loose Fill Insulation 6. CRC R905.13 Page 6 of 8 t a` VICINITY MA.. ra W r _ R. 03� FRI «W%(14 ,i_ PAN Date: April 19, 2017 To: Burt Hanada, Building Official City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 From: Ken and Cathy Duce 48255 Monroe St., # 27 Indio, CA 92201 Phone: (406) 546-1785 Email: kencathyduce@yahoo.com Subject Property: 51335 Calle Hueneme La Quinta. 92253 APN. 770-163-017 Subject: Proposal to use alternate materials or methods of construction under California Building Code (CBC) Section 1.8.7. Introduction We are proposing to use alternate materials or methods of construction for our proposed home at 51335 Calle Hueneme. Our wall design and roof detail are shown in Attachments 1 and 2, pdf pp. 1 — 2. (the "Duce Wall System") The Duce Wall System is based on extensive use of hydraulic limes produced by Virginia Lime Works (VLW). In a preliminary comment, the initial concerns raised by Building Department Staff were as follows: "After review of your submittal there is still a lack of evidence to issue a building permit based on the alternative designs proposed. Our main concern is the absence of a water -resistive barrier on the exterior walls of the home. Traditionally, the Code utilizes this water resistive barrier to protect the components of the wall assembly. Our concerns are for these wall components, and how exactly the proposed design will perform. Under the proposed design the wood studs are susceptible to the exposure of moisture, thus potentially causing decay, mold growth, etc. These wood materials may retain moisture, even if contained within materials that "breathe, " such as the perlite insulation. With no testing of the performance of this assembly it is difficult to confirm that equivalence of the code requirements will be reached or exceeded. " The CBC Section referenced by the Staff comment as requiring a water resistive barrier is CBC Section R703.1.1 (Attachment 3, pdf p.3). CBC Section 1.8.7 Proposal: Duce Page 2 Summary of Response Those initial Staff concerns are addressed by a panel of building experts in the building science literature (in our attachments). In the excerpts quoted below, these building scientists explain the functionality of hydraulic lime. The interior wood wall components at issue are the 2x4 wood members which support the exterior wall stucco, and the wood rafters, bearing plates and roof decking shown in the roof structure. With the information provided, a building official can reasonably make the determination that the Duce Wall System meets the CBC requirement for protection of interior wood wall components from moisture. In summary: 1. Functionality. The high porosity of hydraulic lime allow it to absorb and release moisture at a rate sufficient to wick away any moisture above ambient (safe) levels in the wood members of the wall and roof assembly. 2. Testing Proqram. To document the superior performance of the Duce Wall System, we propose a testing program to systematically measure the moisture content of the wood members hourly over the first three years. Although highly unlikely, if a moisture buildup did occur, we would collaborate with the Building Official to propose appropriate action to address the moisture problem. 1. Functionality a. Lonq Historv. Roman walls made of hydraulic lime have lasted for over 2000 years. Revie, "Hydraulic Lime Binders, History and Comparison" (Attachment 4,) In 2004, in Merida, Spain, and elsewhere, we visited and were amazed by many completely functional Roman walls built in the time of Christ. Current European building codes have incorporated standard procedures for use of hydraulic and natural hydraulic limes (EN459 European Norms for Natural Hydraulic Limes). This is a proven building material and wall design. b. Environmental Benefits. As an incidental benefit, production and use of lime mortar uses less than half as much CO2 as Portland cement. Derived from Attachment 4, at pdf p. 14: Net Kg CO2/metric ton: Portland cement 819; lime 336. Moreover, while lime concrete lacks the strength of Portland cement, (and strength is not at issue here), lime concrete has lower water content protecting it from daily and annual shrink -swell cycles that limit the useful life of Portland cement structures to only 100 years, or much less. c. Riqht Climate. We probably don't need to produce reams of data to convince a La Quinta official that La Quinta has a hot dry climate. Officially, La Quinta is in Climate Zone 3B, comparable to Las Vegas and Fresno. (Attachment 6 at pdf p. 20.) This is important because, as Lstiburek points out in "Wood Durabilty" (Attachment 7 at pdf p. 26), the places where internal rotting of wall materials have occurred are notably more humid climates, CBC Section 1.8.7 Proposal: Duce Page 3 such as Vancouver and South Carolina. The problems in each case involved build up of moisture because an outer surface material impermeable to water vapor prevented the escape of water vapor. With reasonable porosity, as Lstiburek recommends for Las Vegas at pdf p. 29, then La Quinta is a safe and ideal location in which to test the viability of an alternate method of controlling moisture build up in wall and roof structures. d. Breathability. The Key issue -Three points: i. higher porosity. Hydraulic limes are far more porous than Portland cement: A. Staub BSD 112: Building Science for Strawbale Homes at pdf p. 34 of Attachment 8. "The vapour permeance for 25 mm (one inch) thick cement -based stucco tends to lie in the range of 200 to 500 metric perms (ng/Pa s m2) or 4 to 9 US perms. The addition of lime tends to increase the vapour permeance to the range of 400 to about 800 perms or 7 to 14 US perms. Pure lime and earth stuccos have an even higher vapour permeance, of as much as 1000 perms (18 USperms)." (See Attachment 9 at p. 41 for definitions of perms, and explanation of metric perms vs. US perms. We gather from the information that perms measure the flow of water vapor through a material, while coefficient of saturation (CoS) and porosity measure characteristics of the material —which characteristics strongly influence the vapor permeance of that material.) ii. the value of porosity. A. Livesey in "Building Limes in the United Kingdom" Attachment 10 at pdf p. 45, explains the advantage of limes' higher porosity as follows: "Lime applied as mortar or render benefits from the superior permeable and flexible properties. The first thought in making a building resistant to water ingress is usually to apply a waterproof coating in the form of paint, cement render or some other coating product or system. However, the problem with these is that inevitably there will be some movement or deterioration that will result in cracks, allowing the ingress of water liquid or vapour. As the crack is a miniscule part of the structure, water is prevented from release by evaporation through the remaining impervious coating, causing the internal concentration to grow with subsequent onset of internal damp, rot and loss of the thermal insulation properties reducing building efficiency. Fort Washington slides of stone with p. c. mortar and lime leaching Lime, however, allows a building to `breathe'. In wet conditions, water is absorbed into the wall but, as soon as the rain stops, the movement is reversed, accelerated by wind, and the wall dries out, thus preventing dampness and rot. Similar advantages are to be found with regard to structural movement either from ground conditions or solar effects. The flexibility of a lime mortar reduces the risk of cracking and the ability of lime to heal cracks autogenously by precipitation of calcium carbonate helps to seal those cracks that do occur. Again, overall weather tightness is retained. " B. Lstiburek, "Wood Durability, Research Report — 0997", Attachment 7, at pdf p. MCI CBC Section 1.8.7 Proposal: Duce Page 4 "It has become obvious from our investigations, field research and laboratory testing that most wall assemblies leak rain water and furthermore that most wall assemblies have always historically leaked rain water. The reason that traditional wall assemblies have provided successful performance in the past, is that although rain wetting occurred, the rain wetting was followed by hygric redistribution and drying to both interior and exterior environments. Poorly insulated or uninsulated assemblies constructed in a leaky (to air) manner with vapor permeable materials (no polyethylene, vinyl wall coverings or foam sheathings) that did not loose their water repellency (no plastic housewraps)dried before problems arose." C. Staub BSD 112: Building Science for Strawbale Homes in Attachment 8: At pdf p. 10: "If a balance between wetting and drying is maintained, moisture will not accumulate over time, and moisture - related problems are unlikely. " At pdf p. 12: "Providing a water-resistant barrier (drainage plane) behind the stucco is not practical in strawbale construction because it breaks the structural bond between the plaster and the strawbale and reduces the ability of a wall to dry outward. " At pdf p. 12: "The condensation surface in cold weather is usually the back of the sheathing in framed walls, or the back of the stucco in a strawbale wall. Any moisture that condenses here must dry to the outside. This occurs in sheathed walls by drying directly to the outside via ventilation of the cladding. In strawbale walls, condensate will be wicked into the plaster, and will subsequently evaporate from the exterior surface. This is an efficient drying mechanism. Placing building paper between the stucco and the straw will eliminate this condensation -wicking - drying mechanism and force any water to evaporate through the building paper and the full thickness of the stucco. " iii. Verified porosity of VLW limes. At Attachments 4, and 11 to 15, we include and highlight the results of testing of (Virginia Lime Works) VLW hydraulic limes by Construction Materials Consultants, Bill Revie, Materials and Testing Engineer. VLW hydraulic limes meet the adopted European standards for NHL 3.5 (Attachment 4, pdf p. 16). Also, meets ASTM C 1707-09 Spec (Attachment 14 at pdf p. 60 and Attachment16 at pdf p. 63) In the key result, the porosity for the tested VLW hydraulic limes is at 23% to 26%, all with a saturation coefficient (CoS) of 97% (Attachment 11 at pdf p. 49). This is explained by the tester, Bill Revie, Attachment 15, at pdf p. 62, as follows: "The porosity values are a measure of the total void space in the material and the coefficient of saturation (CoS)is a measure of the connectivity of the pores. A CoS value of 1.0 would indicate a well connectedpore structure and that moisture could migrate through the fabric easily, the size of the pores restricting the movement of water but allow the flow of moisture vapour; whereas a value of 0.2 would suggest a very poorly connected pore structure, in a fabric that will not wet readily, but if it does it will not dry easily [our comment: i.e. Portland cement mortar]. There is no direct correlation between the porosity and perms. The main benefit of using lime mortar in CBC Section 1.8.7 Proposal: Duce Page 5 renders and plasters were to act as poultices and help dry the wet walls as built and to limit water penetration, but not waterproof them, but let them breathe. If the timber is in a breathing wall it will not saturate and therefore will not rot." [bold face is added because that sentence summarizes our key point] 2. Testing Program a. Standard of Performance – What to test for? From the materials provided, we have a number of statements regarding the degree of moisture buildup necessary to threaten mold or rotting of wood members in a wall: i. Revie, March 14, 2017 email, Attachment 15 at pdf p. 61 "... wood only rots because the moisture content reaches a level to support rot which over here is 24% with the "At risk" band set between 17 and 22% with a high risk of rot between 22 and 24%. A well constructed lime mortar wall should not reach levels above 7% WME (wood Moisture Equivalent). " As explained by Livesy, Lsitiburek, and Staub in 1.d.ii. above, it is prolonged exposure to "at risk" levels of WME that leads to wood rot, not short term peaks in WME. ii. Staub BSD 112: Building Science for Strawbale Homes in Attachment 8: Atpdf p34: "Water vapour is stored in strawbales in the same way as wood or cellulose insulation, e.g., in the winter the equilibrium moisture content will be about 8-12% moisture content by dU weight, and the moisture content can rise to at least 20% before moisture problems begin. Hence, for a 8 pcf bale, more than 1 pound of water in vapour form can safely be stored per square foot of wall area." At pdf p. 34: "Different materials have different moisture performance thresholds. Corrosion of steel occurs as a function of its time of wetness (how many hours per year is it damp) the salt content of the vapour (e.g. from the ocean or deicing salts), the acid content of the vapour (from industry) and the temperature (the warmer the faster corrosion occurs). Corrosion begins at a surface relative humiditv of over 80%RH. Mould growth on wood and straw can occur when either is exposed to prolonged periods over 80%RH (about 20% moisture content). Wood rots if exposed to liquid water or over 950loRH for several months at warm temperatures. We know that wood will not rot below about 28 to 30% moisture content. It is believed that straw will rot at a slightly lower moisture content because of its much higher surface area." At pdf p. 36: "Safe storage capacity depends on the material. Wood and straw can generally store about 20% moisture by weight without danger of mold growth. Steel cannot store any water safely—hence, any water in the studspace can immediately act to corrode the steel. The ability to safely store significant amounts of moisture means that the drying period can occur a long time after wetting, perhaps several months. This improves the chance of a moisture balance being struck. " CBC Section 1.8.7 Proposal: Duce Page 6 In conclusion, the most conservative standard suggested by the authorities was in the Revie Email cited above as: "At Risk" Band: 17% to 22% WME (wood moisture equivalent). "High Risk" Band: Greater than 22% WME. That is the standard we propose to use in our testing program. b. Testinq Plan — Testing and Monitoring of Moisture and Water Vapor Movement Moisture monitoring probes will be placed on wood studs in representative areas, 12 inches above the treated sill plates for the most accurate representation of the moisture content in the studs. Moisture probes will also be placed in representative places in the 4x4 wood bearing plates on the ceiling slab and in the wood rafters and wood roof decking. In addition, temperature/humidity probes will be placed in 2 to 3 key places in the wall and ceiling roof assemblies in the house walls and roof, the garage walls and roof and the light and ventilation shaft walls and roof. These are done to show the direction of the flow of water vapor through the assembly — either into the air or into the interior of the house. We are working now with Omni -Sense and RDH Building Science Corporation on their building monitoring systems, picking one for a 3 year monitoring and evaluation of the data for determining possibilities of rot or moisture problems anywhere in the building envelope. An example of the kind of wood moisture equivalent sensors that are readily available is included as Attachment 17 at pdf p. 64. When we have determined the technical options available, the Building Official can specify the reporting schedule on test results to be provided to the City, and the format (digital, paper, or both). The Testing Plan will be finalized subject to approval of the Building Official prior to issuance of a building permit. CBC Section 1,8.7 Proposal. Duce Page 7 Summation Your timely and favorable consideration and approval of the proposed Duce Wall System will be sincerely appreciated. RespectfuIIy submitted Catherine E Duce Approved: enneth B. Duce Burt Hanada, Building Official Date CBC Section 1.8.7 Proposal: Duce Page 8 List of Attachments: PDF Page Attachment 1. Duce Wall System, Section 1 1 Attachment 2. Duce Wall System, Section 2 2 Attachment 3. California Building Code Section R703.1.1 Water barrier. 3 Attachment 4. Hydraulic Lime Binders, History and Comparison. Bill Revie 8 Attachment 5. Perlite Drying Time Test by Ken Duce 19 Attachment 6. All About Climate Zones, Green Building Advisor 20 Attachment 7. Wood Durability, Research Report — 0997, Joseph Lstiburek 26 Attachment 8. SBSD 112: Building Science for Strawbale Homes, John Staub, 33 Building Science Corporation Attachment 9. Perms defined and explained, Wikipedia 39 Attachment 10. Building Limes in the United Kingdom, Paul Livesly 41 Attachment 11. VLW Porosity and Saturation Coefficient Test, 49 Construction Materials Consultants Attachment 12. VLW Pozzolanic Limes, Construction Materials Consultants 50 Attachment 13. Notes on Lime Binder Differences. Construction Materials 56 Consultants Attachment 14. VLW Hydraulic Lime Analysis by Graymont Lime Company 60 Attachment 15. March 14, 2017 Email, Bill Revie 61 Attachment 16. ASTM Specification for Pozzolanic Hydraulic Lime C 1707-09 63 Attachment 17. Example Wood Moisture Equivalent Sensor 66 PDF page numbers appear in red numbers at the bottom of each page. I Ilk aaruszow y p x U J N � a VQ vi N oz a mLL0 u ❑� Y u W O Z ❑ a V a ❑* = V F d vSdN� N rU W'f"❑ nzV xqz �zV� W.iasN_ a � u maW� T. �iiF x y V0uj Q c Q W N N w I W O f J W w Fm m C o� p � � W w V 2 z �afl 7 t'V aaw E v0� Q a 2 E � )§ e \/(§ 3 ui 2�2] Z \ e2 §� S )�\ k e X22§ \§2 aq e Attachment 3 SECTION R703 EXTERIOR COVERING R703.1 General. Exterior walls shall provide the building with a weather -resistant exterior wall envelope. The exterior wall envelope shall include flashing as described in Section R703.8. R703.1.1 Water resistance. The exterior wall envelope shall be designed and constructed in a manner that prevents the accumulation of water within the wall assembly by providing a water-resistant barrier behind the exterior veneer as required by Section R703.2 and a means of draining to the exterior water that enters the assembly. Protection against condensation in the exterior wall assembly shall be provided in accordance with the California Energy Code. Exceptions: 1. A weather -resistant exterior wall envelope shall not be required over concrete or masonry walls designed in accordance with Chapter 6 and flashed according to Section R703.7 or R703.8. 2. Compliance with the requirements for a means of drainage, and the requirements of Sections R703.2 and R703.8, shall not be required for an exterior wall envelope that has been demonstrated 3 to resist wind -driven rain through testing of the exterior wall envelope, including joints, penetrations and intersections with dissimilar materials, in accordance with ASTM E 331 under the following conditions: 2.1. Exterior wall envelope test assemblies shall include at least one opening, one control joint, one wall/eave interface and one wall silL An tested openings and penetrations shall be representative of the intended end-use configuration. 2.2. Exterior wall envelope test assemblies shall be at least 4 feet by 8 feet (1219 mm by 2438 mm) in size. 2.3. Exterior wall assemblies shall be tested at a minimum differential pressure of 6.24 pounds per square foot (299 Pa). 2.4. Exterior wall envelope assemblies shall be subjected to the minimum test exposure for a minimum of 2 hours. The exterior wall envelope design shall be considered to resist wind -driven rain where the results of testing indicate that water did not penetrate control joints in the exterior wall envelope, joints at the perimeter of openings penetration or intersections of terminations with dissimilar materials. 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 approved water -resistive barrier shall be applied over studs or sheathing of all exterior walls. Such felt or material shall be applied horizontally, with the upper layer lapped over the lower layer not less than 2 inches z 4 (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 of walls 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. Exception: Omission of the water -resistive barrier is permitted in the following situations: 1. In detached accessory buildings. 2. Under exterior wall finish materials as permitted in Table R703.4. 3. Under paperbacked stucco lath when the paper backing is an approved water -resistive barrier. R703.6 Exterior plaster. Installation of these materials shall be in compliance with ASTM C 926 and ASTM C 1063 and the provisions of this code. R703.6.1 Lath. All lath and lath attachments shall be of corrosion -resistant materials. Expanded metal or woven wire lath shall be attached with 11 /2-inch-Iong (3 8 mm), 11 gage nails having a 7/16 -inch (11.1 mm) head, or 7/g -inchlong (22.2 mm), 16 gage staples, spaced at no more than 6 inches (152 mm), or as otherwise approved. R703.6.2 Plaster. Plastering with portland cement plaster shall be not less than three coats when applied over metal lath or wire lath and shall be not less than two coats when appJied over masonry, concrete, pressure -preservative treated wood or decay -resistant wood as specified in Section R3I7.I or gypsum backing. If the plaster surface is completely covered by veneer or other facing material or is completely concealed, plaster application need be only two coats, provided the total thickness is as set forth in Table R702.1(1). On wood -frame construction with an on -grade floor 3 5 slab system, exterior plaster shall be applied to cover, but not extend below, lath, paper and screed. The proportion of aggregate to cementitious materials shall be as set forth in Table R702.I(3). R703.6.2.1 Weep screeds. A minimum 0.019 -inch (0.5 mm) (No. 26 galvanized sheet gage), corrosion -resistant weep screed or plastic weep screed, with a minimum vertical attachment flange of 31 / 2 inches (89 mm) shall be provided at or below the foundation plate line on exterior stud walls in accordance with ASTM C 926. The weep screed shall be placed a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) above the earth or 2 inches (51 mm) above paved areas and shall be of a type that will allow trapped water to drain to the exterior of the building. The weather -resistant barrier shall lap the attachment flange. The exterior lath shall cover and terminate on the attachment flange of the weep screed. R703.6.3 Water -resistive barriers. Water -resistive barriers shall be installed as required in Section R703.2 and, where applied over wood -based sheathing, shall include a water -resistive vapor -permeable barrier with a performance at least equivalent to two layers of Grade D paper. The individual layers shall be installed independently such that each layer provides a separate continuous plane and any flashing (installed in accordance with Section R703.8) intended to drain to the water -resistive barrier is directed between the layers. Exception: Where the water -resistive barrier that is applied over wood -based sheathing has a water resistance equal to or greater than that of 60 -minute Grade D paper and is separated from the stucco by an intervening, substantially non water -absorbing layer or designed drainage space. 4 6 R703.6.4 Application. Each coat shall be kept in a moist condition for at least 48 hours prior to application of the next coat. Exception: Applications installed in accordance with ASTMC926. R703.6. S Curing. The finish coat for two -coat cement plaster shall not be applied sooner than seven days after application of the first coat. For three -coat cement plaster, the second coat shall not be applied sooner than 48 hours after application of the first coat. The finish coat for threecoat cement plaster shall not be applied sooner than seven days after application of the second coat. 5 7 Attachment 4 Hydraulic Lime Binders, History and Comparison Bill Revie, Construction Materials Consultants Ltd. Lime Lime has been used as a binder in mortar and concrete for centuries with records detailing its use by the Greeks, with the earliest examples being found in Crete, from where it is indicated the Romans learnt the technique of burning lime and using this, in association with certain volcanic materials, to produce a "mortar" which could be used to bond stone and both set and perform, as stone, under water. To this day there are examples of Roman concrete which still exist and retain inclusions of uncarbonated lime, demonstrating that when produced and compacted a material both resistant to water permeability and erosion can be made. Detailed information on the sampling and analysis of materials from marine structures dating from the Roman period can be obtained from "The Roman Maritime Concrete Study" Journal of Mediterranean Geography, January 2009, index 1952, p25-29. Although high calcium (pure) lime mortars were those first employed by the Greeks, and that this was made by burning limestone and slaking the product, to produce a good building material the Greeks also found that by mixing lime with finely ground volcanic ash they produced a much stronger material which set under water (which non -hydraulic lime does not). For this purpose the Greeks used the volcanic tuff from the island of Thera (now called Santorin), which is still used to this day, in the Mediterranean and is supplied as a pozzolana under the term "Santorin Earth". The Roman builders used a similar material from the volcanic Tuff found in and around the Bay of Naples, with the best form of this finely ground volcanic rock originally coming from Pozzuoli (Puteoli) from where the term Pozzolana is derived. Vitruvius Pollio wrote in his Treatise on Architecture "There is a species of sand which, naturally, posses extraordinary qualities. It is found under Baix and the territory in the neighbourhood of Mount Vesuvius; if mixed with lime and rubble, it hardens as well under water as in ordinary building". The Romans later found that by adding ground pottery and tile the same properties could be produced. The original volcanic ash used as a Pozzolana has an approximate composition to rhyolite and reacts with lime and water, i.e. calcium hydroxide, to produce calcium silicate hydrates and calcium aluminium hydrates, the building blocks of a hydraulic binding material. Pozzolana — is a term now used for all materials having the valuable properties similar to those of the rhyolite ash and which help buffer the pH of the pore fluids in mortar and concrete. Many major structures from this period which were built from Lime, Pozzolana and Aggregate mixes, including the Pantheon Dome, survive to this today. Concrete Concrete of the form employed by the Romans was used successfully throughout Europe and the Middle East, for. centuries, many examples which remain today. With examples of concrete breakwaters, canals aqueducts and harbours still in existence in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean isles. This form of concrete was generally made following the methods developed at that time and things did not change significantly until 1756 when Smeaton built the third Eddystone lighthouse. Initially the works commenced using a mixture of pure lime and Dutch Tarras (from Andernach on the Rhine) and finally a burnt argillaceous limestone from Wales (a hydraulic lime) and an Italian Pozzolana from Civita Vecchia were used. And although the latter produced a superior concrete, this form of binder was really only a hydraulic lime and not a "cement", as we know it now. Page 1 of 12 93 This mixture was eminently hydraulic meaning that it set under water and produced a strong concrete, but it was not a cement, as it is currently defined. In fact the term "cement" in its Late Latin or Old French forms was employed to describe what later became known as mortar, i.e. a mixture of lime sand and water, and, therefore, this has to be borne in mind when reading early text on the subject of lime cement and concretes. Following this development of utilising hydraulic and modified limes, by the addition of pozzolanas, to achieve concrete that would set under water and give early setting properties, there were many further developments in the search for a fast setting strong binder that would work equally well both in a concrete or mortar placed in air and under water. Such as "Natural Cement" and the so called "Roman Cements" the latter patented by James Parker in 1798, was made by calcining nodules of argillaceous limestone, known as Septaria. This was used by Thomas Telford to build the Pier at Lochbay in Skye in 1796-1802, which is a development on the technology used to build the harbour at Cromarty by John Smeaton in 1781-84, where a mixture of hydraulic lime and trass (Tarras) was employed, which in itself was a continuation of the technology developed on the Eddystone Lighthouse. However, it was not until Joseph Aspdin patented his "Portland Cement" on the 21st October 1824, which was for a mixture of hard limestone and clay, which was ground and calcined to produce a material that was the forerunner of today's modern Portland cement. The name Portland Cement was given to the material by Aspdin as the set material was similar to Portland stone, in colour. As Portland Stone had a high reputation for quality and durability and Aspdin wished that reputation to be extended to his product. During the late 18th and early 19th centuries natural pozzolanas were widely used in engineering works, with materials being imported from a selection of areas, including pozzolana, which came from Puozzoli, in Italy, volvic pozzolan from South-east France, trass from the Rhinelands and tuff from the Aegean Islands, with crushed pumice also being imported to the UK for this purpose. Subsequently the pozzolana was added to natural hydraulic limes as it became recognised as this blend of active ingredients when mixed with sand and aggregate produced a "concrete" that was particularly appropriate for marine engineering works and in difficult wet conditions. Concretes and mortars made from modified hydraulic lime binders were used extensively in the construction of canals, both in Scotland (including the Caledonian canal 1803-1822) and in the industrial areas of England, in railway tunnels and bridges until the development and production of, initially, Natural and Roman cements, and latterly, by Portland Cements. Therefore, there is a great industrial heritage, still in existence, where significant engineering construction was carried out employing "lime" based mortars and concretes. This period also coincided with the construction boom in America associated both with the industrialisation of the country and the demand for coastal fortifications. Much of the Page 2 of 12 0 development work undertaken to devise mortars, concrete and masonry construction for use in military construction is detailed in "Practical Treatise on Limes, Hydraulic Cements, and Mortars" by Q A Gillmore, of the US Army Corps of Engineers, published 1861, with this mirroring the development of binders in Europe and documented in "A practical and scientific Treatise on calcareous Mortars and Cements, artificial and natural" by L J Vicat, published 1837. One of the earliest examples of Lime Concrete is that used to form a Fishermans cottage on the banks of the Euphrates River, dating back 11000 years with a polished lime concrete floor recently being uncovered at Yifta El, in Northern Israel, dating back 9000 years. Therefore, it is of no surprise that there is an abundance of Greek and Roman examples of lime concrete construction remaining to stand testament to the durability of this material, not to forget the later constructions of the industrial revolution, which initially employed the same basic technology. Why use Lime in preference to Cement. There are three main aspects that were considered in the decision to use lime in this project: i. Energy Conservation ii. Historical appropriateness iii. Environmental compatibility Energy. It is documented that the energy consumed in the production of lime is significantly less than that used in the production of Portland cements. In addition the carbon dioxide (CO2) generated by both processes is significantly different with the added benefit that lime based binders re -absorb a significant quantity of this CO2 during their hardening and maturing, relative to that re -absorbed by Portland cement binders. Non hydraulic lime is produced by burning limestone, marble or shell, dependent on the available form of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) or magnesium carbonate (Ca,Mg(CO)3) available, at temperatures in the region of 700 to 750°C. During burning carbon dioxide is released leaving pure lime, in the form of quicklime (CaO). The lime can be, and was historically, used in the form of a quicklime, where it is added to damp sand and aggregate and the binder allowed to slake along with the aggregate. It is used in the form of a pre -slaked material (putty lime) or as a hydrate (powder). The reactions occurring during the burning, slaking and subsequent carbonation being as follows: Production CaCO3 Limestone Heat Processing/use CaO + H2O Lime + Water Carbonation, hardening Ca(OH)2 (Portlandite) CO2 CaO + CO2 Lime (quicklime) Carbon Dioxide —No. Ca(OH)2 (Hydrated lime, or Lime Putty Calcium Hydroxide (Portlandite) dependent on quantity of water added) C Carbon Dioxide (environmental) CaCO3 + H2O Limestone Water Non -hydraulic limes stiffen by loss of moisture and harden in response to the absorption of carbon dioxide. Therefore, mortars and concrete made from pure limes will not harden unless they can re -absorb carbon dioxide from the air (i.e. carbonation), and hence the reason that they are called Air limes (refer to BS EN 459). They are commonly produced from the burning and slaking of calcareous/dolomitic limestone, with little or no silica, alumina or iron oxide present in the feed stock. Page 3 of 12 10 A stone is classed as calcareous when it contains more than 50% calcium carbonate (CaCO3), with this forming the bulk of the rock used in lime production in the UK, whereas, elsewhere dolomitic rocks abound and in those locations the bulk of the lime used in construction are dolomitic limes, as in the USA. The main components of Air limes are : Calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) - 70 to 95% Residual limestone (CaCO3) — remainder. The hardening is slow and can be further impeded in the presence of moisture, where the presence of a water film inhibits the re -absorption of CO2. Therefore, in the wet state they cannot absorb carbon dioxide and they will not harden and thereby cannot be employed in wet conditions. It was the need to find a resolution to this problem that resulted in the discovery that when pozzolanas were added to lime mixes they produced a material that would harden and set in wet environments and under water. This property was also later found to be present in limes produced by burning impure limestone, i.e. one that contained a proportion of clay, or other silicates and aluminates (from feldspar, etc.). These form the binders known as Natural Hydraulic Limes. Hydraulic limes are so called because they set in contact with water, with a degree of secondary hardening also likely when in contact with air as they also contain a proportion of Air lime (CaO) in their composition. They are produced by the burning and slaking of calcareous stone containing silica, alumina and occasionally iron. As little as 2% silica is sufficient to produce hydraulic properties in the lime. It is the burning of the impure limestone at temperatures in the region of 900 to 1100°C that result in the formation of the reactive ingredients, these are typically: Dominated by Belite (di -Calcium silicate) Free Lime (Calcium hydroxide) Trace proportions of Alite (tri -Calcium silicate — formed in hot spots within the kiln) Calcium aluminates (typically 2%) Ferrites (typically <1%) Page 4 of 12 11 In addition a proportion of amorphous silica i.e. that which has not reacted with calcium during calcining, will also be present in the form of glass, and this will act as a natural pozzolana. The reactions are: detailed below: REACTIONS OF LIMESTONE WITH CLAY (MARL) IN A LIME KILN Heat 2A1203ASiO2.41-12O s 2A1203 + 4SiO2 + 4H2O.............................................1 Kaolinite alumina silica water CaCO3s Cao + CO2................................................................................. 2 I Limestone 25102 + SCaO S 3CaO.Si02 (C3S) + 2CaO.Si02 (C2S)........... 3 Tri -calcium silicate Di -calcium silicate (Al te) (Be ite) A1203 + 3CaO s 3Ca0.A1203.......................................................................4 Tri -calcium aluminate (C3A) ON HYDRATION 3CaO.A1203 + 12H2O S CaO.A1203. (OH) ,o (CAH10) + 2Ca(OH) 2 (CH2)..... 5 Calcium aluminium oxide hydrate calcium hydroxide (Portlandite) 3CaO.SiO2 + xH2O s "C -S -H" + Ca(OH)2.....................................................6 2CaO.SiO2 + xH2O S "C -S -H" + Ca(OH)2.......................................................7 NB In addition to the silica and alumina hydrates, Ca (OH)2 is produced in all the hydration reactions of equations 5,6&7. The more hydraulic the lime the greater the content of Belite and Aluminates present, and often a higher Alite content. The latter in response to the higher the burning temperatures employed, with temperatures up to 1100°C commonly reached in modern kilns. All kilns have hot spots in which cintering temperatures can be reached, and in these locations glass phases can form, along with Alite. The reactions resulting from the heating (Calcining) of the impure limestone are complex and are covered in detail in many textbooks on the subject of cement chemistry; however, a clear description of the reactions is given in the SLCT publication "How Hydraulic Lime Binders Work", by Dr Alan Forster. Calcining pure limestone at temperatures below 1000°C produces fat lime (Air Lime); in hydraulic limes there is included clay mineral (hydrated aluminosilicates) `d quartz (silica) in the limestone feedstock. Natural cement has marl as raw material and, in some cases; it may be calcined at higher temperature, but still below the clinkering temperature of 1450°C, the temperature above which it is necessary to burn the feedstock in the production of Portland cements. Page 5 of 12 12 Reactions below 1300°C a) The decomposition of calcite (calcining) b) The decomposition of clay minerals (dehydration with loss of structure) c) Reaction of calcite, or the lime formed from it, with quartz and clay mineral decomposition products to give Belite, lime, aluminate and ferrite. The schematic diagram below shows the general phase relationships (after Wolter, A. [1985] Zem. -Kalk-Gips V.38, p. 612): Hvdraulic Limes /x4 Natural Cements CALCITE i LIKE 19E�sTE 10UART7 CLAY MINERALS 19011 0300ES •— �' RIS. ERRITE Calcite Dissociation T° at Atmospheric Pressure. ALITE L 11MIKATE LIQUID ERRITE �o� - goo - rtoo caaur� TEMPERATURE ;'CF The overlain Mineral Composition — Temperature fields for hydraulic limes and natural cements are those dictated by phasal compositions of the products and the dissociation temperatures of calcite and clay minerals at atmospheric pressure. Temperature (°C) 700 800 882 900 Dissociation P (bars) 0.04 0.27 1.00 1.30 According to this scenario, hydraulic limes will contain Belite but no Alite and the proportion of Belite will increase with increase in clay mineral in the feedstock, however, in reality there is always a proportion of Alite formed, in response to hot spots in the kiln, with the hydraulicity of the increasing with an increase in both clay content and the increase in temperature. The main difference between Hydraulic Limes, Natural Cements and Portland Cements, in addition to the elevated temperatures required to produce Portland cements (typically 1450°C) are that in the latter the proportions of the raw materials added to the kiln are selected or designed and blended to increase the proportion of aluminates present, in the production of Natural cements, and to increase the components necessary to ensure that an adequate proportion of Belite and Alite are present in the production of Portland cements. Page 6 of 12 13 Gypsum (calcium sulphate) is also added to the Portland cement clinker, as a retarder, when the clinker is ground to produce the cement powder, otherwise a flash set would occur on the addition of water, this is not required in hydraulic limes and is not added to Natural cements or Roman cements'. The energy required to produce lime in comparison to cement is shown below: Energy Material Portland Cement Hydrated Lime (Air Lime) CL90 Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL 2.5 Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL3.5 Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL 5 (Data provided by St Astier) Kilowatts/hour/Tonne of Binder 120 50 28 25 27 The reason for the reduced energy requirement in the production of hydraulic lime is both the lower burning temperaturc and the fact that the reaction between the silica and lime, in the formation of the hydraulic phases, is exothermic, whereas, the de -carbonation of limestone, as in the production of Air lime, is purely endothermic. Emissions In the production of binders the following CO2 is emitted: including that from burning fuel & de -carbonation. Material Portland Cement Hydrated Lime (Air Lime) CL90 Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL 2.5 Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL3.5 Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL 5 (Data provided by St Astier) CO2 kg/Tonne of Binder Emission during Production Re -absorbed 819 Negligible 872 535 660 320 606 270 635 220 From the above it can be seen that the lime based binders use both less energy in their production and that they produce less net pollution, in the form of CO2 emissions than Portland cement binders. Pozzolanic Limes Where the components are either not present, to permit a natural hydraulic lime to be produced, or for economic reasons its production would be not be viable, there is another option, and that is to go back and adopt the early Greek or Roman approach and add a pozzolana to a non -hydraulic lime, thereby producing a pozzolanic lime, or hydraulic Lime (HL. grade lime). This is the basis of the HL limes produced by Virginia Lime Works (VLW).. In the United States no NHL grade limes are produced at present, with all of those currently available being imported mostly from Europe. This increases the cost, both with respect to the financial impact on the projects on which they are used, but more critically it increases the carbon footprint of these projects, particularly when the costs of transport (Carbon miles) are included in the calculations. As an importer user and supplier of Lime materials VLW could understand the detrimental effect of this on both individual projects, but more significantly, the ultimate impact on the environment. Therefore the decision was made to produce a lime that would perform as well as the Natural Hydraulic Limes, but without the added financial or environmental costs. Page 7 of 12 14 VLW already had experience in the production of high quality High Calcium quicklime, which was produced both from a local limestone and from oyster shell. These products were used both by themselves and others mostly in the form of Lime putty, for use in quality plasterwork and in the conservation of non -hydraulic lime mortars. However, as there was no local deposits that would be suitable for the production of a NHL product in their kilns, and as there was no producer of NHL in the US, it was decided to look to history and learn from the past and produce a hydraulic lime based on a pozzolana. After some research and carrying out a number of trials, involving different lime types, including their own product, and a selection of different forms of pozzolana, VLW found that a blend of their selected pozzolana and a readily available Dolomitic SA lime. This achieved a binder that both imparted a good degree of workability to the fresh mortars in which it was included, due to the high free lime content of the mix and the dolomitic nature of the lime, which also aided in the development of excellent adhesion properties, a function of Dolomitic and high Calcium limes. The mortars were found to provide adequate strength, with a rate of strength gain in line with modern NHL grade materials. The mortars also display good durability, due to the entrained air imparted by the air entrainer added to the SA lime. The lime mortars produced from this lime displayed porosity characteristics in line with most NHL grade limes, and in thin section a high connected pore structure is apparent. Analysis by X-ray diffraction on hydrated samples confirmed that the pozzolana reacts with the lime producing the calcium silicate hydrates required to impart a measure of hydraulicity to the binder. For comparison with other Hydraulic limes and natural Hydraulic Limes samples of VLW binders were analysed, with the following results: Ref. BL150 30.4 C2S Ref. BL200 Ca(OH)2 40.9 Chemical composition (%w/w) Ca Mg(OH)2 Chemical composition (%w/ w) 16.4 SiO2 11.40 10.59 SiO2 11.15 10.43 Al2O3 3.76 3.49 Al2O3 5.09 4.76 Fe2O3 0.41 0.38 Fe2O3 0.24 0.22 CaO 47.18 43.85 CaO 46.67 43.66 MgO 24.49 22.76 MgO 24.86 23.26 K2O 0.11 0.10 K2O 0.11 0.10 Na2O 0.05 0.05 Na2O 0.10 0.09 TiO 0.18 0.17 TiO 0.16 0.15 MnO 0.15 0.14 MnO 0.14 0.13 P205 0.01 0.01 P205 0.05 0.05 SO3 0.62 0.58 SO3 0.34 0.32 CI 0.04 0.04 CI 0.05 0.05 Loss On Ignition 19.20 17.84 Loss On Ignition 17.92 16.77 Total 107.60 100.00 Total 106.89 100.00 Compounds by calculation (%w/w Compounds by calculation (%w/w C2S 30.4 C2S 29.9 Ca(OH)2 40.9 Ca(OH)2 40.3 Ca Mg(OH)2 18.3 Ca Mg(OH)2 16.4 CaCO3 1.9 CaCO3 3.0 CaSO4 0.9 CaSO4 0.5 CAF 1.2 CAF 0.7 CA 4.1 CA 5.5 Total 97.6 Total 96.2 Page 8 of 12 15 Compounds by Wet Chemistry (%w/w Loss on Ignition 20.21 Insoluble residue 17.99 Soluble S03 0.52 Soluble CaO 38.79 Soluble Si02 2.07 Total 79.58 Available Lime as 0.39 Ca(OH)Z 32.20 Total Lime as Ca(OH)2 47.50 Compounds by XRD Analysis & Rietveld Refinement NHL3.5 Portlandite 58.4 Brucite 31.1 Calcite 1.9 Periclase 4.8 C2S 3.8 Glass trace Total 100.0 Compounds by Wet Chemistry (%w/w Loss on Ignition 18.34 Insoluble residue 17.29 Soluble S03 0.63 Soluble CaO 41.96 Soluble Si02 2.13 Total 80.35 Available Lime as 0.39 Ca(OH)2 31.80 Total Lime as Ca(OH)2 51.30 55.2 28.5 3.0 4.2 9.1 trace 100.0 From the results of the chemical analysis, in the above table, it can be concluded that the limes analysed contain the necessary oxides, in sufficient proportions to produce a hydraulic lime. This is also confirmed, firstly by calculation, and secondly by analysis of the hydraulic components present in the lime produced by X-ray Diffraction. There is no universally accepted direct measure of hydraulicity, but historically two methods have been employed, calculation of the Hydraulicity and Cementation Index. However, there are differences of opinion as to the appropriateness of applying the Cementation index (CI) or the Hydraulicity index (1) to assess the degree of hydraulicity'. With some bodies favouring one index over the other, whilst others suggest that neither is appropriate, with respect to Natural Hydraulic Limes. No preference for either argument is given, or inferred, in this paper, with the indices calculated and included, purely for comparison purposes, with values determined on similar products, by other manufacturers. This, thereby, permitting the values obtained from the analysis, on the samples received, with those determined from other products, to be evaluated comparatively. The classification historically used for both of these indices is also reproduced below, for information. Manufacturer Product Si02 (CI) (I) VLW' BL150 10.43 0.45 0.33 Singleton Birch NHL3.5 6.60 0.39 0.17 Otterbine2 NHL3.5 10.6 0.50 0.23 St. Astier2 NHL3.5 16.8 0.78 0.30 Typical values on3 CL90 0.99 0.04 0.02 Typical values on3 NHL 2 8.84 0.41 0.18 Typical values on3 NHL5 15.2 0.81 0.35 ' Mean value calculated from found values on samples supplied. ' The Test of Lime, by M Lawrence, paper published in the Natural Stone Specialist (July 2005). Calcareous Hydraulic Binders from a Historical Perspective, by G Mertens and J Elsen (2007). Lime after Vicat - Considerations, paper by Pierre Bergoin, presented at the BLF gathering (1998). Page 9 of 12 16 2 Data obtained by analysis on samples submitted. 3 Calculated on the basis of the chemical data provided by manufacturers. The Hydraulicity Index', calculated from the sum of the SiO2+Al2O3+Fe2O3 divided by the total CaO, has inherent defects, as there is no allowance for the magnesia commonly present in the raw materials used in the production of limes and cements, and is based on the supposition that the silica and alumina are quantitatively interchangeable, which makes it not an ideal method in the assessment of certain classes of cement and, hence, the Cementation Index was substituted, and used historically. The Cementation index can, however, be used in quantifying and assessing the hydraulicity of a cementitious binder, whether it is a hydraulic lime, natural cement or Portland cement, but only if the affect of the calcining temperature, and other processing variations, are also taken into consideration. Therefore, when used purely comparatively, as in this instance, on products of the same genre then the indices can be a useful aid in assessing the potential performance of a particular product of that type, but not necessarily for assessing compliance with a particular specification or requirement. The historic guidance given for classifying binders is as follows: Indices Hydraulicity Cementation High calcium lime (Air Lime) <0.10 <0.30 Feebly Hydraulic 0.10 to 0.20 0.30 to 0.5 Moderately Hydraulic 0.50 to 0.70 Eminently Hydraulic 0.20 to 0.40 0.70 to 1.10 Portland Cement 0.40 to 0.60 Natural Cements 0.60 to 1.50 >1.7 In arriving at the data reported in the Table above, the compounds were determined on the basis of the chemistry determined by XRF analysis. The calculated proportion of hydraulic compounds was then compared with the measured values, for hydraulic compounds as determined by XRD analysis. From the data obtained it would be expected that VLW's BL 150 would have properties similar to a moderately hydraulic lime, akin to an NHL 3.5, particularly one of the weaker variety, similar to that produced by Otterbein, rather than the stronger form produced by St. Astier. The results of the XRD analysis is appended showing the form of hydrated components present in a hydrated binder sample of BL 150 after 5 days curing. For comparison with the CO2 generation and consumption quoted earlier for typical bindersit was found that, based on the composition of the BL150 binder with 43.09% calcium oxide and 28.23% magnesium oxide, it can be calculated that for a given quantity of this lime, when fully hydrated it will have increased by mass by 37%. Therefore on carbonation this hydroxide will absorb 39.2% of its mass of CO2. This compares favourably with the values for non -hydraulic and NHL type binders: 2 A Practical and Scientific Treatise on Calcareous Mortars and Cements, Artificial and Natural, by L. J. Vicat (1837). Cements, Limes and Plasters, their Materials, Manufacture and Properties, By Edwin C. Eckel, C.E. (1927). Lime and Lime Mortars by A. D. Cowper (1927). Chemistry and Technology of Lime and Limestone by R. S Boynton (1980). Building with Lime, A practical Introduction, by Stafford Holmes and Michael Wingate (1997) Page 10 of 12 17 Material CO2 re -absorbed in service Hydrated Lime (Air Lime) CL90 65.3% by mass Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL 2.5 48.5 " Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL3.5 44.5 " Natural Hydraulic Lime NHL 5 34.6 " VLW BL150 39.2 18 Page 11 of 12 s Z i O 4a u m m N O s O M ++ 3 O a N O Ln r -I ++ s as v cc 3 to N N O OR LO N C � N +' E s �N U Q n r -I O N } CQ C 0 W H H W H �O rl O p N W } Q OC z Q F m p � W = ~ n 2 O 3 3 zz 7 O � x ' 0 3 W v z Om 3 N W V 3 zz 0 N O � 3 Attachment 6 Published on GreenBuildingAdvisor.com (http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com) Home > Printer -friendly All About Climate Zones 2 Helpful? Building...................................................................................................... ................................................. The nuts and bolts of building H All About Climate Zones Do you know the two parameters behind hygrothermal regions and climate zones? Posted on May 1 2013 by Allison A. Bailes III, PhD Building Science Corporation's map of hygrothermal regions. All of North America is divided into climate zones based on the two parameters of temperature and moisture. [3] One of the fundamental principles of building science [4] is that buildings must be suited to their 20 climate. When they're not, problems can ensue. Maybe it's just that they're not as efficient as they should be. Maybe it's worse. Put plastic between the drywall and framing of your exterior walls in Ottawa, and it can help control vapor drive from the interior air and its associated moisture problems (rare in all but excer)t in extremely cold climates [51). Put that plastic in the same place in Georgia, and you're going to rot the walls. The first thing to know about climate zones is that we divide them up based on two parameters: temperature and moisture. The map at the top of this article, from Building Science Corporation [6], is one that seems to be in a lot of the curricula for home energy rater i71 and other energy auditor classes. The fancy word for this type of division is hygrothermal, and Building Science Corp. has a nice interactive map of hvarothermal reqions ia]. The map above divides all of North America into broad regions based on temperature and then humidity. My friend and former colleague Mike Barcik [9] likes to say that the color of the zone shows what color your skin turns in winter. The International Code Council has a more fine-grained approach to climate zones,t as shown below in the map of the US from the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Each zone has a number, starting with 1 for the hottest US climate, the southernmost tip of Florida, and going up to 8, the coldest parts in Alaska. D!Vv B5 Moist (A) �y „ten YItS�^ r.uet ,0, 77` 1 ♦ 6 B I+j �IjJrr. 51nu�lNp i 7B �wrsaMi w �h. 5 �Y Iti.�•� I. Lu k04 46 _JUjJ1I OWlr�mna L� C P` . J. Ba Ila al InZ r 7 wZ On 1n J1ra °M'^ �p`..w.2 a ��Yrldr Temperature divisions Ilr.11l.1— C- •1' ilr aiilnril y.Ir'r9rh rio r -nn PhJ.Ja phl. Ynlm�npbon lnrnii. Gc _—pVhBin ■ Yh F�IId 9��C9R Rid �+R4 .-. 2 A F The number of each zone tells you how warm or cold it is. I wrote above that temperature is the 21 parameter, but that's not a full description, of course. It's not just how cold or how hot the place gets. It's based on accumulated temperature calculations called degree days [,oi. Basically, degree days combine the amount of time and the temperature difference below some base temperature. For example, the most common base temperature for heating is 65° F. If the temperature stays at 55° F for 24 hours, you've just accumulated 10 heating degree days (HDD). It's the same for cooling degree days (CDD). The IECC uses 50° F for the cooling bas�mperature, so if the temperature is 90° F for 24 hours, you've got 40 CDD. For heating and cooling, you add up the total number of HDD or CDD for the whole year, and that tells you how hot, cold, or mild the climate is. (A great source of data for degree days is the degreedays.net website [„i. Check it out.) TABLE 301.3(2) INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE ZONE DEFiNMON5 ZONE NUMBER 1 2 THERMAL CRXTERI IP Units 9000 < COD50°F 6300 < CDD50°F 5 9000 SI Units 5000 < COD10°C 3500 < CDD100C 5 5000 The table above shows how the IECC uses the RELATED ARTICLES An Overview of the 2012 Enerav Code [131 Calculatina the Minimum Thickness of Riaid Foam Sheathing [14] Efficiencv Programs Struggle to Stav Ahead of Energy_ Codes [15] Moisture divisions Notice that the IECC map also shows how moisture impacts the climate zones. Generally, it's moist to the east, dry to the west, and marine along the West Coast. I remember driving across Texas, from west to east, in the summer of '88 and feeling the humidity hit us when we crossed that black line. At the time I had no idea what that big black line was when we drove over it, but now it's clear. People have known about that line since the 19th century, as a matter of fact. It lies pretty close to the 100th meridian [171 of longitude, and divides the part of the US that gets enough rain to farm without irrigation from the dry side that requires irrigation. Are Enerav Codes Workina? The three main moisture divisions are: 22 3A and 30 45OG c COD50111F 5 6,300 2500 c CDD10-C S 3500 number of AND HDD65°F 5 5400 AND HDDL8°C :5 3000 cooling 4A and 4B CDD501)F 5 4500 AND CDD10°C 15 2500 AND degree HDD65°F 5 5400 HDD180C S 3000 days for 3C HDD65°F 5 3600 HDD18°C 5 2000 climate 4C 3600 < HDD65°F s 5400 2000 < HDp18c1C S 3000 zones 1 5 5400 < HDD650F 5 7200 30043 c H13D184C 5 4000 through 4 6 7200 < HDD650F s 90oO 4000 < HDD18OC s 5000 and the 7 9000 < HDD65°F <_ 12600 5000 < HDD18°C -S 7000 number of 8 126M < HDD65°F 7000 < HDD18°C heating degree days for climate zones 3 through 8. In zones 1 and 2, cooling is the only important factor. In zones 3 and 4, it's heating and coolinq. In zones 5 and higher, it's all about heating. Atlanta has about 3000 HDD (in "those annoyina imperial units" [121) and is in climate zone 3. RELATED ARTICLES An Overview of the 2012 Enerav Code [131 Calculatina the Minimum Thickness of Riaid Foam Sheathing [14] Efficiencv Programs Struggle to Stav Ahead of Energy_ Codes [15] Moisture divisions Notice that the IECC map also shows how moisture impacts the climate zones. Generally, it's moist to the east, dry to the west, and marine along the West Coast. I remember driving across Texas, from west to east, in the summer of '88 and feeling the humidity hit us when we crossed that black line. At the time I had no idea what that big black line was when we drove over it, but now it's clear. People have known about that line since the 19th century, as a matter of fact. It lies pretty close to the 100th meridian [171 of longitude, and divides the part of the US that gets enough rain to farm without irrigation from the dry side that requires irrigation. Are Enerav Codes Workina? The three main moisture divisions are: 22 [16] • Moist (A). This is designated by the letter A after the climate zone number. Here in Atlanta, we're in climate zone 3A. The primary factor is precipitation. If it doesn't meet the dry climate definition below, it may be moist. The other necessary condition is that it's got to fall outside the marine climate conditions. —� • Dry (B). This is based on the amount of precipitation and the annual mean temperature. The calculation is 0.44 x (TF - 19.5), where TF is the annual mean temperature in degrees Fahrenheit. If the annual precipitation is less than the number you get, it's a dry climate and the zone number has a B after it. EI Paso, Texas, for example, is in climate zone 3B. • Marine (C). This is the Goldilocks climate, in a way. It's not too hot in the summer (warmest month mean temperature < 72° F), not too cold or too warm in winter (between 27 and 65° F), has at least four months with mean temperatures above 50° F, and has its dry season in the summer. We're talking Santa Barbara (3C), Portland (4C), and Seattle (4C). Actually, there's a 4th moisture division shown on the map. Notice the red line going horizontally across the Southeast. It divides the eastern, moist side of the US into moist and moister, basically. This division isn't based on precipitation, though. It's based on humidity. A climate zone is called warm -humid if the wet bulb temperature [18] is: • >_ 67° F for 3000 hours or more • >_ 73° F for 1500 hours or more It's all in the IECC Wherever you read building science, you're likely to run into someone talking about climate zones. Here on GBA, sometimes you'll see commenters putting a number after their name in the comments—and—nofjust nutty guys like me who always put a number after their name. They're indicating their climate zone because it often colors how we think about buildings. If you don't know the exact definitions, it can be a bit confusing. Now you've got my summary here, but you can always get yourself a cop)( of the IECC [19] as well. Most states are still on the 2009 version. Maryland and Illinois have moved up to the tougher 2012 already. The climate zone definitions are the same in both versions. In addition to the basic definitions above, the IECC also tells you county -by -county what the local climate zone is. Now get out there and design, build, and renovate in ways that work for your climate. Footnote: t The International Code Council is based in the US and, like the World Series, has little foothold outside our borders. Although the IECC climate zone map here shows only the U.S., you can use the definitions of the climate zones for any location in the world. For example, most of Canada is in climate zone 750. Just kidding. Most Canadians probably live in climate zones 5 and 6. By looking up heating degree days on degreedays.net [11], I found the following: Climate Zone 4C - Vancouver; CZ 5A - Toronto; CZ 6A - Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec; CZ 7B - Calgary. (Thanks to commenter Christopher Solar of Ottawa for straightening me out on this.) 23 Allison Bailes of Decatur, Georgia, is a speaker, writer, energy consultant, RESNET-certified trainer, and the author of the EnergyVanguard Blog �20�. You can follow him on Twitter at aEnergyVanguard rev. Tags: Building Science [22], climate [23], climate zone [24], cold [25], ft [26], energy code [27], frigid. wet. damp [231, hot [29], humid [301, byarothermal [311, IECC [321 Image Credits: 1. Building Science Corporation ©2015 Green Building Advisor. From The Taunton Press, Inc., publisher of Fine Homebuildinq Maaazine. 4 About Us 4 Contact Us 4 Advertise on GBA 4 Privacy_ 4 Safety Statement 4 Terms & Conditions 4 Press room 4 Subscribe to RSS Source URL: httD://www.areenbuildinaadvisor.com/bloas/deDt/buildina-science/all-about-climate-zones Links: [1] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/building-science [2] http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?iu=/6134/ttn.gba//print&t=window&sz=275x60;&c=355210936 [3] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/sites/default/files/climate-zone-map-north-america-building-science- corporation.png [4] http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-building-science-HERS-BPI/bid/35077/Building-Science-101 [5] http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-building-science-HERS-BPI/bid/54110/You-Don-t-Need-a-Vapor-Barrier- Probably [6] http://buildingscience.com [7] http://www.energyvanguard.com/green-jobs-training/hers-rater-training-class/ [8] http://www.buildingscience.com/doctypes/enclosures-that-work/etw-building-profiles [9] http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-building-science-HERS-BPI/bid/27946/Mike-Barcik-A-Stellar-Advocate-for-the- Georgia-Energy-Code [10] http://www.degreedays.net/ [11] http://deg reed ays.net [12] http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-building-science-HERS-BPI/bid/57506/Those-Annoying-Imperial-Units [13] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/overview-2012-energy-code [14] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/calculating-minimum-thickness-rigid-foam-sheathing [15] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/building-science/efficiency-programs-struggle-stay-ahead-energy- codes [16] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/are-energy-codes-working [17] http://geography.about.com/od/Iearnabouttheearth/a/100thmeridian.htm [18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature [19] http://shop.iccsafe.org/2009-international-energy-conservation-code.html [20] http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-building-science-HERS-BPI/ [21] http://twitter.com/EnergyVanguard 24 [22] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/building-science [23] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/climate [24] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/climate-zone [25] http://www.greenbuiIdingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/cold [26] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/dry [27] http://www.greenbuiIdingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/energy-code [28] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/frigid-wet-damp [29] http://www.greenbuiIdingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/hot [30] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/humid [31] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/hygrothermal [32] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/category/site-wide-tags/iecc 25 Attachment 7 © 2008 Building Science Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. Wood Durability Research Report - 0997 1999 Joseph Lstiburek Abstract: "We have accepted that design and construction must be responsive to varying seismic regions, wind loads and snow loads. Yet we typically ignore temperature, humidity, rain and the interior climate. " This article puts the durability of wood in the proper context—the environmental context in which we ask it to perform. 26 Wood Durability The general principle of building durability has two components: Buildings should be suited to their environment; and the laws of physics must be followed. We tend to ignore the first and find the second inconvenient. It is irrational to expect to construct the same manner of building in Montreal, Memphis, Monterrey and Miami. It's cold in Montreal, it's humid in Memphis, it's hot and dry in Monterrey and it's hot and wet in Miami. And that's just the outside environment. It is equally irrational to expect to construct the same manner of building to enclose a warehouse, a house or a health club with a swimming pool. The interior environment also clearly matters. We have accepted that design and construction must be responsive to varying seismic regions, wind loads and snow loads. We also consider soil conditions and frost depth, orientation and solar radiation. Yet we typically ignore temperature, humidity, rain and the interior climate. The concept of limit states should play a key role in building durability. In structural engineering, loads and load resistance are considered and limiting states such as deflection are specified. We can apply a similar approach to building durability. We should consider rain, temperature, humidity and the interior climate as environmental loads with principal limiting states such as rot, decay, mold and corrosion. A damage function analysis is then used to determine whether a limit state such as mold growth is achieved. With wood (and other materials) we seem to not understand or pay attention to the load part while complaining about the limiting states part. In applying limit states design to durability, building enclosures and mechanical systems should be designed for a specific hygro-thermal region, rain exposure zone and interior climate class in addition to the previously mentioned structural loads: Hygro-Thermal Regions ■ Very Cold ■ Cold ■ Mixed -Humid ■ Hot-Dry/Mixed Dry ■ Hot -Humid Rain Exposure Zones ■ Extreme (above 60 inches annual precipitation) 27 ■ High (40 to 60 inches annual precipitation) ■ Moderate (20 to 40 inches annual precipitation) ■ Low (less than 20 inches annual precipitation) Interior Climate Classes I. Temperature moderated Vapor pressure uncontrolled Air pressure uncontrolled (warehouses, garages, storage rooms) II. Temperature controlled ■ Vapor pressure moderated ■ Air pressure moderated (houses, apartments, offices, schools, commercial and retail spaces) III. Temperature controlled Vapor pressure controlled Air Pressure controlled (hospitals, museums, swimming pool enclosures and computer facilities) Let us examine constructing a house in Montreal, PQ. Montreal is in a very cold hygro-thermal region and a moderate rain exposure zone. Constructing a house typically involves a class II interior climate assuming no interior swimming pool. A Class II interior climate involves temperature control within several degrees and an interior relative humidity range of between 20 percent and 60 percent. Air pressures are typically moderated within a 5 Pascal range to allow safe operation of combustion appliances and to control contaminant transport. Attic assemblies are vented. A design solution could involve an interior polyethylene vapor diffusion barrier and air barrier with unfaced fiberglass batt insulation installed in the cavities. A drainage plane of vapor permeable housewrap could be installed under a vinyl siding that allows for a drainage space to function in conjunction with the drainage plane. The sheathing could be a moisture diode such as plywood or OSB where the permeability of the sheathing varies with relative humidity and moisture content. A controlled ventilation system involving heat recovery would limit interior winter relative humidities. This being a wood industry publication, the vinyl siding could be replaced with backprimed wood on a 6 to 8 mm spacer strip. Alternatively, the spacer strip and wood siding could be replaced with a manufactured wood siding with integral plastic "thumb tacks" on a coated back surface (assuming we could convince a manufacturer to actually produce such a product). Moving the Montreal house to Boston, MA changes the hygro-thermal region and rain exposure zone. The interior polyethylene vapor diffusion barrier would be dropped in favor of a vapor diffusion retarder such as two coats of interior latex paint. The air barrier would now consist of the interior gypsum board glued to framing members. Backprimed wood siding would be installed over a thicker spacer strip (12 to 18 mm) to facilitate back venting of the cladding due to the more severe rain exposure. Either an exhaust only or 28 supply only controlled ventilation system with out heat recover would be installed. Moving the Boston house to Richmond, VA changes the hygro-thermal region once again and reduces the rain exposure zone. The vapor permeable housewrap would be replaced with a semi vapor permeable #30 felt and the spacing under the wood siding could be reduced back to the Montreal spacing range. Only a single coat of interior latex paint is applied as an interior vapor diffusion retarder. A supply only ventilation system would be installed. Moving the Richmond house to Orlando, FL changes the hygro-thermal region. The supply only ventilation system would be supplemented with a dehumidifier to address the part load humidity issues. The attic would be constructed to be unvented and conditioned. Venting attics in hot -humid hygro thermal regions is a bad idea if mold and humidity control is considered important. Finally, moving the Orlando house to Las Vegas, NV changes both the hygro-thermal region and the rain exposure zone. The backpriming and ventilation of the siding could be eliminated. Additionally, the dehumidifier is dropped and the #30 felt is replaced with a housewrap. If the mechanical system and ductwork are inside the conditioned space of the house, the attic could be vented ? otherwise the attic should be unvented and conditioned. The preceding examples highlight some important design recommendations based on varying environmental loads: ■ A polyethylene vapor diffusion barrier and air barrier should only be used in very cold hygro-thermal regions. If it is used in other regions it reduces drying potentials to the interior more than it reduces wetting potentials from the interior. ■ Flow through design (drying to both the interior and exterior) should be applied in mixed -humid hygro-thermal regions. ■ Vapor diffusion retarders should be installed on the exterior of assemblies in hot -humid hygro-thermal regions. Housewraps should not be used in these regions as they are too vapor permeable and not sufficiently water resistive. ■ Roof assemblies should not be vented in hot -humid hygro-thermal regions. ■ Backpriming of wood cladding is necessary except in low rain exposure zones. ■ Backpriming and back venting of wood cladding are both necessary in high rain exposure zones. ■ Pressure equalization and backpriming of wood cladding are recommended in extreme rain exposure zones. Examining some recent failures in the context of limit states design can provide further insight on durability. Vancouver, BC has experienced some traditional stucco failures on wood frame condominium structures (an understatement if there ever was one) and Wilmington, NC has experienced some EIFS failures on wood frame single family dwellings (also an understatement). 29 Wilmington, NC is in a hot -humid hygro-thermal region with an extreme rain exposure. Vancouver, BC is in a mixed -humid hygro-thermal region with a high rain exposure. Wall assemblies in both locations used interior polyethylene as a vapor diffusion retarder that prevented drying towards the interior. Wall assemblies in both locations were effectively "face -sealed" in that they did not provide drainage of penetrating rain water back to the exterior. Wall assemblies in both locations were also effectively air tight due to the inherent nature of traditional stucco and EIFS. And finally, wall assemblies in both locations used cladding systems that were not back vented. Traditional rain control systems rely on drainage planes or barriers. With drainage planes, building paper or a housewrap is installed shingle fashion underneath a cladding system to provide a method of shedding rain water that penetrates through the cladding system. With the barrier approach, a durable material such as masonry, stone or concrete is used as a storage reservoir to absorb penetrating rain water and then subsequently release the stored moisture to either the exterior or interior environment. Both approaches have relied on significant energy flows (heat gains, heat losses and air flows: infiltrating, exfiltrating and interstitial) and permeable and semi -permeable materials in order to provide acceptable performance. Current construction practice has lead to a significant increase in thermal insulation levels and airtightness of wall assemblies resulting in a reduction in drying potential. Furthermore, the introduction of polyethylene film vapor barriers and impermeable and semi -permeable sheathings has lead to further reductions in drying potentials. This has been further exacerbated by the loss of water repellency of plastic housewrap materials due to increases in surface energy from contaminants such as surfactants. Although the rate of rain water entry or penetration into building assemblies has not significantly increased over the past 50 years, the rate of moisture removal from building assemblies has significantly decreased. The hygric balance has become skewed: the rate out is now significantly less than the rate in. It has become obvious from our investigations, field research and laboratory testing that most wall assemblies leak rain water ? and furthermore that most wall assemblies have always historically leaked rain water. The reason that traditional wall assemblies have provided successful performance in the past, is that although rain wetting occurred, the rain wetting was followed by hygric redistribution and drying to both interior and exterior environments. Poorly insulated or uninsulated assemblies constructed in a leaky (to air) manner with vapor permeable materials (no polyethylene, vinyl wall coverings or foam sheathings) that did not loose their water repellency (no plastic housewraps) dried before problems arose. EIFS failures in Wilmington, NC occurred for the following reasons: rain water that entered was not able to be removed because a secondary drainage mechanism did not exist ? no drainage plane coupled with a drainage space was provided. Additionally, the rain water that penetrated and was not drained, was absorbed by moisture sensitive materials (OSB, gypsum sheathing or plywood) that were unable to dry towards either the interior or exterior due to a lack of energy flows (including air flow) and the presence of impermeable and semi permeable materials. EIFS, like traditional stucco systems, are significantly more airtight than typical wall assemblies. No air flow, no drying due to air flow. EIFS assemblies are also more heavily insulated. No heat flow, no drying due to thermal gradient diffusion and concentration gradient diffusion. Additionally, most codes required the installation of interior 30 vapor barriers. Drying mechanisms were further reduced by impermeable interior wall finishes such as vinyl wall coverings and semi permeable exterior foam insulation's and polymer based (PB) and polymer modified (PM) ? elastomerically coated laminas. The lack of permeable interior and exterior surfaces magnified the problems. To fix EIFS, a drainage plane with a vented drainage space is necessary. This needs to be coupled with a drainage plane material that either allows no rain water penetration or that simultaneously sheds and absorbs rainwater while subsequently allowing the absorbed rain water to migrate to both the exterior and interior environments via diffusion, capillary and ventilation. And all this needs to be coupled with interior and exterior materials that are sufficiently vapor permeable to allow diffusion drying. Some EIFS manufacturer's recognize the need for drainage planes and vented drainage spaces. However, the required characteristics of drainage plane materials and vapor permeable and semi -vapor permeable interior surfaces are not yet recognized. Traditional stucco failures in Vancouver, BC occurred for reasons that are similar (but not identical) to the EIFS failures in Wilmington, NC. Due to a lack of understanding, the use of two layers of building paper under traditional stucco was omitted. Historically, the use of two layers of building paper lead to wrinkling and debonding of the papers from the stucco basecoats resulting in a drainage space. The drainage space (albeit small and tortuous) coupled with traditional drainage plane materials (building papers that provided some absorption of rain water that penetrated at staples and nails) provided successful performance as long as redistribution and drying of moisture to the interior also occurred. In Vancouver, single layers of building paper became the norm coupled with interior polyethylene vapor barriers and highly insulated air tight wall assemblies. Additionally, traditional building papers were replaced with plastic housewraps that bonded to stucco basecoats resulting in the elimination of the drainage space. The plastic housewraps were also sensitive to surfactants in the stucco basecoats and the OSB and plywood sheathings leading to a loss of water repellency. Where single layers of traditional building paper or plastic housewraps were used, drainage spaces were compromised and water was held at the building paper -stucco -sheathing interfaces leading to loss of water repellency of the building papers, rotting of the building papers, and ultimately to rotting of the sheathings and deterioration of the structural elements. To fix traditional stucco, a similar strategy to the EIFS system fix described above is required: a drainage plane with a vented drainage space is necessary. This needs to be coupled with a drainage plane material that either allows no rain water penetration or that simultaneously sheds and absorbs rainwater while subsequently allowing the absorbed rain water to migrate to both the exterior and interior environments via diffusion, capillary and ventilation. And all this needs to be coupled with interior and exterior materials that are sufficiently vapor permeable to allow diffusion drying. In both Vancouver and Wilmington we had the wrong type of building for the environment. Move these buildings to Edmonton or Denver, and a different result would have occurred. 31 Air Barriers vs. Vapor Barriers About the Author Joseph Lstiburek, Ph.D., P.Eng., is a principal of Building Science Corporation in Westford, Massachusetts. He has twenty-five years of experience in design, construction, investigation, and building science research. Joe is an ASHRAE Fellow and an internationally recognized authority on indoor air quality, moisture, and condensation in buildings. More information about Joseph Lstiburek can be found at www.buildingscienceconsulting.com Direct all correspondence to: Building Science Corporation, 30 Forest Street, Somerville, MA 02143 Limits of Liability and Disclaimer of Warranty: Building Science documents are intended for professionals. The author and the publisher of this article have used their best efforts to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. The author and publisher make no warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, with regard to the information contained in this article. The information presented in this article must be used with care by professionals who understand the implications of what they are doing. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional shall be sought. The author and publisher shall not be liable in the event of incidental or consequential damages in connection with, or arising from, the use of the information contained within this Building Science document. 32 Search All Documents About . Portfolio P Conversations • Contact • Log in Building Science Corporation Our Services Articles and Papers Guidance Popular Topics Bookstore Events and Training 1. Home 2. » Building Science Digests 3. » BSD -112: Building Science for Strawbale Buildings BSD -112: Building Science for Strawbale Buildings John Straube January 30, 2009 Abstract: This digest will begin with a brief description of the system and materials, review moisture problems in buildings, and summarize how moisture control should be dealt with in strawbale buildings. The System The classic and time -proven strawbale wall assembly consists of strawbales laid flat with a 1 to 1.5 inches (25 to 38 mm) thick metal mesh reinforced cement and/or lime stucco .................. skin applied directly to each face. Earth plasters, usually somewhat thicker, have also been widely used. It behaves in most respects like a sandwich panel system, e.g., Structura Insulated Panel Svstems (skins of OSB glued to foam plastic cores), reinforced cement skins glued to a polystyrene core, etc. The reinforced skins take almost all of the load since these are the stiffest and strongest materials in the system. The strawbales act as a substrate for the stucco and as effective insulation. Photographs I and 2: Strawbale walls can be built with locally available materials and community labor (left) and are often chosen for their sculpted, massive aesthetics (right The Materials The primary constituents of the classic strawbale wall system are stucco and strawbales. The properties of each are examined below. Properties of Stucco The stucco used in strawbale walls can range from high-strength gunite or shotcrete to earth -based plasters. In most buildings the better understood cement -based stuccos are used, although lime and earth plasters will tend to have better drying performance. Typical mixes are 1 part cement to 3 parts sand and 1 part cement, 0.5 parts lime and 4.5 part; sand. Although the straw to stucco bond is very strong, and straw tends to act as a reinforcement for the applied stucco, metal mesh is often added to provide structural ductility ........................... to the skins. The mesh should be galvanized to protect it from corrosion as required by most codes. ............................... Mesh reinforced cement -lime based stucco will typically have compressive strengths of 15 to 35 MPa (2000 to 5000 psi) and equivalent tensile strengths of 0.2 to 0.7 MPa (20 t 100 psi), depending on the quality and quantity of wire mesh reinforcing. The stiffness of such stucco is in the range of 10 000 to 25 000 MPa (1.4 to 3.6 x 106 psi). 33 Photograph 3: Window framing (with subsill)4!k! O, shear bracing and wire mesh reinforcement. This wall is ready for plaster. The vapour permeance for 25 mm (one inch) thick cement -based stucco tends to lie in the range of 200 to 500 metric perms (ng/Pa s m2) or 4 to 9 US perms. The addition of lime tends to increase the vapour permeance to the range of 400 to about 800 perms or 7 to 14 US perms. Pure lime and earth stuccos have an even higher vapour permeance, of as much as 1000 perms (18 US perms). Properties of Strawbales Straw is defined as the dead stalks of small grain -bearing cereals. In this part of the world, wheat, barley and oat straw are the most commonly available. Bales are formed by compressing and tying strings around packages of straw. There are two common sizes of bales, 18" wide and 14" high or 24" wide and 16 to 18" high. The length is somewhat variable and adjustable, although the length is generally in the range of 32 to 40". Strawbales can have a wide range of densities. Most strawbale codes in the US have chosen to use a minimum density of 7 pounds per cubic foot, (110 kg/m3) since it is generally agreed that higher density bales are superior (e.g., bales up to 12 pcf are available). Several tests of the properties of the strawbales themselves have been conducted. In many respects, strawbales behave like cellulose insulation, sawdust, or wood shavings, cellulose -based materials with which we have many years of widespread experience in cold, warm, and mixed climates. The advantage of straw is the tubular shape of its stalk. This creates more void ratio for the same density of cellulose material and provides good R -value as well as reduced capillary suction, e.g., strawbales do not "wick" water very effectively. The very limited capillary suction of straw means that a separate capillary break in the form of building paper is not strictly necessary (water will definitely not wick from the exterior stucco to the interior!). Water vapour is stored in strawbales in the same way as wood or cellulose insulation, e.g., in the winter the equilibrium moisture content will be about 8-12% moisture content by dry weight, and the moisture content can rise to at least 20% before moisture problems begin. Hence, for a 8 pcf bale, more than 1 pound of water in vapour form can safely be stored per square foot of wall area. Testing for R -value has been conducted several times. Only a few tests of full-scale walls (rather than bales) have been conducted (by Oak Ridge National Labs and the Technic University, TUNS, of Nova Scotia). The R -value for these walls were found to be between 26 and 30, about double that which can be expected from a wall built to most code requirements. (Note that a 2x6 wood frame wall with R-20 batts has an R -value of about R-13 when the thermal bridging through the studs is considered). Strawbales are comprised of over 90% air voids, easily connected to one another. Hence, they acts as highly vapour permeable insulation (about half the vapour permeance of batt insulation), with a permeance in the order of 200 to 400 metric perms (3 to 6 imperial perms) for a 450 mm (18") thick wall. Strawbales are also quite air permeable, although much less tha batt insulation, provided that the bales are sufficiently dense. They cannot be relied upon to control airflow without the addition of a supplementary air barrier system (such as stucco). The stiffness (E -modulus) of strawbales have been found to be between about 0.1 and 0.2 MPa (15 to 30 psi), depending on density. The bales did not fail or crush in tests whicl subjected them to over 25% compression, but the useful level of stress was approximately 0.01 to 0.02 MPa (1.5 to 3 psi). These values are based on tests conducted by TUNS c oat, barley, and wheat bales from various suppliers, with a density of 55 kg/m3 (3.4 pcf) to 115 kg/m3 (7 pcf). Higher density bales are stiffer. Tests by the author have shown that the bond of stucco to straw is in the order of 0.07 to 0.15 MPa (10 to 20 psi). As supplemental attachment, wire ties in each course of bales can be used to tire the two wire meshes, and hence the stucco, together. This detail is normally only used in earthquake prone areas like New Zealand and California. The stiffness of stucco is much higher (at least several thousand times!) than that of the straw bales, and the area only about 1/9 as much (e.g., two one inch skins over an 18" bale). The stiffness ensures that the skins take 95-99% of all vertical load applied. Walls which are plastered with the softer earth plasters usually use thicker plasters (2 or 3") and hence the same proportion of the load is usually taken by these skins. Therefore, a strawbale wall system is truly a sandwich panel, and the strawbale core acts predominate] as insulation and a core. The bond strength of the stucco to the straw and the compressive resistance of the straw act to prevent buckling or delamination of the skins. Durability and Performance: Moisture .......................... Moisture is one of the most important factors affecting building enclosure durability and performance. Moisture is required for most common performance problems, such as rot dissolution, staining, mould growth (IAQ), corrosion, freeze -thaw damage, cracking and swelling. In the case of a strawbale building the potential moisture -related concerns are ...................................... mould growth, rot of the wood components, and corrosion of steel. These are the same types of problems that must be avoided in normal wood frame walls. Different materials have different moisture performance thresholds. Corrosion of steel occurs as a function of its time of wetness (how many hours per year is it damp) the salt content of the vapour (e.g. from the ocean or deicing salts), the acid content of the vapour (from industry) and the temperature (the warmer the faster corrosion occurs). Corrosic begins at a surface relative humidity of over 80%RH. Mould growth on wood and straw can occur when either is exposed to prolonged periods over 80%RH (about 20% ....................................................... moisture content). Wood rots if exposed to liquid water or over 95%RH for several months at warm temperatures. We know that wood will not rot below about 28 to 30% moisture content. It is believed that straw will rot at a slightly lower moisture content because of its much higher surface area. For a moisture -related problem to occur, at least four conditions must be satisfied: 34 1. a moisture source must be available, 2. there must be a route or means for this moisture to travel, 3. there must be some driving force to cause moisture movement, and 4. the materials and/or assembly must be susceptible to moisture damage. To avoid a moisture problem one could, in theory, choose to eliminate any one of the four conditions listed above. In reality, it is practically and/or economically impossible to remove all moisture sources, to build walls without imperfection, to remove all forces causing moisture movement, or to only use materials which are never susceptible to moisture damage. Therefore, controlling moisture and reducing the risk of failure by judicious design, assembly and material choices must be the approach taken in the design o durable building enclosures. The Moisture Balance If a balance between wetting and drying is maintained, moisture will not accumulate over time, and moisture -related problems are unlikely. A review of the major sources and sinks of moisture and the transport mechanisms typically involved in moisture movement in walls, especially strawbale walls, is provided below. Wetting The three major sources of moisture for the above -grade building enclosure are: 1. condensationof water vapour transported by diffusion and/or air movement through the wall (from either the interior or exterior), 2. precipitation, especially driving rain, both by penetration and capillary absorption, ....................... ..... .... .... .... .... _ 3. built-in and stored moisture. 4. (Enclosures at or below grade also need to deal with moisture from ground sources such as surface run off, melt water, high water tables, etc.) Driving rain is usually the largest moisture source for above -grade walls. Rain deposition on one or more faces of an exposed building in many parts of North America has bee] measured to be in the order of 200 kg/m2/yr. The addition of an overhang, pitched roof, and protection from neighbouring buildings can reduce this exposure by a factor of 10. The majority of any rain deposited tends to be shed by stucco, with a significant amount absorbed while a small amount penetrates through cracks. The majority of water penetration problems with stucco occurs at penetrations. Driving rain control is dealt with in a subsequent section. Condensation of the water vapour in exfiltrating air during cold weather or infiltrating air during hot -humid conditions can also deposit significant amounts of water within a wall. While diffusion wetting is typically not a powerful wetting mechanism, diffusion is an important means of moisture movement between the stucco layers and straw in a strawbale wall. Built-in moisture can be important in some wall assemblies. The use of wet framing lumber, saturated concrete block, or green concrete within a wall may provide a large initial source of moisture. The built-in moisture from concrete foundations and stucco must be allowed to dry out. Thus, SB walls should be designed to allows drying by choosing properly vapour permeable materials. The major source of built-in moisture, the stucco skins, can dry very quickly because of their location. licking and splashing from the ground can be a problem for walls close to grade. Both can be controlled by flashing, well -drained soils, good eavestrough and site drainage, etc The stucco -coated strawbale must be kept at least 6" (150 mm) above grade, although 8-12" (200-300 mm) is recommended. �]elrrla� II < n.a 1 1. +tppour tldhNor aee 64kppe wRhlry A. WO*9 ■an grade MW cp OWPO 4 . Figure 1: Wetting mechanisms in strawbale walls Moisture control strategies for many modern walls have tended to focus on reducing the potential for wetting by, for example, increasing air tightness and interior vapour resistance, reducing the volume of water penetration and absorption, etc. However, it has become generally accepted that most building construction will not be perfect, and thm wetting will occur. Therefore, attention must be given to design approaches that increase a wall's drying and/or storage potential. Drying An assembly's drying potential is an important factor in assessing its vulnerability to moisture problems. Strawbale walls, like solid multi-wythe brick walls, adobe and straw- .................... clay walls, are more susceptible to wetting than a modern wood frame wall. But as history has shown, these types of walls can be quite durable so long as drying is allowed. Moisture is usually removed from a wall by: 1. evaporation from the inside or outside surfaces, 2. drainage, driven by gravity, 3. vapour transport by diffusion either outward or inward or both; and 35 4. air flow either outward or inward or both. Drainage is the mechanism capable of removing the greatest volume of water in the shortest period of time. Hence it is can be a very important mechanism for moisture control. Provided a clear drainage path exists (e.g. cavities, slopes, drainage openings), a large proportion of rain water penetration or condensation can flow out of certain walls, such as brick veneer, vinyl, etc. However, drainage is not the only mechanism or even sufficient on its own, to provide drying. Stucco clad walls, solid masonry walls, and strawbale .............. walls can function well by using other drying mechanisms, and attempting to incorporate drainage in these time -proven designs often creates an inferior wall system. Drainage within strawbale walls is not a reliable rain control strategy as the straw becomes too wet during the drainage process. Drainage of windows, doors, and any penetrations IS effective and should always be incorporated into a strawbale wall. &aiacoo nPowlon} i 1, Vkmrdiil of airrk�� lmkuge dr" I C Figure 2: Drying mechanisms in strawbale walls Under the right conditions the moisture from rain penetration and condensation not drained from a wall will dry by evaporation or desorption. The resulting water vapour can be transported out of and redistributed within a wall system either by diffusion or air leakage or both acting together. Diffusive drying is one of the two mechanisms that can remove moisture that is absorbed or trapped in a wall. Diffusion outward, especially when driven by large vapour gradients in the winter, can remove a significant amount of moisture and be an effective drying mechanism. Outward drying for strawbale walls can occur in most parts of Canada since exterior stucco has a relatively high vapour permeance and the outdoor vapour pressure is often quite low in winter. Diffusion drying can only occur in an outward direction if very low permeance polyethylene vapour barriers are located on the exterior side of the interior finish. In walls exposed to solar heating, inward drvin$ can be significant if it is allowed by the use of relatively vapour permeable interior lavers. For example, a significant proportion of drying can occur to the inside in strawbale walls, so long as polyethylene or similar vapour resistant layers are not used. Airflow (or leakage) through the enclosure can, under the proper conditions, move a large quantity of moisture. While air leakage usually leads to condensation wetting under many winter conditions, it can also remove moisture during warmer weather. Periodic reversals of air flow from exfiltration to infiltration (when the wind changes direction for example) can allow drying even under winter conditions. Similarly, cold weather stack -effect -driven infiltration and warm weather exfiltration can cause drying. Since the amount of air leakage drying and wetting cannot easily be predicted or controlled the recommended approach is to control all air movement and secure drying by other mechanisms. Capillary transport, often termed wicking, is not itself a drying mechanism but it does act to redistribute moisture within a system. Stucco is highly capillary active and wicks water quite effectively. This means that water that is deposited on one face of the stucco can be transported to the other. In practice, water that penetrates stucco (from any source) will evaporate, diffuse to the back of the stucco and either pass through to the exterior or condense on the back face. Any vapour that condenses will wick to the exterior surface from where it can quickly evaporate. This drying mechanism is one reason not to introduce building paper between the stucco and straw. Drying almost never occurs at the same time as wetting. Therefore, to bridge the gap in time between wetting and drying, some safe storage capacity within the wall is needed. Storage The ability of a wall assembly to store moisture may be an important measure of its durability because storage acts as a vital buffer, or capacitor, between the deposition and removal of moisture. However, if the volume of stored water exceeds the safe level for a material and is present for long enough, deterioration can occur, i.e. rot of wood and straw, freeze -thaw damage of masonry, and corrosion of metal. Therefore, the two most important characteristics of moisture storage are: how much moisture can be stored and for what duration without crossing a performance threshold. Sorption of water vapour by hygroscopic materials is an important storage mechanism. A significant amount of moisture can be stored within a porous material as water vapour molecules adsorb to the large internal surface areas of materials such as straw, wood, concrete and masonry. When a porous material has adsorbed all the moisture it can, further moisture will be stored in the pores and cracks within the material by capillary suction, or by absorption. Only when all pores are filled with water is a material saturated. For example, wood will adsorb moisture up to approximately 30% of its mass in the adsorbed state and fully saturated wood can hold two to four times this amount of water. When all easily filled pores of a material are filled with water, the material is capillary saturated. A capillary saturated material will generally not be able to store any more moisture. Water stored in pores generally must leave in vapour form. Safe storage capacity depends on the material. Wood and straw can generally store about 20% moisture by weight without danger of mold growth. Steel cannot store any water safely—hence, any water in the studspace can immediately act to corrode the steel. The ability to safely store significant amounts of moisture means that the drying period can occur a long time after wetting, perhaps several months. This improves the chance of a moisture balance being struck. Rain Penetration Control for Strawbale Buildings Precipitation, often the largest source of moisture in buildings, is always a concern for strawbale buildings. Designers have a choice of three primary rain control strategies in all enclosure systems. Enclosure elements and the joints between these elements may be, and often should be, designed with different strategies. Perfect barrier systems employ a single layer through which no rain may penetrate. If this perfect layer is on the exterior, the wall can be sub -classified as a face -sealed system. 2. Mass or storage walls control rain penetration by absorbing and storing rain water which penetrates the exterior surface. In a functional mass wall this moisture is eventually removed by evaporative diffusive drying before the accumulated moisture causes damage. 36 3. The screened and drained design philosophy accepts that water penetration will occur and provides drainage at several planes to remove it. A rainscreen, pressure - equalised rainscreen, and two-stage weather tightening are all sub -classifications of the screened and drained enclosure type. Providing a water-resistant barrier (drainage plane) behind the stucco is not practical in strawbale construction because it breaks the structural bond between the plaster and the strawbale and reduces the ability of a wall to dry outward. Hence, rain control in strawbale walls employs the mass/storage approach. The ability of a wall to store and dry rain water deposited on the surface is very important for mass wall systems, no less for stawbale systems. The mass and absorption provided in every mass system must be balanced with the drying capacity and the exposure to driving rain. For example, split -faced concrete block is a highly absorptive, but highly massive wall system. Provided such walls ar not exposed to too much rain, they will not leak and they will dry out. It is for these same reasons that good drying capacity and reduced driving rain exposure are so important 1 strawbale walls. Stucco is less massive, but less absorptive than split -faced block. Research and long experience has shown that overhangs are very effective in reducing the amount of rain deposition. Buildings, trees and terrain around a house can also provid significant protection. Finally, the closer to the ground a building is, the less driving rain deposition that occurs. Driving rain deposition can be reduced to such a level by even one or two of these measures acting alone that even the storage mass of the 25 mm stucco skin can store the rain that penetrates and is absorbed. All strawbale houses should control rain exposure through the use of generous overhangs, eavestroughs, and by keeping walls to two -storeys or less in height. The size of the overhang will depend on exposure and building shape, but a minimum of 400 mm (16") for a one storey building and 600 mm (24") for a two-storey building is recommended by this author. Experience with strawbale and other stucco houses has shown that rain penetration almost always occurs at penetrations though the wall. Therefore, windows, doors, balconies and other large penetrations need to be detailed with more than average care to eliminate the potential for rain penetration. As a minimum, detailed sections of window and door sills, jambs and heads should be provided to the building code official to demonstrate that care has been taken in the design of these features. Clearly it is in these areas that waterproof membranes and flashings should be used. For strawbale walls exposed to high rain exposures (tall houses with little overhangs) a drained system is recommended: on the exterior of a typical plastered strawbale assembl, a small drainage gap and an external finish can be provided. This drainage gap need only be 1/16" or even less and can be formed by special creped housewrap, or strips of woo The exterior finish can be a plaster, siding, wood, or any other lightweight system. .............. Air Leakage Condensation Control for Strawbale Buildings The second largest potential source of wetting for strawbale walls is condensation of the water vapor in the air. This moisture can be transported by diffusion (the movement of something from high concentration to low, such as the smell of an onion from one end of a room to the other without air movement) or air movement itself (the movement of th( onion odor from one room to another by moving the air itself, with a fan or by wind, etc). Vapour diffusion is not a concern for strawbale homes because the interior plaster is able to resist a sufficient amount of vapour diffusion to control diffusion. Air leakage however might be a concern, and an effective air barrier system must be provided. It should be noted that condensation will occur on any surface which is colder than the dewpoint of the air around it. In practice, condensation does not occur within batt insulation or strawbales, since neither presents a sufficiently attractive surface (they are mostly composed of air and are very vapour permeable). Condensation in framed walls and strawbale walls tends to concentrate on the first surface on the cold side of the dewpoint. The condensation surface in cold weather is usuallv the back of the sheathing in framed walls, or the back of the stucco in a strawbale wall. Any moisture that condenses here must dry to the outside. This occurs in sheathed walls by drying directly to the outside via ventilation of the cladding. In strawbale walls, condensate will be wicked into the ........................ plaster, and will subsequently evaporate from the exterior surface. This is an effr�ient mg mechanism. Placing building paper between the stucco and the straw will eliminate this condensation -wicking -drying mechanism and force any water to evaporate t oug the building paper and the full thickness of the stucco. The air barrier provided by applied reinforced stucco is excellent, better than most other systems. Laboratory tests have confirmed that the small cracks that typify a stucco finisl are not big enough or continuous enough to allow significant airflow. Just as for rain, the majority of air leakage will be at penetrations and interfaces with different wall surface It is recommended that the interior and exterior skins be detailed as part of the air barrier system. This can be accomplished by caulking to hard surfaces (interior caulk has a lon lifespan) and by applying one -component polyurethane foam or peel and stick membrane to the more difficult, convoluted or to surfaces. Project drawings should specificall identify the air barrier system and indicate how continuity of the system is to be achieved (from the floor slab to the roof via the walls and windows). Summary In summary there are no real technical obstacles to the use of strawbales in a manner that meets the intent of all building codes. The practical experience with thousands of such buildings provides more than sufficient confidence in the conclusions of this technical review. Practical moisture -related concerns such as the need for air, vapour, and rain control can be met. This is not to say that all strawbale buildings are necessarily durable and performing—good performance and durability depends very much on the construction details used and the exposure of the site. Rain control is the most important issue, and an air barrier system must always be provided in cold or hot -humid climates. Vapour diffusion control can easily be provided in cold climate walls: in a standard cement -stucco ........................ strawbale house wall by interior painted stucco (with a permeance of no more than about 300 metric perms). Proper rain control means deflecting as much rain as possible through the proper use of overhangs, eavestroughs, base details, protected sites, etc. Large-scale details of all penetrations, showing how rain and air flow will be controlled, especially at windows and balconies, must be developed for each project and each wall arrangement. Such detail; should ideally be part of the project drawings submitted for building permit approval. Photographs 4 and 5. Generous roof overhangs provide shading and shelter for these strawbale buildings The use of sheet barriers to liquid and vapour movement is always a double-edged sword—the barrier that prevents wetting also slows drying. These types of barriers are likely to cause the very problems they are intended to solve in strawbale construction and should be avoided. Both practical experience and building science provides ample evidence 1 support this approach. 37 Reference The definitive handbook of technical strawbale design is "Design of Strawbale Buildings" edited by Bruce King, PE, available from Green Building Press. Upcoming Events Buildino Science Fundamentals Renovation and Rehabilitation Building Science Experts' Session Related Documents RR -0105: Brick. Stucco. Housewrap and Building Paper PA -0301: Water-Manaaed Wall Svstems BSI -033: Evolution BSD -042: Historical Development of the Buildin¢ Enclosure BSI -049: Confusion About Diffusion BSD -105: Understanding Drainaee Planes Info -610: Central Fan Integrated Ventilation Svstems BSD -112: Building Science for Strawbale Buildinga 38 4/17/2017 Attachment 9 Perm (unit) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A perm is a unit of permeance or "water vapor transmission" given a certain differential in partial pressures on either side of a material or membrane. Definitions US perm The US perm is defined as 1 grain of water vapor per hour, per square foot, per inch of mercury. 1 US perm = 0.659045 metric perms z 57.2135 ng•s 1•m 2•Pa 1 Metric perm The metric perm (not an SI unit) is defined as 1 gram of water vapor per day, per square meter, per millimeter of mercury. 1 metric perm = 1.51735 US perms z 86.8127 ng•s 1•m 2•Pa 1 Equivalent SI unit The equivalent SI measure is the nanogram per second per square meter per pascal. 1 ng -s -1 -m -2 -pa -1 z 0.0174784 US perms z 0.0115191 metric perms The base normal SI unit for permeance is the kilogram per second per square meter per pascal. 1 kg•s 1•m 2•Pa 1 -Z 1.74784x10+10 US perms z 1.15191x10+10 metric perms German Institute for Standardization unit A variant of the metric perm is used in DIN Standard 53122, where permeance is also expressed in grams per square meter per day, but at a fixed, "standard" vapor -pressure difference of 17.918 mmHg. This unit is thus 17.918 times smaller than a metric perm, corresponding to about 0.084683 of a US perm. References ■ Michon, G6rard P. (April 29, 2003) "Permeability and permeance (http://www.numericana.com/answer/gas.h tm#perm)". Final Answers: Physics of Gases and Fluids. - accessed August 13, 2007 Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perm (unit)&oldid=532195950" Categories: Customary units of measurement in the United States I Units of measurement 39 https://en.wi ki pedia.orglwi ki/Perm_(unit) 1/2 4/17/2017 Perm (unit) - Wikipedia ■ This page was last modified on 9 January 2013, at 15:57. ■ Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. 40 https:Hen.wi ki pedia.orglwi ki/Perm_( unit) 2/2 Construction Materials m f Civil Engineers Volume 164 Issue CM1 Construction Materials 164 February 2011 Issue CMI Pages 13-20 dor 10. 1 680/coma.900053 Building limes in the United Kingdom Paper 900053 Livesey Received 09/09/2009 Accepted 18/11/2009 Published online 29/11/2010 Keywords: buildings, structures & design/history/materials technology ICE Publishing: All rights reserved Building limes in the United Kingdom Paul Livesey Consultant, Paul Livesey Consultancy, Clitheroe, UK �J This paper traces the development of lime as a building material, from ancient times to classical Roman technology, its loss in the Dark Ages, its restoration in the technical revolution until superseded by cement and its re-emergence in recent times. It follows the developing product with evolving production technology and its classification with increased understanding of materials science. The modern understanding of microstructure is used to explain the benefits of porosity and plasticity, and examples are given of mixes for exposure conditions. The environmental benefits are compared with those of alternative binders. 1. Introduction Lime, in its basic form of calcium oxide, is fundamental to the whole of the UK building industry. It is the major ingredient in hydrated calcium lime and natural hydraulic limes, and is a production intermediate in the whole spectrum of cements from prompt cement to Portland cements and calcium aluminate cements (Taylor, 1997). It is an essential ingredient in the production of iron and steel, being used to extract impurities during the fusion process to form slag, the granulated form being a major constituent of composite cements. One might even claim that iron is a by-product of its manufacture. Even the current vogue for the use of glass as a structural building component is not immune: lime is an essential ingredient for the refining of glass properties. This paper considers that part of the lime—cement spectrum occupied by the pure limes (termed `air limes') and natural hydraulic limes. When the subject of lime is raised, the immediate and common thought is ancient or even pre -historic construction. This is unsurprising since lime production is believed to have developed in the Middle East around 10 000 years ago (Cowper, 1927); recent archaeological excavations in western China (CASS, 2009) suggest similar or even earlier evidence. The technology was developed and further refined by the ancient Greeks, with the advantages of matured putty and finely ground lime being extolled by Pliny the Younger. It was, however, the Romans, particularly Director of Ordnance, Vitruvius, to whom we owe the most developed and authoritative writings (Vitruvius, 1880 (trans.)). A major innovation at this time was the introduction of hydraulic constituents such as volcanic ash, pozzolana and crushed tile or brick ceramic to the lime to improve strength and particularly resistance to marine environments. Subsequently, in the Dark Ages much of this skill was lost, preserved only by a small number of religious builders. 41 The development of classical learning in Renaissance times led to the rediscovery of the arts of plaster and incorporation of gypsum that were to result in the major palaces that survive today. The principle of Vitruvius — that the best mortar was to be produced from the purest of lime, gauged by its whiteness, combined with hydraulic constituents — persisted until the mid -eighteenth century. Despite this, masons in the south of England had observed from experience that limes made from the grey chalk beds had superior strength to white limes, albeit the term `semi - hydraulic' was unknown at that time (Hohnes, 2006). The scientific basis for hydraulicity was established by two eminent workers of the time. John Smeaton carried out a review of English limes produced from a variety of sources of limestones and chalks, and found that the necessary quick setting and strong characteristics he needed for the reconstruction of the Eddystone lighthouse (Smeaton, 179 1) came from those with a proportion of insoluble (in acid) clay, particularly from the Blue Lias limestones in the viscinity of Aberthaw. Not content with this discovery, Smeaton also applied the Roman technique of adding volcanic pozzolana to his mortars. Subsequent to this, the French civil engineer Vicat researched the limestones and chalks of France (Vicat, 1837), refining Smeaton's findings and arriving at a series of classifications for hydraulicity — feebly, moderate and eminently — that exists to the present day. As production techniques improved throughout the following century, lime and clay began to be heated to higher temperatures to increase hydraulicity, eventually reaching fusion and the formation of hard `clinker' at which point they became known as `cements'. From this time, their use overtook that of even hydraulic limes so that by the early twentieth century, limes had almost disappeared from normal construction and, by the mid-century, from building codes of practice (except as mortar plasticisers). 2. Lime production The chemical process involved in lime burning basically consists of the dissociation by heat of calcium (or magnesium) 13 Construction Materials Volume 164 Issue CM1 carbonates. Magnesium limes are not normally encountered in the UK, so this paper concentrates on calcium limes. Sources of calcium carbonate are the various forms of limestone rock, including chalk. Other rarer sources include oyster and other shells and even, potentially, egg shells (Edwards, 2009). Application of heat causes dissociation of calcium carbonate, releasing gaseous carbon dioxide and leaving calcium oxide (quicklime), which is then cooled in ambient air to limit re - carbonation. These high -purity limes are known as air limes. Where the source limestone contains finely dispersed argillac- eous (clayey) or siliceous material, generally referred to as the `clay' constituent, the resulting lime contains activated silicates and is referred to as `natural hydraulic lime'. Other `hydraulic' limes are produced by mixing Portland cement with air limes, but these are not covered in this paper. During burning, as the temperature rises, quicklime released from the calcium carbonate reacts with the clay constituents, mainly silica, to form dicalcium silicate, also known as belite. A schematic representation of the reactions is shown in Figure 1. This is, of course, a simplification of a complex series of reactions, many of which occur in the solid phase and are dependent on highly localised microclimates. For instance, a kiln operating tem- perature of 950°C would, theoretically, avoid formation of any tricalcium silicate (alite); in fact, there is always a trace formed in localised hot spots in the kiln. Similarly, depending on stone size and local carbon dioxide concentrations, not all of the stone is automatically calcined at this optimum temperature. In its simplest form, the lime `kiln' consisted of alternate layers of broken limestone and fuel, mainly wood, built into a pile (Wingate, 1985). Sometimes, to concentrate the heat, the base Optimum 950°C I I Calcium carbonate /I Alite rn I .3 I a I c I Calcium oxide 0 1 a o I a I Belite Clay �- 400 600 800 1000 1200 Temperature: 'C Building limes in the United Kingdom Livesey was dug down into a depression and the whole covered by a layer of clay. It was necessary to be able to provide air for combustion and this was achieved by leaving opening vents around the base of the clay or digging trenches to the sides of the pit. These developed into the various stages of shaft kilns, the remains of which are commonly seen in the UK country- side. Initially stone built into the side of a quarry, limestone and fuel were fed into the top and the resulting lime was drawn from the base. The more sophisticated of these developed into continuous feed and draw units, often in multiple banks as shown in Figure 2, which shows the lime works at Charlestown, Scotland. This was one of the largest production units in existence in the early nineteenth century, producing 90 000 t/year. Key factors in control of the kiln and the resultant lime quality were: selection and size of the stone feed; quality, quantity and dispersion of fuel; and control of air to ensure complete combustion over the entire kiln. The size of stone feed affects the reaction time and flow of air through the kiln; a smaller size presents more surface area to react with the hot gas but, if too small, leaves little space for the gas to pass through, thus blocking the release of carbon dioxide and choking the burn. The temperature of the burn is controlled by the relative amounts of fuel and air. If the temperature is too low, or the burn is not allowed to continue to completion, unburnt stone will result. The most reactive lime is obtained from a slow burn at a relatively low temperature of around 900-950'C. As the clay content of the feed increases, extra time and a higher temperature are required to allow the quicklime formed to react with the silica in the clay. Burning at too high a Figure 1. Phase changes during the calcination of natural hydraulic Figure 2. Shaft kilns at Charlestown, Fife (photograph permission lime constituents of the Scottish Lime Centre Trust) 14 42 Construction Materials Volume 164 Issue CM1 temperature will result in a more dense form of quicklime that is less reactive and, in the extreme, is inert. As kiln technology developed, higher temperatures were able to be achieved and emphasis shifted to the production of increasingly hydraulic cements. In the residual lime industry, kiln technology proceeded at a slower rate, learning from cement technology but without the commercial incentive of volumes and hence investment. In the later part of the twentieth century, interest in lime (particularly natural hydraulic lime) increased, so that customised technology began to be applied to development of lime kilns. The modern lime kiln is now characterised by a complex gas-fired shaft kiln (Figure 3) capable of close control of temperature and hence quality and fuel efficiency. The final stage in lime production (little is sold as quicklime and only then to specialist users) is the slaking process. Quicklime is unstable, reacting with moisture in the air, and therefore requires careful storage to prevent deterioration. The addition of water to quicklime releases large amounts of heat that can cause the water to boil, thus necessitating careful control and protective equipment. Lime used for most building purposes is the hydrated form, that is, it has undergone a slaking process whereby water is added in controlled amounts. In the case of air limes where the water addition is just sufficient to hydrate the calcium oxide quicklime content to dry powder calcium hydroxide, the product is referred to as hydrated lime. Use of an excess of water in the slaking process, accompanied by good agitation, produces a milky suspension of calcium hydroxide. In time, the solids in this `milk of lime' settle and, if excess water is drained off, the product is lime putty. Storage for longer periods causes the calcium hydroxide particles to repeatedly dissolve and recrystallise to finer and finer crystal- lites, producing matured lime putty. Lime putty can be produced from hydrated lime but then needs a long period of maturation to approach the quality of putty produced from milk of lime. Lime putty needs to be stored with sufficient water to cover the surface to prevent carbonation. Slaking of the free calcium oxide in hydraulic lime is necessary to avoid reaction of the unstable quicklime in subsequent work. This requires careful control to ensure full hydration without hydrating and reducing the reactivity of the hydraulic constitu- ents; it is often carried out in association with grinding the hydraulic lime to produce dry powdered natural hydraulic lime. 3. Classification of building limes Building limes are, in most cases, not mixed products. Depending on type, they harden by absorbing carbon dioxide from the air and/or by combining with water hydraulically. On Building limes in the United Kingdom Livesey Figure 3. The compact nature of a modern lime kiln (photograph permission of SOCLI Limes, France) mixing with water, building limes form a paste that improves the workability (flow and penetration) and water retention of mortars in the plastic state. During the life of lime -based mortars, carbonation occurs and this results in the filling of small cracks and voids. This increases compressive, flexural and bond strength and reduces rain penetration. This beneficial process, which enhances durability, is known as autogenous healing. For these reasons, the classification criteria required for building limes differ from those for cements. By the time British standards were developed for building limes, the use of hydraulic limes had ceased in mainstream building work and so BS 890 for building limes (BSI, 1995) only covered the various forms of air limes. Indeed, it was partly due to the lack of standards for hydraulic limes that their use was discouraged, as noted by Cowper (1927): ... lack of uniformity and absence heretofore of any exact standards of quality greatly handicap these natural lime products in competition with the artificial and closely controlled product. The 43 15 Construction Materials Volume 164 Issue CM1 latter is therefore likely to continue to be preferred for exacting work. It was only in 1995 with the publication of a draft European standard (ENV 459: Part 1: Building lime: definitions, specifications and conformity criteria) that hydraulic limes came into the UK specification arena, becoming the full BS EN 459 standard in 2001 (BSI, 2001). Until these standards were introduced, purchasers of lime could only refer to the classification produced by Vicat (1837): Rich limes are such as may have their volume doubled, or more, by slaking and whose consistency after many years of immersion remains nearly the same; Feebly hydraulic limes set within fifteen or twenty days, after immersion in water of a container two-thirds full of lime, and continue to harden slowly to six or eight months; Moderately hydraulic limes set within six to eight days and continue to harden even to the twelfth month; whilst Eminently hydraulic limes set from the second to the fourth day and, after one month, are already very hard. Vicat also introduced a classification based on the clay content of the raw material: rich limes having less than 6% clay; feebly hydraulic limes having 6-12% clay; moderately hydraulic limes having 12-18% clay; and eminently hydraulic limes having 18- 25% clay. There was also an intermediate class of `poor' or `semi -hydraulic' limes between the rich and feebly hydraulic. From Dibdin's reported analysis (Dibdin, 1911) it appears that Dorking greystone lime, at 6% clay, fell into this category. Vicat also introduced a `hydraulic index' based upon chemical analysis that compared the silica percentage plus the alumina percentage with the lime percentage. Relevant values were considered to be: rich limes less than 0.1; feebly hydraulic 0.1- 0.2; `good' hydraulic 0.2-0.4. A further development was the `cementation index' introduced by Eckel (1905), which was based on the potential hydraulic compounds and the propor- tion of the compounds combining with lime so that 2.8 times silica plus 1.1 times alumina plus 0.7 times the iron oxide were compared with the lime content. The problem with these ratios and indices is that they only indicate the potential hydraulicity and, as already noted, the final properties are determined by the quality of the burning process, hence the drawbacks reported by Cowper. These ratios and indices are therefore more relevant to the exploration for suitable raw materials than as a guide to the quality of the burnt lime. These shortcomings were addressed for the so-called rich limes in BS 890 (BSI, 1995) in which the term `air limes' was confirmed on account of their ability to harden in air by carbonation. They were categorised according to their calcium oxide content into CL90 (--85%), CL80 (_-75%) and CL70 (>65%), with limits on Building limes in the United Kingdom Livesey contents of magnesia, carbonate and sulfate and a test for soundness. This classification and the tests apply to all forms of calcium lime — whether quicklime, hydrated lime or lime putty — and have carried through to the European standard (BSI, 2001). The air lime most often encountered in UK building work is CL90 hydrated calcium lime. The introduction of the European standard brought a clearer specification for hydraulic limes. A strength test (BSI, 2005a) was introduced based on a convenient mortar formulation that would provide results at the reasonably quick age of 28 days. While the actual numbers are not directly relatable to everyday mortar strengths, they do provide a reproducible test and allow a system of classification based on the actual hydraulicity of the finished product. Natural hydraulic limes are now classified according to their minimum and maximum 28 -day strength as NHL 2 (2.0-7.0 N/mm2); NHL 3.5 (3.5-10.0 N/mm2) and NHL 5 (5.0-15.0 N/mm2). At first glance this classification appears confusing as a strength of 5.0 N/mm2 could qualify for all three classes. In fact, the classification is based on a statistical assessment requiring a safety margin at both upper and lower limits based on the variability of the producer. In practice, the compliance criteria become close to NHL 2 (3.5- 6.0 N/mm2), NHL 3.5 (6.0-9.0 N/mm2) and NHL 5 (9.0- 12.5 N/mm2). A quality control system was introduced with the European standard based on the level 2 procedure. While this was a step in the right direction, there were seen to be limitations in that level 2 only required certification that a producer had an initial system and relied on unaudited producer declarations there- after. The current revision will change this to a level 2+ system whereby the initial system is backed by annual third -party inspection. A move by the UK to introduce a CEN classification of NHL 1 is ongoing but unlikely to be successful in the current revision as insufficient information on performance is available. 4. Properties and applications The applications for building limes in modern building — which apply equally well to modern construction and conservation, and brick cavity and solid rubble stone walls — are numerous and well documented. The thorough discussion given by Blundell (2007) is summarised here. The microstructure of hydrating lime systems becomes increas- ingly complex from air limes to eminently hydraulic limes. The first stage is the precipitation of calcium hydroxide as portlandite crystals. In the case of hydraulic limes, this is followed by the hydration of silicate phases to the `glue' that holds the system together, calcium -silicate -hydrate (CSH). The greater proportion of portlandite and relatively smaller amount 16 44 Construction Materials Volume 164 Issue CM1 of CSH compared with a cement system produces the more open microstructure that gives the lower strengths, lower brittleness and greater permeability of lime systems. The presence of silicate as dicalcium silicate (belite) compared with the tricalcium silicate (alite) in Portland cement has a fundamental effect on properties. While both are unstable in the presence of water, decomposing and releasing heat, alite releases three times more heat than belite (Taylor, 1997). Belite thus reacts more slowly and is more affected by cooler conditions. In practical terms, this means that greater care has to be taken with hydrating lime: protecting for longer periods and avoiding low-temperature conditions (it is generally advised not to work with lime in temperatures below 5Q. Lime applied as mortar or render benefits from the superior permeable and flexible properties. The first thought in making a building resistant to water ingress is usually to apply a waterproof coating in the form of paint, cement render or some other coating product or system. However, the problem with these is that inevitably there will be some movement or deterioration that will result in cracks, allowing the ingress of water liquid or vapour. As the crack is a miniscule part of the structure, water is prevented from release by evaporation through the remaining impervious coating, causing the internal concentration to grow with subsequent onset of internal damp, rot and loss of the thermal insulation properties reducing building efficiency. Lime, however, allows a building to `breathe'. In wet conditions, water is absorbed into the wall but, as soon as the rain stops, the movement is reversed, accelerated by wind, and the wall dries out, thus preventing dampness and rot. Similar advantages are to be found with regard to structural movement either from ground conditions or solar effects. The flexibility of a lime mortar reduces the risk of cracking and the ability of lime to heal cracks autogenously by precipitation of calcium carbonate helps to seal those cracks that do occur. Again, overall weathertightness is retained. The permeability properties of lime assist in the prevention of frost damage to masonry units. Using a mortar that is less permeable than the masonry units causes moisture to be retained in the units themselves. The use of lime mortar, which is more permeable than the masonry, provides a breathing route for the masonry to dry out. In freezing conditions it is the wet part that freezes, with accompanying risk of frost damage. Lime -mortared masonry provides a uniform monolith that withstands weathering more effectively. Figure 4 demonstrates the corrosive effect cement mortar can have on sandstone masonry: the stone is eroded while the dense mortar has remained unaffected. Figure 5 shows the use of lime mortar in a traditional role and Figure 6 shows a less familiar modern application in the recently completed award- winning Joseph Chamberlain sixth form college. Building limes in the United Kingdom Livesey Figure 4. Eroded cement -mortared stone masonry (photograph permission of the Scottish Lime Centre Trust) The major ingredient in a mortar is sand, and this component is even more important in a lime mortar. Lime is a finely dispersed powder of significantly lower density than sand, and therefore a special mix design procedure is required. In particular, with so much fine material present, a rather coarser sand is required than would be the case for a cement mortar. The most important investigation into the effects of mix design at the time when lime mortars predominated was that carried out by Dibdin (1911). His conclusion was that a hydraulic lime mortar produced the best results when clean, coarse, well - graded sand was used. The term `well -graded' is commonly used to mean sand for which the size fractions are approxi- mately evenly distributed across several intermediate sizes. Figure 5. Example of traditional use of lime mortar: Ardverikie House, Scottish Highlands. The house was used as the setting for Glenbogle House in the Monarch of the Glen television series (photograph permission of the Scottish Lime Centre Trust) ,eliveV' all-ibrary corn to: r': 704. _ 1 1.5.4 On, Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:05:12 IN Construction Materials Volume 164 Issue CM1 ■ri 1l T1 11 r, . l Figure 6. Royal Institute of British Architects award-winning Joseph Chamberlain college, Birmingham (photograph permission of Limetechnology Limited) Table 1 compares the grading of Dibdin's choice Thames sand with that of more recent standards for sand, currently termed `fine aggregate' and more suited to cement mortars. It can be seen that specifications have become less precise and drifted further from the `ideal' over the past 100 years. In the UK, guidance (BSI, 2005c) on the most recent standard notes: `For lime based mortars the requirements in this (BS EN 13139) specification should be reviewed using expert advice'. For this reason, the UK continues to retain BS 1199/1200 for specialist sand specification for lime mortars (BSI, 1976a). The applications of lime mortars are numerous and are summarised in Table 2. This general guide is subject to consideration of the many variables and possible permutations, including location, microclimate and design lifetime. Table 3 gives a guide to the possible permutations of mix proportions and lime strength classes to produce mortars meeting the application durability classes. Again, variations due to individual limes and sands should be taken into account. Building limes in the United Kingdom Livesey 5. Environmental factors Examination of the so-called carbon footprint of everything we do and use is becoming increasingly common. However, the methodology for determination of this footprint is indistinct and often relies on folklore or dubious data. The fact that lime is burnt at lower temperatures than required for cement leads to the assumption that lime must be more environmentally friendly, without consideration of all the factors involved. A variety of kilns are used to produce lime and their energy efficiency is equally variable. Wingate (1985) gives comparative data ranging from 2500 kcal/kg for a basic batch kiln to 750 kcal/kg for an exceptionally efficient shaft kiln. For major producers of hydraulic lime, a value of 800 kcal/kg is a reasonable estimate of performance (Livesey, 2007). This is comparable to a general cement kiln, which has the benefit of much higher throughput and hence economy of scale. In calculating carbon footprint, it is necessary to convert the measure of efficiency to carbon dioxide emitted per kilogram of product. In the case of rich air limes, the calcium carbonate calcination requirement is much greater than that for hydraulic limes or cement. The emitted carbon dioxide for CL90 could be estimated as 0.88 kg CO2/kg compared with around 0.77 kg CO2/kg for natural hydraulic lime and Portland cement. The mortar design is a further factor, varying from 1:6 for a Portland cement (PC):sand aerated mortar to 1:2 for NHL 2:sand (1:3 for NHL 3.5:sand and 1:4 for NHL 5:sand). This results in carbon dioxide emissions of 175 t/m3 for PC:sand, 250 t/m3 for NHL 2:sand, 210 t/m3 for NHL 3.5:sand and 170 t/m3 for NHL 5:sand. Lime mortars will reabsorb carbon dioxide more quickly than do cement mortars. Some authorities have concluded that this varies depending on the wall design and thickness and the lime type. Thus, a CL90 mortar will carbonate rapidly while a (BSI, 2000) Table 1. Distribution of sand fractions across the size range (mean value %w/w in each size) 18 46 Size range: mm Below Above 5.0 2.4-5.0 1.2-2.4 0.6-1.2 0.3-0.6 0.15-0.3 0.15 Thames sand (Dibdin, 1911) 0.8 5.2 12.6 11.8 53.2 12.8 3.6 BS 882: 1965 Zone 3 (BSI, 1965) 5.0 2.5 10.0 12.5 44.0 21.0 5.0 BS 1200: 1976 Type S (BSI, 1976a) 1.0 4.0 10.0 15.0 34.0 30.0 5.0 BS 882: 1976 Zone 3 (BSI, 1976b) 5.0 2.5 5.0 18.0 43.5 21.0 5.0 CEN reference sand (BSI, 2005a) 0.0 0.0 7.0 26.0 34.0 20.0 13.0 BS EN 13139: 2000 Class 0/4 MP 2.5 5.5 - - 30-70 (BSI, 2000) Table 1. Distribution of sand fractions across the size range (mean value %w/w in each size) 18 46 Construction Materials Building limes in the United Kingdom Volume 164 Issue CM1 Livesey Building element Inner leaf of cavity wall and internal walls Backing to external solid walls External walls including outer leaf of cavity walls in sheltered and moderate locations Unrendered Rendered External walls as facing to solid construction Work below or near to ground level Below damp-proof course but no more than 150 mm above finished ground level Below ground or above ground not within 150 mm of ground level Sills and cornices External free-standing walls excluding capping or coping Parapets (excluding capping or coping) Rendered Unrendered Copings, cappings and plinths Chimneys and finials Retaining walls Sewer -bed walls and other unlined walls intended for water retention externally Embankment walls, culverts, sluices and engineering work normally below water Table 2. Applications of lime mortars and durability classes (Allen et al., 2003) (copyright Donhead Publishing Limited) NHL 5 mortar is slower and Portland cement even slower still. Nevertheless, it is claimed (Lagarblad, 2005) that most mortars will reach a high degree of carbonation by the end of their working life. Hence it is problematic to claim any significant advantage from the embodied carbon in masonry mortar. Lime mortars can, however, claim their largest environmental benefit from the fact that, in a wall, the highest embodied carbon is in the masonry unit. Because lime -mortared masonry has a lower bond strength between the mortar and the masonry units than cement -mortared masonry, it is easier to recover and reuse masonry units from a lime -mortared structure. Suitable mortar durability class 1-2 2-4 1-4 3-4 2-7 5-7 5-7 5-8 5-7 5-8 5-8 5-9 6-9 6-10 8-10 9-10 6. Specification of lime mortars Tables 2 and 3 provide a guide to the selection of appropriate lime mortars. Current UK codes and specifications are based on Portland cement mortars. Reference to lime mortars barely survived the final revision of CP 121 (BSI, 1973) and totally disappeared with the publication of BS 5628 (BSI, 2005b). However, there is some progress being made following the publication of a draft for development of BS 5628: Part 4 (NHBC, 2008), which gives engineers a basis for evaluation and specification of lime mortars. This draft for development standard provides the specific technical data and guidance needed to enable the structural design of unreinforced brick Hydraulic lime mortar class NHL 2:sand NHL 3.5:sand NHL 5:sand Compressive strength at 91 days: N/mm2 Mortar durability class HLM 5 — 1:1 1:2 5.0 9-10 HLM 3.5 — 1:1.5 1:3 3.5 7-8 HLM 2.5 — 1:2 1:4 2.5 5-6 HLM 1 1:2 1:3 — 1.0 3-4 HLM 0.5 1:3 1:4 — 0.5 1-2 Table 3. Equivalent hydraulic lime mortar (HLM) mixes (Allen et al., 2003) (copyright Donhead Publishing Limited) 47 19 Construction Materials Volume 164 Issue CM1 Building limes in the United Kingdom Livesey masonry units used in combination with natural hydraulic CASS (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) (2009) More light lime -based mortars rather than cement -based mortars. In the drafting of this publication, it has been assumed that the design of masonry made with lime mortar is entrusted to chartered structural or civil engineers or other appropriately qualified persons, for whose guidance it has been prepared, and that the execution of the work is carried out under the direction of appropriately qualified supervisors. Many aspects of the drafting of specifications, mix approval, workmanship on site, aftercare of work and health and safety precautions are fundamental. Details of many of these are to be found in the literature (Allen et al., 2003). 7. Conclusions The advantages of lime mortars are being increasingly recognised, initially driven by the desire to reduce embodied carbon and enable masonry to be reused. The technological base for lime and its applications are developing from a century of techniques applied to cement mortar and (mainly) concrete, but are being delayed by a lack of research funding for what is seen as `old technology'. The relevance of some taboos, such as the now lifted ban on `gauged lime', has been clarified by relevant research, albeit remaining in the trade folklore. The opportunities to be presented by the new standard and the classes of hydraulic and pre -formulated limes are endless, and will lead to limes that have superior properties and are more user-friendly. Uptake by a conservative and sceptical market will inevitably be slow and will require strong advocates backed by sound science. REFERENCES Allen GC, Allen J, Elton N et al. (2003) Hydraulic Lime Mortars. Donhead, Shaftesbury. Blundell C (2007) Precious Inheritance— The Conservation of Welsh Vernacular Buildings. Lime Company of West Wales, Crymych. BSI (British Standards Institution) (1965) BS 882: Specification for aggregates for concrete. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (1973) CP 121: Part 1: Code of practice for walling — brick and block masonry. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (1976a) BS 1200: Sands for mortar. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (1976b) BS 882: Specification for aggregates for concrete. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (1995) BS 890: Building limes. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (2000) BS EN 13139: Aggregates for mortar. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (2001) BS EN 459: Part 1: Building limes. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (2005a) BS EN 196: Part 1: Determination of strength. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (2005b) BS 5628: Code of practice for the use of masonry. BSI, Milton Keynes. BSI (2005c) PD 6678: Guide to the specification of masonry mortar. BSI, Milton Keynes. shed on China's ancient past. See www.cass.net.cn for further details (accessed 17/11/2009). Cowper AD (1927) Lime and Lime Mortars. Donhead, Shaftsbury (Reprinted 1998). Dibd1n WJ (1911) The Composition and Strength of Mortars. Royal Institute of British Architects, London. Eckel EC (1905) Cements, Limes and Plasters. Donhead, Shaftesbury. Edwards DD (2009) Sustainable Lime Mortars. PhD thesis, Bristol University. Holmes S (2006) To wake a gentle giant — grey chalk limes test the standard. Journal of the Building Limes Forum 13: 9-24. Lagarblad B (2005) Carbon Dioxide Uptake During Concrete Life Cycle — State of the Art. Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute, Stockholm, CBI report 2. Livesey P (2007) Reducing the carbon footprint of masonry mortar. Journal of the Building Limes Forum 14: 76-82. NHBC (National House -Building Council) (2008) NF12, DD 5628, Part 4: The structural use of unreinforced masonry made with natural hydraulic lime mortars — technical annex for use with BS 5628-1: 2005: The use of lime -based mortars in new build. NHBC, Amersham. Smeaton J (1791) Narrative of the Building, &c, of the Eddystone Lighthouse. Smeaton, London. Taylor HFW (1997) Cement Chemistry, 2nd edn. Thomas Telford, London. Vicat LJ (1837) Mortars and Cements (Smith JT (transl.). Weale, London (reprinted 1997, Donhead, Shaftesbury). Vitruvius (1880) Architecture, Books II and VII. Gwilt, London. Wingate M (1985) Small Scale Lime Burning. Intermediate Technology Publications, London. WHAT DO YOU THINK? To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as discussion in a future issue of the journal. Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu- dents. Papers should be 2000-5000 words long (briefing papers should be 1000-2000 words long), with adequate illustrations and references. You can submit your paper online via www.icevirtuaIIibrary.com/content/journals, where you will also find detailed author guidelines. 20 48 Attachment 11�# 5 % 111 i Construction Materials consultants Wallace House, Whitehouse Road, Stirling, FK7 7TA Tel 01786 434708 Fax 01786 475133 �T E-mail mail@cmcstirling.co.uk Virginia Lime Works. Our Ref: M/0429/08/C 1 111 Highview Drive Your Ref: Madison Heights Virginia 24572 USA 3`d July 2008 CERTIFICATE OF TEST POROSITY & SATURATION COEFFICIENT Project Reference Eco -Mortar Sample Description Cubes of Mortar Sample Source VLW Date Received 16' May 2008 Sample Ref SR1346 Date of Test completed 3`d July 2008 Method of Test BRE Publication 141. Durability Tests for Building Stone Results Specimen Ref: Masons Mark Samples MM2 MM3 Max -Blend Samples MB -Dry MB -Wet Quality Statement: Saturation Coefficient Porosity 0.97 22.8 0.97 24.0 0.97 26.4 0.97 25.5 We confirm that in the preparation of this report we have exercised reasonable skill and care. The results presented and any comments offered relate purely to the samples received in the laboratory for examination and analysis. CMC Registered in Scotland 140220 VAT No. 5616504 48 49 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 12 Bill Revie, Materials and Testing Engineer, Scientist Construction Materials Consultants Wallace House, Whitehouse Road, Stirling, FK7 7TA Tel 01786 434708 Fax 01786 475133 E-mail mail@cmcstirling.co.uk Pozzolanic Limes Where the components are either not present, to permit a natural hydraulic lime to be produced, or for economic reasons its production would be not be viable, there is another option, and that is to go back and adopt the early Greek or Roman approach and add a pozzolana to a non -hydraulic lime, thereby producing a pozzolanic lime, or hydraulic Lime (HL grade lime). This is the basis of the HL limes produced by Virginia Lime Works (VLW). In the United States no NHL grade limes are produced at present, with all of those currently available being imported mostly from Europe. This increases the cost, both with respect to the financial impact on the projects on which they are used, but more critically it increases the carbon footprint of these projects, particularly when the costs of transport (Carbon miles) are included in the calculations. As an importer user and supplier of Lime materials VLW could understand the detrimental effect of this on both individual projects, but more significantly, the ultimate impact on the environment. Therefore the decision was made to produce a lime that would perform as well as the Natural Hydraulic Limes, but without the added financial or environmental costs. VLW already had experience in the production of high quality High Calcium quicklime, which was produced both from a local limestone and from oyster shell. These products were used both by themselves and others mostly in the form of Lime putty, for use in quality plasterwork and in the conservation of non -hydraulic lime mortars. However, as there was no local deposits that would be suitable for the production of a NHL product in their kilns, and as there was no producer of NHL in the US, it was decided to look to history and learn from the past and produce a hydraulic lime based on a pozzolana. After some research and carrying out a number of trials, involving different lime types, including their own product, and a selection of different forms of pozzolana, VLW found that a blend of their selected pozzolana and a readily available Dolomitic SA lime. This achieved a binder that both imparted a good degree of workability to the fresh mortars in which it was included, due to the high free lime content of the mix and the dolomitic nature of the lime, which also aided in the development of excellent adhesion properties, a function of Dolomitic and high Calcium limes. The mortars were found to provide adequate strength, with a rate of strength gain in line with modern NHL grade materials. The mortars also display good durability, due to the entrained air imparted by the air entrainer added to the SA lime. The lime mortars produced from this lime displayed Page 1 of 6 50 porosity characteristics in line with most NHL grade limes, and in thin section a high connected pore structure is apparent. Analysis by X-ray diffraction on hydrated samples confirmed that the pozzolana reacts with the lime producing the calcium silicate hydrates required to impart a measure of hydraulicity to the binder. For comparison with other Hydraulic limes and natural Hydraulic Limes samples of VLW binders were analysed, with the following results: ser. BLIW C6emiml COm�IO 1�14R Sdr AI3p3 fteDy Cab Mgo KiD Nx.0 7;4 Mui) I'li}x M33 C1 Iris%OR rpiliom Total CbloPwuNNh by ru emlulion ( %wiw ) C,5 C� C� MOS S C_$04 C*4f ToW p.11 00� Dill 0.1$ 0.41 0.6? ON 19x 30.4 10 4 18.3 1.9 09 1? 41 97 6 Compwunds hs 3Ser C6mktry (%W1W) Lass 4o Ip d6c4 2421 Insoluble mudoe 17.94 CAG I &F. B1200 0.1100 6S {{"rw.h•1 010 CLrnlirul eomp4jili4m (7e+F1 w.3 MID 1144 1059 0.14 It IS toll 3.76 3.47 A120) 5.04 4.76 0.41 0.38 X203 0-24 0.32 J17 18 41 8 S Ca{} 461$2 43 65 2149 n 36 Mgi1 24 M 1126 CbloPwuNNh by ru emlulion ( %wiw ) C,5 C� C� MOS S C_$04 C*4f ToW p.11 00� Dill 0.1$ 0.41 0.6? ON 19x 30.4 10 4 18.3 1.9 09 1? 41 97 6 Compwunds hs 3Ser C6mktry (%W1W) Lass 4o Ip d6c4 2421 Insoluble mudoe 17.94 CAG AV 0-11 0.1100 6S y1�.i� N610 010 009 1017 MID 016 0 l i 0.14 1(no 0.14 4.13 4.41 10.0 4.05 0-n $03 0-4 0.33 OA1 Cl 0.05 0.05 _ 17 84 leas 041 Ivauian 1792 10 77 00A0 Tale] _10619 ('a®pn,.R1x 6ya.le,Juti4o { �x..h.1 100A0 Cts 19.9 C�(ON}t 401 3 16A Cha ¢ S CAP 0.7 C -*A 515 T -W 96,2 {`"b"Imik h -r We Chrmiirx I %W/WP Lues a IgmoiZ 3U 18 Lawln6k d 1"w 132!1 BELOW: The thin section plates are for the 150 (85H15S) and 200 (80H20S) grade binders and the perlite and lime insulate material. The blue dye indicates areas of porosity in the sample. Lime and Perilite Insulation - Insulate 1.JPG Page 2 of 6 51 1p 4b* 9"A a 9,6 low a BL 200 - 80H2OS-3.JPG MJ 4 y 5.h: BL 200 - 80H2OS-4.JPG Page 4 of 6 53 ACI50-S5Hl5S-!.i#G .. . . �d2«, - .-•» :� . � . . . .�y - � . � AClj§-85Hl5S-j.ƒ#G Page 5of6 54 BL 150 - 85H15S-5.JPG (875.86KB) BL 150 - 85H15S-6.JPG (814.16KB) Page 6 of 6 55 i}¢�.•�. � f � �� atiYT k' .lk - � • - � n � c _ y'nry�4ti BL 150 - 85H15S-5.JPG (875.86KB) BL 150 - 85H15S-6.JPG (814.16KB) Page 6 of 6 55 Attachment 13 Bill Revie, Materials and Testing Engineer, Scientist Construction Materials Consultants Wallace House, Whitehouse Road, Stirling, FK7 7TA Tel 01786 434708 Fax 01786 475133 E-mail mail@cmcstirling.co.uk Plates No. 1 and 2: The above two images show the fabric condition of a traditional lime putty sand mortar mix. The blue dyed epoxy impregnation resin highlights the well connected open pore structure via the connected channel ways present in the mortar. These provide the mortar with a high porosity and permeability. It is this that imparts the high moisture and vapour permeability to these forms of mortar and allows lime mortared masonry structures to breathe and dry. Page 1 of 4 Plate No. 3: Where modern Natural Hydraulic Lime (NHL) mortars are used in mortar production the resultant mortars also display a relatively high vapour permeability. The above image is of a thin section prepared from an NHL 3.5 binder mixed at a ratio of 1 part Lime to 3 Parts sand. This image is of a carbonated sample, note that the presence of the blue resin again highlights a high porosity, but the shrinkage channel ways are not so apparent, albeit that they are present, although they are much finer and shorter in length. This still permits the mortar to breathe and vent moisture from the masonry in which it is incorporated. Plate No. 4: The above image is of a relatively fresh NHL 3.5 Lime Mortar, mixed at a ratio of 1 Part NHL to 2 parts sand, but here the mortar has not dried or carbonated. The presence of fine shrinkage cracks (channel ways) will appear as the mortar dries, with the paste shrinking due to a change in volume as it carbonates, i.e. as the binder alters from Portlandite to Calcite, due to the absorption of and reaction with environmental carbon dioxide (CO2). The resultant crystallisation is accompanied by a reduction in volume that will increase the microporosity of the paste similar to that which is apparent in the above plate. Page 2 of 4 57 Plate No. 5: A photomicrograph of a thin section prepared from a modern Natural Hydraulic Limes (NHL). Note that in this image, the abundance of blue dyed resin appears to be lower but the pore structure is still open and well connected, but the pore structure is finer and paste denser than in the mortar made from an NHL 3.5 binder. Mortars made with this grade of binder are more resilient to weathering than NHL 3.5 or NHL 2 based mortars but their water permeability and vapour diffusion is also much reduced, in comparison, making the selection of where to use each grade of binder important. Plate No. 6: This shows a photomicrograph of a Portland cement sand mix at ratio of 1 part cement to 3.0 parts sand. This plate gives an indication of the greater density and lower porosity commonly observed in Portland cement mortars, note apparent absence of dyed impregnation resin. With in this instance the crack seen to transect the plate is a drying shrinkage crack, which skirts aggregate particles and is wider than that seen in the NHL mortars. This crack, at 0.4mm in width, can act as a channel way drawing moisture into, and through, the mortar. Page 3 of 4 In traditional historic masonry where lime putty or hot lime mortars were used the high porosity in these mortars allowed the wall fabric to breathe by allowing moisture to enter the masonry during periods of precipitation, and also vent and dry the masonry during drying conditions. The high permeability also aided the drying of wet structures. Lime based mortars gained their initial strength by drying and loss of excess mixing waters, with the slow carbonation of the lime binder over time giving additional strength and increased porosity. Due to the presence of excess lime in these forms of mortar where they cracked due to thermal, vibration or other induced movement the high porosity permitted both moisture and carbon dioxide to enter the mortar joints and encourage the crystalline bridging phenomenon (known as the autogenous healing, or the self -healing properties of lime mortar), to occur, by permitting the migration of and concentration of free lime to the location of the crack, where the excess moisture evaporates depositing the lime (in the form of Portlandite) which then reacts with atmospheric carbon dioxide to carbonate to form calcite which bridges and stitches the cracks or fissures, with e excess moisture evaporates back into the atmosphere. Natural Hydraulic Limes (NHL) are convenient to use as they are used in the form of hydrates, i.e. dry powders. These are finding favour in both conservation, restoration and in new build situation, but not all NHL grades of lime impart the same properties to a mortar, and therefore it is essential to understand the properties of each grade, and form of binder, if the work in which they are incorporated is to progress well. The lower grade limes are more suitable for locations where softer more permeable mortars are required, with the higher grades used where more strength and harder mortars are required, however, this is accompanied by a lower porosity and permeability. NHL 5 grade binders are suitable for mortars for use in more severe environments, i.e. at copings, parging and pointing in extremely wet conditions including sea driven rain, etc. Page 4 of 4 -M @ U LU a @ x / E E § E Q qLO _ - / 2 0 ¥ vk ¥ _ n a w m « \ .g \ LU > kE Lo @ /\ / r neI / ggr @G» &� o/�\ /2 \ƒ ®# \%$ 6 ooa K// J E \ V o 0 � J § 2 2 / //�\ r m / $/ / / /$$ f 90& 00 -� E \ƒ NO &r# 0 064 Amn � [ /2 s- � � 2 JE� m.n .F ( .� � 1 c ƒ O � � y k =m @ = % / � E 0-7 a o = 0 ® EZ a. m@ 2E�f n 77///. En k^ �E#= °� 0� m J J J 2 r--4 � 2 �oC/)E a) CZ �6/// X22 %� 5 5 2 _ L: E # Co e ®\ 3 r\ U< n n = 2 2 � §%¥ ��\ b¢\\����\ _§ \k-�0kkkE� 2 f S "$ " k/ w o f � IM @ Attachment 15 On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 12:12 PM, WILLIAM REVIE < HYPERLINK mailto:bill@cmcstirling.co.uk bill@cmcstirling.co.uk> wrote: 61 62 Attachment 16 L1L '� Designation: C 1707 — 09 C�1 �J'y I � INTERNATIONAL Standard Specification for Specification for Pozzolanic Hydraulic Lime for Structural Purposes' This standard is issued under the fixed designation C 1707; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval. 1. Scope 1.1 This standard covers four types of pozzolanic hydraulic lime for structural purposes which include use in mortare scratch, brown, and finish (stucco) coats of interior or exterior plaster. 1.1.1 PHL—Pozzolanic hydraulic lime for 1.1.2 PHLS PHL with a maximum 20 % binder weight of hydraulic cement. 1.1.3 PHL-A—Air-entrained PHL. 1. 1.4 PHL,-A—Air-entrained PHLr. 1.2 This specification classifies pozzolanic hydraulic lime by minimum hydrated lime content, maximum hydraulic ce- ment content, and specific performance requirements. 1.3 The values stated in inch -pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard. Appropriate conversion can be done using IEEE/ASTM SI 10. 1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro- priate safety and health practices and determine the applica- bility of regulatory limitations prior to use. 2. Referenced Documents 2.1 ASTM Standards:2 C 25 Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Limestone, Quicklime, and Hydrated Lime C 50 Practice for Sampling, Sample Preparation, Packag- ing, and Marking of Lime and Limestone Products C 51 Terminology Relating to Lime and Limestone (as used by the Industry) ' This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee C07 on Lime and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee C07.02 on Specifications and Guidelines. Current edition approved March 1, 2009. Published March 2009. 'For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM Standards volume information, refer to the standard's Document Summary page on the ASTM website. C 109/C 109M Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2 -in. or [50 -mm] Cube Specimens) C 110 Test Methods for Physical Testing of Quicklime, Hydrated Lime, and Limestone C 114 Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cement C 141 Specification for Hydraulic Hydrated Lime for Struc- tural Purposes C 150 Specification for Portland Cement C 207 Specification for Hydrated Lime for Masonry Pur- poses C 260 Specification for Air -Entraining Admixtures for Con- crete C 266 Test Method for Time of Setting of Hydraulic - Cement Paste by Gillmore Needles C 270 Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry C 305 Practice for Mechanical Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes and Mortars of Plastic Consistency C 511 Specification for Mixing Rooms, Moist Cabinets, Moist Rooms, and Water Storage Tanks Used in the Testing of Hydraulic Cements and Concretes C 595 Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements C 778 Specification for Standard Sand C 1157 Performance Specification for Hydraulic Cement IEEE/ASTM SI 10 Standard for use of the International System of Units (SI): (the Modern Metric System) 3. Terminology 3.1 Definitions: 3.2 Unless otherwise specified, for definitions of terms used in this standard see Terminology C 51. 3.3 air entraining pozzolanic hydraulic lime (PHL-A), n—as PHL with the exception that Type SA hydrated lime of Specification C 207, or Type NA of Specification C 207 shall be used if shown not detrimental to the soundness of the material. If Type SA or Type NA hydrated limes are used, an additional air entraining agent shall not be used. 3.4 air entraining pozzolanic hydraulic lime with hydraulic cement (PHLe-A), n—as PHLe with exception that Type SA hydrated lime of Specification C 207 shall be used, or Type NA Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States. N. `moi' C 1707 - 09 of Specification C 207 shall be used if shown not detrimental to the soundness of the material. If Type SA or Type NA hydrated limes are used, an additional air entraining agent shall not be used. 3.5 pozzolanic hydraulic lime (PHL), n -a powder pro- duced by the blending or intergrinding of not less than 25 % by binder weight of Specification C 207 Type S hydrated lime with one or more pozzolan and inert filler. Type N hydrated lime of Specification C 207 shall be used if shown not detrimental to the soundness of the material. 3.6 pozzolanic hydraulic lime with hydraulic cement (PHL,,), n -as PHL with not more than 20 % by binder weight of hydraulic cement of Specification C 150, Specification C 595, or Performance Specification C 1157 blended or inter - ground. 4. Requirements 4.1 PHL, PHLS PHL-A and PHLS A shall conform to the requirements prescribed in Table 1. 5. Test Methods 5.1 Water Soluble Alkali -Water soluble alkali shall be tested according to the procedure in Test Methods C 114, Section 17.2. 5.2 S03 -Sulfur trioxide content shall be tested according to the procedure of Test Methods C 25, Section 23. 5.3 CO2 -Carbon dioxide content shall be tested according to the procedure of Test Methods C 25, Section 22. 5.4 Fineness -Fineness shall be tested according to the wet sieve method of Test Methods C 110, Section 5. 5.5 Time of Set -Determine the time of initial and final set according to Test Method C 266, the Gilmore needle proce- dure, with the following changes: 5.5.1 Determine the first penetration value after 1 h of rest, and every 4 ± 2 h after that. 5.6 Autoclave Expansion -Autoclave Expansion shall be measured using the method described in Test Methods C 110, Section 9.3, with the following modification: 5.6.1 Weigh 25 ± 0.1 g of one of four types of PHL. Add 3.0 ± 1.0 ml water to the weighed sample and mix by hand until wetted. If the balance allows it, work directly in the specimen mold. If this is not possible, work in an intermediate container and transfer the mixture to the specimen mold in as TABLE 1 Standard Requirements Properties PHL, PHL, PHL-A, PHLS A water soluble alkali, max % 0.2 0.2 S03, max % 3.0 3.0 CO2, max % (as produced basis) 16.0 16.0 Fineness retained on 30 mesh sieve, max % <0.5 <0.5 retained on 200 mesh sieve, max % <15 <15 Time of initial set, max h 24 24 Time of final set, max h 48 48 Autoclave expansion, max % 0.80 0.80 Air content max % 7.0 12.0 min % >7.0 Water retention, min % 70 70 Compressive strength min, >2.4 (>350) >2.4 (>350) N/m2(psi), 28 days complete a state as possible. Press to 5.0 ± 1.5 N/m2 (725 ± 218 psi) for 10 s and demold the specimen and autoclave as described. 5.7 Preparation of Mortar -Mortar, plasters and grout are specified by volume proportion of the binder materials to the aggregate in a ratio of 1 volume part binder to 3 volume part aggregate or sand. Laboratory mixed mortars used for air entrainment, water retention and compressive strength testing for this specification shall be measured by weight by convert- ing proportions by volume to proportion by weight. NOTE 1 -Appendix X4 of Specification C 270 provides examples of calculating material proportioning. 1440 Batch factor = (80 X 3 (sand volume proportion)) _ - 6 (1) Determine weight one of the four PHL as follows: Weight of PHL (g) = 1(PHL Volume Proportion) X Bulk Density (Packed Density) of PHL X Batch Factor (2) Bulk density of PHL will vary and shall be provided by the manufacturer or determined according to Test Methods C 110 Section 20. Sand will be a 50-50 blend of graded and 20-30 standard sand meeting Specification C 778. 5.8 Air Content -Air content shall be measured according to the procedure of: 5.8.1 Test Methods C 110, Section 8. W1, W2, S1, and S2 are dropped from the equation to be replaced by W4 (weight of one of four PHL, g) and S4 (specific gravity of one of four PHL). The specific gravity of the PHL shall be provided by the manufacturer as determined by the method of Test Methods C 110, Section 21, or determined by a gas pychnometer. NOTE 2 -The specific gravity of the four PHL will vary with compo- sition and a single value cannot be recommended. 5.8.2 Test Methods C 110, Section 8.4.3, using the air pail method. 5.9 Water Retention -The water retention value shall be measured following Test Methods C 110, Section 7. 5.10 Compressive Strength -Prepare the mortar in accor- dance with Practice C 305 with the exception that the binder and water are initially placed in the mixing bowl together and allowed to wet for 11/2 min prior to mixing. Store the mortar in the molds for 60 ± 12 h in sealed plastic bags prior to de -molding. Determine compressive strength in accordance with Test Method C 109/C 109M. A minimum of three 2 -in. cubes is required. 5.11 Specimen Storage -Test specimens shall be stored at not less than 95 % R.H. in a moist room or cabinet following the requirements of Specification C 511. The storage surface shall be in equilibrium with the space to ensure no moisture loss. 6. Sampling and Inspection 6.1 The sampling, rejection, retesting, packing, and marking shall be conducted in accordance with Practice C 50. C 1707 — 09 UP 7. Special Package Marking 7.1 When delivered in packages, the name and brand of the manufacturer, the type under this specification, and the words "AIR ENTRAINING" shall be plainly indicated on the pack- age or in the case of bulk shipments, so indicated on shipping notices. 8. Keywords 8.1 hydrated lime; mortar; plaster grout; pozzolan; poz- zolanic hydraulic lime ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility. This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below. This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or service@astm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website (www.astm.org). .3 El M n WE P \_ \ E LU g 0 E \ \ % § 4 04 (nE 0)) / \ \ \ \ 2 / 7 m 2 \ -o E � / 2 E (D ( > ° / / $ § E ] ) S / k 7 x / 4 \ E LU \ / $ j $ 0 \ o k \ 0 / \ Co ) \ E / j § \ ) 2 ) \ \ E o % M \ 0 \ » 0 \ + § E / f }CD 2 ) ± m - E E E � E CL w t ] d w ) 7 § k E 0 / 0 2 ( 2 / \ +-r \ ) \ k $ ! \ { Co / CL / E § o a m 2k / \ / ) , b a \ § ] J m _ 7 (D > » f E 2 E 0)m i.= / » § ° = a E aI S F& f b E\ k 'E \ \ } / \ o E » » S = \ ~ T \ @ + w e § % } E ) 0 ° \ } 0 cc \ \ f a) 0 L3 m� E E \ _r_ % } \\ ) ) ) ( ) ! — ƒ E § 0 } E E § E 3 § 3 /f , / - § U) E 2 ) in CO y / \ E k m / / cu 0 % % 0 c § / _ § c / 2 o $ o c / @ / C: U) \ C) ( % \ Cf) $ E : \ k � e Q 7 ta 0"Ptra t;I-\I"1z/,, I�b'hFRI APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATE MATERIALS OR METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION Under the authority of [A] 104.11of the 2016 CBC, and/or R104.11 of the 2016 CRC, as amended by the City of La Quinta, the undersigned requests approval of alternate materials, alternate design and / or methods of construction for: Exterior Wall and Roof systems for construction of a proposed single-family dwelling. Project Name: Ken Proposed Duce Residence Plan Check/Permit #: BRES2016- 0363 Project Address: 51-335 Calle Hueneme Occupancy Group: _R3 Type of Construction: VB Sprinklers (Y/N):_Y�#of Stories:1 Floor Area: 1,425 Square Feet Tenant Area: NA Describe Use: Proposed Single-family Dwelling Subject of Alternative (a separate form should be filled out for each alternative item): A brief description of the item must be included if additional documents are attached _Refer to applicant's electronically submitted proposal with attachments dated April 19, 2017 (Received on May 10, 2017 by B. Hanada via Peter MacDonald; supplement received on July 5, 2017 via Peter MacDonald). Code Requirement (specify code section(s): California Residential Code Section R703 Exterior Covering - R703.1.1 Water Resistance; additional code sections referred to in summary apply, Alternate Proposal (A brief description must be included even if additional documents are attached): _ Refer to applicant's submitted proposal dated April 19, 2017 (Received on May 10, 2017 by B. Hanada via Peter MacDonald; supplement received on July 5, 2017 via Peter MacDonald) with attachments. An exterior wall and roof system that utilizes time masonry blocks and time treated insulation with a lime plaster finish Justification (Attach copies of any reference, test reports, expert opinions, etc. The Building Official may require that a consultant be hired by the applicant to perform all applicable tests, research and analysis, and submit a full report of evaluation to Building & Safety for consideration and approval). A brief description must be included here even if additional documents are attached. Refer to applicant's submitted proposal dated April 19, 2017 (Received on May 10, 2017 by B. Hanada via Peter MacDonald; supplement received on July 5, 2017 via Peter MacDonald) with attachments; -- I Building Division - Design & Development Dept. 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 PH. 760.777.7125 email: building@1:1a Requested by: Ken and Cathy Duce Refer to proposal dated 4-19-2017, received May 10, 2017 with Supplement dated July 5, 2017 Owner Name (Print) Owner Signature Phone No.; ( ) Date BUILDING DIVISION SUMMARY & FINDINGS: This letter is prepared in response to the Alternative Materials and Methods Request sent to Mr. Burt Hanada, Building Official, by Ken and Cathy Duce, dated April 2017. This written request and reference materials was forwarded to me on May 10, 2017, with a notice to proceed with analysis of the request given on May 19, 2017. A supplement to the reference materials was received on July 5, 2017. Based on the date of application for alternate method and materials, this report will reference the 2016 Edition of the California Building Standards Code which was adopted by the City of La Quinta. While the Application for Alternative Materials or Methods of Constructions, dated April 19, received May 10, and with a supplement from email dated July 5, 2017 (collectively, the "application") reference a Building Permit application BRES2016-0363 on December 19, 2016, the application for alternative materials or methods was submitted and received in 2017. As such, the 2016 California Residential Code (CRC), which took effect January 1, 2017, applies even though the provisions of CRC Sections R104.11 and R104.11.1 are substantively the same as they were in the prior 2013 edition of the CRC. The proposal in the application is to utilize a roof and wall system in the construction of a one-story single family dwelling that incorporates time masonry blocks, lime treated insulation and time plaster finish (the "project"). The applicants' proposed project is not permitted under the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"), nor has the proposed project's construction materials and methods been approved by either the California Building Code ("CBC") or CRC, both of which are incorporated by reference into the LQMC (subject to modifications that are not relevant to this application). (See generally, LQMC §§ 8.02.010 et seq., 8.06.010 et seq.) Additional state-wide building codes apply to construction in the City and are incorporated by reference into the LQMC, including the California Energy Code ("CEC"). (LQMC § 8.14.010 [CEC]; see also, e.g., LQMC §§ 8.03.010 et seq. [Cal. Electrical Code], 8.04,010 [Cal. Plumbing Code], 6.05.010 [Cal. Mechanical Code].) When, as here, the CRC, CBC, and LQMC have not approved a proposed construction material or method proposed for a single family dwelling, CRC Sections R104.11 and R104.11.1 govern: R104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment. The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, Building Division - Design & Development Dept. 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 PH. 760.777.7125 email: uiE in i-i.4,,rg ta 62ainra (.1,\1 „l rh, 11 NI [t I -- design design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in this code. Compliance with the specific performance-based provisions of the California Codes shall be an alternative to the specific requirements of this code. Where the alternative material, design or method of construction is not approved, the building official shall respond in writing, stating the rea- sons why the alternative was not approved. R104.11.1 Tests. Where there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods, the building official shall have the authority to require tests as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified in this code or by other recognized test standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test methods, the building official shall approve the testing procedures. Tests shall be performed by an approved agency. Reports of such tests shall be retained by the building official for the period required for retention of public records. Because there are no records of any other residence in the City that has used the construction materials and methods proposed by the applications, the Building Official contracted with an outside, independent consultant to review the application. Specifically, the Building Official sought the independent consultant review to determine if the findings can be made that the applicants' proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of the CRC (and other incorporated and relevant state-wide construction codes), and that the material, method or work offered is not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in the CRC (and other incorporated and relevant state-wide construction codes). The findings of the Building Official that follow below are based upon an evaluation by the City's independent consultant -- Transtech - of the applicants' proposal and their supporting documents with attachments: 1. Exterior Wall Covering. CRC Section R703 - Exterior Covering - requires that the building be provided with a weather -resistant exterior wall envelope that demonstrates the prevention of an accumulation of water within the wall assembly by providing a water-resistant barrier (CRC Sections 703.1.1, 703.2) capable of resisting wind driven rain (CRC Section 703.1.2). Testing and validation by an independent evaluation service of the proposed wall system's ability to keep wood framing members from rotting or facilitating mold growth, so that the alternative method and material are no less equivalent of prescribed CRC methods and materials, is recommended prior to issuance of a building permit to the applicants for their proposed project. Roof Weather Protection. CRC Section R903.1 provides that roof assemblies shall be designed and installed in accordance with the CRC and the approved manufacturer's installation instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the building. It is recommended Building Division - Design & Development Dept. 78-495 Calle Tampico Lo Quinta, CA 92253 PH. 760.777.7125 email: buildiric0lp-quint, r ta (2aiAra that the proposed roof system assembly be tested and validated by an independent evaluation service, prior to issuance of a building permit to the applicants for their proposed project, so that it may be confirmed that the alternative method and material are no less than the equivalent of prescribed CRC methods and materials. Hydraulic Lime Composite Perlite Insulation. Building Energy Efficiency Standards in CEC Section110.8 - Mandatory Requirements for Insulation, Roofing Products and Radiant Barriers - requires any insulation shall be certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Home Furnishing and Thermal Insulation, that the insulation conductive thermal performance is approved pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 12, Chapters 12-13, Article 3, "Standards for Insulating Material." To confirm compliance with this requirement of the code, it is recommended that the proposed roof system not be approved or be tested because, to date, no other residence in the City has been approved or otherwise demonstrated compliance with this provision of the code with the proposed alternative materials and methods. Such testing and validation by an independent evaluation service is recommended prior to issuance of a building permit to the applicants for their proposed project to ensure that the alternative method and material are no less than the equivalent of prescribed methods and materials for insulation, roofing products, and radiant barriers. 4. Minimum Roof and Wall Insulation. Building Energy Efficiency Standards in CEC Section 150.0(a) and (c) require a mandatory minimum insulation value for roof and walls of R-30 and R-13 respectively, or compliance with CEC Table 150.1-A Component Package "A" Standard Building Design - Climate Zone 15 (Location of City of La Quinta) requires a R-38 insulation value for the roof / ceiling and R-13+5 or R-15+4 insulation value for the wall cavity assemblies. As the proposed roof and wall assemblies fall outside the listing of the Reference Appendices, approval by the Energy Commission for an Alternative Component Package is required. Testing and validation by an independent evaluation service of the proposed roof and wall assemblies to show equivalency to the code is recommended prior to building permit issuance to the applicants for their proposed project. 5. Lime Masonry Block. CRC Section R202 - Definition of Masonry Unit - conforms to the requirements of CBC Section 2103 for "Mortar" (CBC Section 2103.2; CRC Section R606.2.7) and Grout (CBC Section 2103.3). The Lime masonry block specified in the exterior wall of the applicants' proposal does not identify a code -recognized standard that it conforms to and does not conform to the testing requirement of Masonry under the CRC. Therefore, it is recommended that this material must be tested to the standards required by the code prior to installation, and validated by an independent evaluation service specified by the Building Official to show that the proposed method and material are at least the equivalent of that prescribed by the CRC. 6. Mortar for Use in Proposed Lime Masonry Block. Clarification is required prior to building permit issuance in the determination of the masonry wall and whether it is serving as the part Building Division - Design & Development Dept. 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 PH. 760.777.7125 email: b_ulldins@ig _gv_i - �;I AI 11 of the lateral force resisting system requiring a Type M or S Portland cement -lime or mortar cement mortar per CRC Section R606.2.7.3. CBC Section 2103.2.1 provides that mortar for use in masonry construction shall conform to ASTM C 270 and Articles 2.1 and 2.6 A of TMS 602/ACI 530.1/ASCE 6, except for mortars listed in CBC Sections 2103.2.2, 2103.2.3 and 2103.2.4. ("ASTM" is American Society for Testing and Materials, "TMS" is The Masonry Society, "ACI" is American Concrete Institute, and "ASCE" is American Society of Civil Engineers.) Therefore, it is recommended that testing and validation by an independent evaluation service to confirm the proposed method and material are at least the equivalent of that prescribed by these standards, prior to the installation in the applicants' residence. 7. Grout. CBC Section 2103.3 provides that grout shall comply with Article 2.2 of TMS 602/ACI 530.1/ASCE 6. The standards and specifications of the grout mix were not presented in the applicants' proposal. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicants provide such specifications and have completed testing and validation by an independent evaluation service to confirm the proposed method and material are at least the equivalent of that prescribed by these standards, prior to the installation in the applicants' residence. 8. Clay Tile "Roof Deck". CBC Section 2103.2.3 addresses mortars for ceramic wall and floor tile. Portland cement mortars for installing ceramic wall and floor tile must comply with ANSI A108.1A and ANSI A108.1B and be of the compositions indicated in CBC Table 2103.2.3. ("ANSI" is American National Standards Institute.) The roof system proposed by the applicant shows a type of clay tile bedded on a 3 inch thick layer of time motor, sand and perlite that was not identified in Attachment 2 of the applicants' proposal. The bedding composition of perlite concrete, sand and hydraulic time was not provided in the applicants' proposal to indicate compliance with a recognized standard. The type of clay roof tile was not cleartly identified in the cross section of the applicants' proposal. CRC Section R905.3.2, which addresses deck slope, provides clay and concrete roof tile shall be installed on roof slopes of two and one-half units vertical in 12 units horizontal (2 1/2:12) or greater. The roof slope indicated in Attachmentl indicates a "1/4 inch slope". The bedding composition and clay tile items must be resolved prior to issuance of the building permit to ensure compliance with the these provisions. 9. Ground Contact. CRC Section R317.1.2 provides, "All wood in contact with the ground, embedded in concrete in direct contact with the ground or embedded in concrete exposed to the weather that supports permanent structures intended for human occupancy shall be approved pressure -preservative -treated wood suitable for ground contact use, except untreated wood may be used where entirely below groundwater level or continuously submerged in fresh water." The applicant's proposal did not clearly identify the properties of wood embedded within the hydraulic lime composite Perlite insulation. Therefore, the properties of wood must be accomplished prior to issuance of a building permit to the applicants for their proposed project to ensure compliance with these provisions. L--- JI - - J-- i Building Division - Design & Development Dept. 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 PH. 760.777.7125 email: sa,IlSlir�gl_y�� ta QaiAra (;I.M:,J �/,, 1)[ 10 R I - Conclusion: The City Staff and its agents appreciate the time and effort the applicants have spent in the proposal for a roof and wall system under the alternative material and method of construction in the construction and equipment; however, information presented in the application currently does not demonstrate equivalence to the requirements of the CRC (and other incorporated and relevant state-wide construction codes). The applicants' supporting documents and attachments only address the potential benefits and historical uses of their proposed alternative method and material. Determination: The application is approved with the conditions that (i) the applicants clarify the construction standards to be used as identified in Finding Nos. 8 and 9 above, and (ii) pursuant to CRC Section R104.11.1, the applicants, at no cost to the City, complete testing of the proposed alternative materials and methods, exactly as proposed and presented in their application, with clarifications conditioned by this determination. Based on the City's independent consultant's review of the application, the CRC has no specified test method for the applicants' proposed alternative materials or methods. As such, the testing shall be completed by "other recognized test standards" that will address the independent consultant's and Building Official's findings as set above. The City's Building Official shall approve the testing procedures. The testing procedures shall be performed by an agency approved by the Building Official. The applicants may propose an agency to perform the testing, but the Building Official reserves the right to approve that agency, which determination by the Building Official may be reliant upon an independent evaluation service to review and assess the agency's testing. The completion of the testing and approval thereof by the Building Official shall be completed prior to the.issuance of a building permit for the proposed project as identified in this determination. This determination is the final determination of the Building Official pursuant to CRC Section R104.11.1 as incorporated into LQMC Section 8.06.010. Pursuant to LQMC Sections 2.40.020 and 2.40.050, the applicants may appeal this decision to the La Quinta Construction Board of Appeals ("CBA") by filing written notice of such an appeal with the Building Official within 10 days after the date of this decision. Grounds for the appeal shall be set forth in writing. [continued on next page] .. ■ m' on 11n 1 l� Ading Division - Design & Development Dept. 78-495 Calle Tampico Lo Quinta, CA 92253 PH. 760.777.7125 email: uil in Pia in a,. r.g Office Use Only ❑Approval Recommended STAFF MEMBER SIGNATURE ❑ APPROVED rLI �Ili.1 ❑Approval not Recommended ❑Conditional Approval STAFF MEMBER NAME: Burt Hanada For ❑ DENIED @ CONDITIONAL APPROVAL: See Conclusion & Determination Building Official Burt Hanada Date: August _24, 2017 STAFF MEMBER NAME: Burt Hanada _7.25 hours X $152.00 / Hour = $_1,102.00 _Total Fee due Payment Information: Visa ❑ M/C ❑Cash ❑Check# Receipt#: Dated_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR APPLICATIONS FOR ALTERNATE MATERIALS, ALTERNATE DESIGNS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION Building Official may approve the proposed alternate, if sufficient evidence is provided that: • Proposed design complies with the intent of provisions of the current codes. • The alternate material or method proposed is equivalent to code requirements in: 1) Quality. 5) Durability. 2) Strength. 6) Safety. 3) Effectiveness. 4) Fire resistance. Upon approval, all the features of the approved application (including a copy of the application) shall be incorporated into the drawings. DISCLAIMER - Applicants for Alternate Materials, Alternate Design or Alternate Method of Construction shall note that the approval of the proposal is based on the factual documentation provided in support of the alternate at the time of approval. If at any point during the review or inspection process, the Building Official notices deviations from the original application, the approval becomes null and void. At that time, the applicant has to either revert to the original proposal or file a new application based on the revised plans. For Alternate Proaosols orocesse I dor. to submlt#al anti approval of full set of Plans, the approvgl_j_t9n1y in concept. T, h Wrawal needs to be validat.ed.0ter submittal of all construction documents. e� Building Division - Design & Development Dept. 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 PH. 760.777.7125 email: bWldlrxg.lgoint�p. o r_S i TRANSTECh August 24, 2017 Neville Pereira, P.E. Transtech Engineers 13367 Benson Ave. Chino, CA 91710 Burt Hanada Building Official City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Mr. Hanada, This letter is prepared in response to the Alternative Materials and Methods Request sent to Mr. Burt Hanada, Building Official, by Ken and Cathy Duce, dated April 2017. This written request and reference materials was forwarded to me on May 10, 2017, with a notice to proceed with analysis of the request given on May 19, 2017. Additional information, a Washington Post news article, had been provided by applicant's representative on July 5, 2017. Based on the date of application for building permit after the adoption of the 2016 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, which took effect January 1, 2017, this report will reference the 2016 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, which has been adopted by the City of La Quinta through the incorporation by reference in the La Quinta Municipal Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CRC Section R104.11.1 provides that, where there is insufficient evidence of compliance of CRC requirements, where there is evidence a material or method does not conform to CRC requirements, or where the seeks to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods of construction or equipment, the building official has the authority to require tests as evidence of compliance with the minimum prescriptive requirements of the CRC. Tests are to be at no expense to the AHJ. Test methods should be as specified in the CRC or by recognized test standards, and in the absence of such specification or standards, the building official has the authority to approve testing procedures. All tests must be performed by an approved agency, and reports from such tests must be retained by the AHJ building official as public records. 13367 Benson Avenue I Chino CA 91710 1 T 909 595 8599 1 F 909 590 8599 1 Transtech.org Based on the information provided in the request and accompanying reference material, it is recommended that this request either not be approved or approved with conditions in compliance with CRC Sections R104.11 and R104.11.1 and applicable provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC") for testing that would confirm the proposed alternative material, design, and method all comply with the intent of the provisions of the CRC, and are, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in the code. The reasons for this recommendation are elaborated upon in the commentary section. 1. Water Resistive Barrier of Exterior Walls. The applicants presented documents and verbal comments that this wall system is porous and breathable. The code, however, explicitly requires the wall system demonstrate a water -resistive barrier to resist wind -driven rain. To confirm compliance with this requirement of the code, it is recommended that testing the wall envelope, joints, penetrations and intersections with dissimilar materials be completed because, to date, no other residence in the City of La Quinta ("City') has been approved or otherwise demonstrated compliance with this requirement of the code with the proposed alternative materials and methods. Such testing and validation by an independent evaluation service of the system's ability to keep wood framing members from rotting or facilitating mold growth is recommended prior to issuance of a building permit to the applicants for their proposed project. Water Resistive Barrier of Roof. The applicants' proposed project has a necessity of a waterproof roof seal, which means that the roof cannot wick moisture immediately to the outside atmosphere. This means that moisture wicked into the roof/insulation assembly must travel a longer distance, horizontally to the exterior walls to exit the system though a relatively narrow area where the roof insulation meets the wall insulation. Since the intent and provisions in the code have a preference to evacuate moisture from a system as quickly as possible to prevent moisture -related problems, it is recommended that the proposed roof system not be approved or have the assembly tested because, to date, no other residence in the City has been approved or otherwise demonstrated compliance with this provision of the code with the proposed alternative materials and methods. Such testing and validation by an independent evaluation is recommended prior to issuance of a building permit to the applicants for their proposed project. Thermal Resistance of Composite Material. California Energy Code Section (CEC) 110.8, governing "Mandatory Requirement for Insulation, Roofing Products and Radiant Barriers," requires certification from the Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Home Furnishing and Thermal Insulation, that the insulation conductive thermal performance is approved pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 12, Chapters 12 - 13, Article 3, "Standards for Insulating Material." Whereas Perlite (loose fill) is well documented for its thermal resistance values and is an approved insulation product, the hydraulic lime bound composite product is not. To confirm compliance with this requirement of the code, it is recommended that the proposed roof system not be approved or be tested because, to date, no other residence in the City has been approved or otherwise demonstrated compliance with this provision of the code with the proposed alternative materials and methods. Such testing and validation by an independent evaluation is recommended prior to issuance of a building permit to the applicants for their proposed project. 4. Minimum Thermal Resistance for Roof and Walls. California Energy Code Section 150.0 (a) and (c) require a mandatory minimum insulation value for roof and walls of R-19 and R-13 respectively. (In my findings I added this this option specific to La Quinta "compliance with Table 150.1-A Component Package "A" Standard Building Design - Climate Zone 15 (Location of City of La Quinta) requires a R-38 insulation value for the roof / ceiling and R-13+5 or R-15+4 insulation value for the wall cavity assemblies.") The insulation value of these assemblies must be established by testing of the assembly prior to installation. 5. Definition and specification of Masonry Unit. The code defines a Masonry Unit as a "brick, tile, stone, glass block or concrete block conforming to the requirements specified in Section 2103 of the California Building Code." Below are a provisions of California Building Code ("CBC") Section 2103 that require testing to show conformance before the AHJ building official can recognize that the assembly is at least the equivalent of that prescribed in the code. The hydraulic lime block specified in the exterior walls of the applicants' proposal does not identify a code - recognized standard that it conforms to and does not conform to the testing requirement of Masonry under the code. Therefore, it is recommended that this material must be tested to the standards required by code prior to installation and validated by an independent evaluation service specified by the AHJ building official to show that the material is at least the equivalent of that prescribed in the code. a. "R606.2.7.3 Masonry in Seismic Design Categories Do, Dl and DZ. Mortar for masonry serving as the lateral -force resisting system in Seismic Design Categories D0, D1 and D2 shall be Type M or S portland cement -lime or mortar cement mortar." b. "CBC 2103.2 Mortar. Mortar for use in masonry construction shall conform to ASTM C 270 and Articles 2.1 and 2.6 A of TMS 602/ACI 530.1/ASCE 6, except for mortars listed in Sections 2103.10, 2103.11 and 2103.12. Mortars listed in Sections 2103.10, 2103.11 and 2103.12, however, do not apply for purposes of applicants' proposed project. Section 2103.9 does not allow for the use of Pozzolanic Hydraulic Lime for Structural Purposes (ASTM C1707) as presented in the applicants. Therefore, testing and validation by an independent evaluation service to confirm compliance with the standards of the code, prior to installation in the applicants' residence, is recommended. " c. "CBC 2103.3 Grout. Grout shall comply with Article 2.2 of TMS 602/ACI 530.1/ASCE 6. There is no mention of specifications and standards showing conformity of the "lime concrete fill" that is used as grout in the applicants' proposal. Therefore, testing and validation by an independent evaluation service to confirm compliance with the standards of the code, prior to installation in the applicants' residence, is recommended. d. CBC Section 2103.11 Mortars for ceramic wall and floor tile. The roof system proposed by the applicants in the construction section of their application materials shows a %" thick clay tile "roof deck" bedded on a 3" thick layer of lime mortar, sand and perlite. Portland cement mortars for installing ceramic wall and floor tile must comply with ANSI A108.1A and ANSI A108.113 and be of the compositions indicated in Table 2103.11. Any tile roof is subject to cracking: If not the clay tile, then the grout lines in-between because of the temperature differences experiences during its life cycle. Thus, the bedding material is subject to moisture infiltration and water logging. In such circumstances, the extra weight of the water-logged roofing material can cause deflection of structural members, ponding, and in extreme cases, structural collapse. The type of clay roof tile is not clear in the cross section or narrative provided by the applicants. e. CRC Section R905.3.2 Deck slope. Clay and concrete roof tile shall be installed on roof slopes of two and one-half units vertical in 12 units horizontal (2 %2:12) or greater. It appears that the roof slope may be less than that prescribed by this CRC section. C1 Reviewing the application materials and comparing with the above -referenced sections of the CRC and CBC applicable to the CRC, there are structural properties for masonry that must be derived out of testing data. Without CRC -prescribed testing data, the AHJ building official cannot accept any allowable stress design or load factor resistance design values for the hydraulic lime block. Therefore, it is recommended that this material must be tested to the standards required by code prior to installation and validated by an independent evaluation service specified by the AHJ building official to show that the material is at least the equivalent of that prescribed in the code. 6. The applicants propose to install testing and monitoring equipment during construction to monitor and justify the performance of the alternate method and material after construction instead of testing prior to issuance of the building permit. This proposal, however, is not consistent with the code provisions authorizing the AHJ building official to require testing before the approval of alternative materials, design, and methods. CRC Section R104.11.1, "Tests" provides in full: Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods, the building official shall have the authority to require tests as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified in this code or by other recognized test standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test methods, the building official shall approve the testing procedures. Tests shall be performed by an approved agency. Reports of such tests shall be retained by the building official for the period required for retention of public records 7. CRC Section "R317.1.2 Ground contact. All wood in contact with the ground, embedded in concrete in direct contact with the ground or embedded in concrete exposed to the weather that supports permanent structures intended for human occupancy shall be approved pressure - preservative -treated wood suitable for ground contact use, except untreated wood may be used where entirely below groundwater level or continuously submerged in fresh water." The applicants provided commentary and secondary sources of the application. Broadly summarized, the commentary and secondary sources explain the use of the wall and roof assemblies proposed in the request for alternative materials and methods of construction and equipment. For example, the applicants provided a news article, "Ancient Romans Made World's 'Most Durable' Concrete. We Might Us It To Stop Rising Seas," Washington Post, by: Ben Guarino, July 4 [year unknown]. In that article, there was a discussion on the durability of Italian harbor concrete, a mixture of volcanic ash and quicklime, as withstanding the sea for two millennia. The applicants also provided descriptions similarly describing the durability of hydraulic lime. Nevertheless, much of the supplemental commentary and sources are outside the confines of recognized code standards, code standard -testing, and national code provisions. The importance of standardized testing cannot be understated because there are thousands of products and methods of construction introduced nationally each year that are endorsed by "credentialed experts in their fields" and yet do not pass the standardized tests for their use. There is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code based on the lack of conformance to definitions and standards testing throughout parts of the building standards code and, as such, the building official should require tests and evaluation of those test as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. COMMENTARY This section of the report expands on the points itemized above and addresses the attachments referenced in Mr. Duce's proposal to use alternate material and methods of construction. The request starts out by citing the primary concern of the La Quinta building division regarding the need for testing to determine equivalency with code requirements. As indicated in the executive summary above, this is still the underlying reason for recommending either a denial or conditional approval of this request, as the applicants have chosen to bring forth evidence that does not conform to the testing requirements of the code. The applicant, Mr. Duce, states that "with the information provided, a building official can reasonably make the determination that the Duce Wall System meets the CBC requirement for protection of interior wood wall components from moisture". In contrast, however, the historical narrative provided by a British firm discusses the use of lime binders in mortar used between solid stone masonry, and has little bearing on the wall assembly being proposed. The relatively thin application of mortar used historically had direct contact with the interior and exterior of the masonry wall and therefore more likely to transport moisture freely and well. There was no wood in the wall assemblies in the historical applications to be of any concern, and there were not multiple layers as are being proposed here. The energy and environmental compatibility arguments also posed in attachment 4 are of little consequence since this is a request for a one-time approval of a system that is not currently approved by the code for mass use. The pages of chemical and energy consumption equations do not contribute to the recommendation to either deny or conditionally approve this system. The applicants are correct to note that the City provides an appropriate climate zone for use of a system like the proposed alternative method/materials, if the system were properly tested and approved to be code equivalent. Whereas the official Climate Zone is 15 according to the California Energy Commission, the City does have occasional rain and, in certain years, heavy rain of short duration, such as a 500 -year storm event. Therefore, it is recommended that the wall assembly must conform to code prescribed waterproof testing for exterior walls. According to the climatic justifications made to the Building Standards commission, "La Quinta has an arid desert climate with rainfall averaging just over three inches annually, reducing the moisture content of combustible materials. Frequent periods of drought and low humidity contribute to the probability of a year-round fire season. For nearly four months each year, average daily high temperatures in La Quinta reach 100 degrees or higher, reducing the amount of added heat required to bring combustible materials to their ignition point. La Quinta is subject to hot, dry winds that further dry combustible materials, adding to the intensity of fires and their potential to spread rapidly. During the summer months the dry winds and existing vegetation mix to create a hazardous fuel condition which has resulted in large loss in vegetation and structure fires. Severe "Santa Ana" winds frequently occur and can move a fire quickly throughout areas of the City. Multiple shifting wind patterns throughout the canyon areas add to the difficulty in suppressing fires."' That being said, the presence of wood in this wall assembly also potentially affects the fire rating of the exterior wall. Attachment 6, provided by the applicants, also touches on the extremes of heating and cooling differences between night and day temperatures, which accelerate the effects of cracking in building materials. This effect could be particularly problematic for the roof assembly proposed, where cracking of mortar between the clay tiles could allow premature infiltration of rainwater into the porous mortar layer immediately below, which could lead to subsequent structural issues as explained in item 5d above. Attachment 7, titled Wood Durability, is referenced out of context of the type of wall system that is discussed therein. Whereas the article discusses the changing needs of the wall assembly based on geographic location and the relative climates of those locations, the wall assembly being discussed is a framed wood wall with air circulation allowed or not between the framing members. This is not the case of wood encased in a hydraulic lime concrete where there is potentially a greater chance of holding moisture against the wood framing for extended periods. This article also states that "most wall assemblies have always historically leaked rain water" and yet if the wall assembly is constructed without a vapor barrier, the risk of moisture -related problems is reduced. The building division could not agree more however; there needs to be code prescribed evidence produced that the proposed wall system is as "leaky" as it needs to be. The applicants indicate in item 1d of the Functionality discussion in the application/letter, "...La Quinta is a safe and ideal location in which to test the viabilitv of an alternate method of controlling moisture build up in wall and roof structures." Pursuant to CRC section R104.11.1, the building official may require tests as evidence of compliance, but CRC section R104.11.1 is limiting on the manner in which testing can be ordered by the building official. Specifically, testing, at no expense to the City, may be completed only by methods specified in the CRC or by other "recognized test standards." In the absence of those test standards, the building official must approve the testing procedures, which must be performed by an approved agency. In other words, CRC section R104.11.1 does not allow the building official to impose testing procedures on constituents in the City. Rather, the life, fire, health and structural safety of construction authorized by the building official must be vetted through code prescribed standards or recognized testing standards through an approved agency, and those tests are then later evaluated by an independent service before beiniz applied in production to a building in the City. The applicants include Attachment 8 in the supporting material for their application, apparently because the alternative method for Strawbale Construction, referenced in Attachment 8, was eventually adopted as Appendix S in the 2016 Edition of the California Residential Code. The adoption of this method of construction appears to be largely due to intensive code prescribed testing and years of refining the wall assembly before it was given the approval to be incorporated into the code as a production means of construction. 12013 Code Adoption Climatic Findings to the California Building Standards Commission. The applicants include Attachment 10, entitled "Building Limes in the United Kingdom", written by Paul Livesey. This article traces the history and resurgence of the use of lime mortars. There is a paragraph in the middle of this article which discusses the breathability of lime mortar. However, this article does not specifically address the wall assembly that is being proposed in the applicants' request. In fact, one can deduce that the article discusses the breathability of lime mortar connecting the inner and outer faces of a solid masonry wall with little to no layers before and after. Thus, this article loses its relevancy both technically and geographically. The same paragraph in this article ends with a treatise of structural movement either from ground conditions or solar effects. The article presents an argument for the use of lime mortar in a seismic zone, but testing data and independent evaluation of the material is lacking. "La Quinta is situated near several significant sources capable of producing moderate to large earthquakes, including the San Andreas, Garnet Hill, Banning, Eureka Peak, Burnt Mountain, Pinto Mountain, San Gorgonio Pass, and San Jacinto Faults. Faults near La Quinta are capable of producing earthquakes of Magnitude 7.8 or greater, accompanied by intense shaking, liquefaction, and permanent ground displacement, increasing the risk of property damage, or personal injury or death, caused by the failure of structures, necessitating the permitting and inspection of structures that would otherwise be exempt from permit requirements. Seismic activity within the area occurs yearly. As a result, existing structures and planned new development are subject to serious risks, including fire and collapse, disruption of the water supply for firefighting purposes, and isolation from emergency response as a result of bridge, overpass, and road damage and debris. Severe ground shaking during a seismic event increases the probability that above -ground structures will fail. The inherent danger to the public is increased when power lines are installed above ground because of the danger from falling or fallen power poles and the possibility of contacting live power lines."' The article ends with the following: "The advantages of lime mortars are being increasingly recognized, initially driven by the desire to reduce embodied carbon and enable masonry to be reused. The technological base for lime and its applications are developing from a century of techniques applied to cement mortar and (mainly) concrete, but are being delaved by a lack of research funding for what is seen as 'old technology'. The relevance of some taboos, such as the now lifted ban on 'gauged lime', has been clarified by relevant research, albeit remaining in the trade folklore. The opportunities to be presented by the new standard and the classes of hydraulic and pre -formulated limes are endless, and will lead to limes that have superior properties and are more user-friendly. Uptake by a conservative and skeptical market will inevitablv be slow and will require strong advocates backed by sound science." In summary, even the author of the article understands that there is resistance to adopting this method of construction based on lack of research or strong advocates backed by sound science. The applicants provided a Construction Certificate of Test for Porosity and Saturation Coefficient, which was completed using a foreign testing standard that is not recognized by the International Building Code or the California Building Code. Also, because this Construction Certificate shows the porosity of a lime mortar independent of a wall assembly made up of separate components, this attachment is of limited 2 2013 Code Adoption Geologic Findings to the California Building Standards Commission. value because it does not address the full scope of the applicants' request for alternate material and method of construction. The last two attachments provided by the applicants provide the same discussions as earlier attachments to underscore the porosity and self -healing nature of hydraulic and non -hydraulic limes, but describe only anecdotally that use of this alternative method and material will not rot wood that is embedded in it. Given that the CRC does not approve the applicants' proposed alternative method and material, and supporting evidence/attachments provided by the applicants only address the potential benefits and historical uses of their proposed alternative method and material, it is recommended that the City's building official require the independent verification of the validity of the applicants' information by testing in a manner pursuant to CRC section R104.11.1. The building official must approve the testing procedures, with recognized testing standards. In this regard, the building official may require testing to be done at an accredited laboratory and evaluated by an independent evaluation service, specifically testing the applicants' proposed alternative method and materials. DISCLAIMER This report is based on information provided to the researcher and information generally available to the public. The opinions rendered are referenced to the building code and recognized standards where possible. No warranty can be expressed or implied by this report because we did not author any of the referenced material. Every effort has been made to base interpretation of tangible evidence and neutral rationale. Questions and concerns about this report should be first brought to the author that may require a re-evaluation of the content of this report. CREDENTIALS Neville Pereira, P.E., CBO • Professional Civil Engineer, State of California C 55991 • Certified Building Official, International Code Council (ICC) Since 2012 • International Accreditation Service Committee Member (IAS) Since 2010 • Certified Plans Examiner, International Code Council (ICC) Since 1996 • Certified Accessibility and Specialist, International Code Council (ICC) Since 1996 • Certified Building Inspector, International Code Council (ICC) Since 1999 11 C OF GN ew It a 0�OLARO PRODUCT DATA SHEET �4 THE WORLD'S BEST ROOFS DURO-TUFF° 80 -MIL MEMBRANE Advantages: Duro-Last° Duro-Tuff° 80 -Mil (DT80) membrane is an excellent choice for low -slope roof projects requiring a long lasting, energy efficient roofing membrane. A complete line of custom prefabricated accessories is available for the DT80 membrane. Description: Duro-Tuff membrane incorporates a weft -inserted, knitted scrim within PVC films to provide exceptional strength and waterproofing. Duro-Tuff membranes must not be used with Duro-Last EV membranes. PVC Film - Proprietary thermoplastic PVC formulation of resins, plasticizers, stabilizers, biocides, flame retardants, and U.V. absorbents. • PVC film above weft -inserted scrim — 41 mil Weft -Inserted Scrim - An 18 x 9 polyester fabric construction with weft insertion, composed of 840 x 1000 denier threads, provides superior tear and puncture resistance. The polyester thread is treated to prevent wicking. Total Thickness — 80 mil, nominal. Weight— 0.51 Ib. per square foot. Color— Top surface: white. Bottom surface: light gray. R- Value —0.1 ft2_°F-hr/Btu. Packaging — DT80 is supplied in the roll sizes shown below. A full pallet contains ten rolls. Roll Dimensions: Not applicable for this product Dimensions Estimated Coverage 2 6" Overlap 4" Overlap Roll Weight 120 in. x 65 ft. 617 sq. ft. 628 sq. ft. 335 Ib. 60 in. x 65 ft. 292 sq. ft. 303 sq. ft. 170 Ib. 30 in. x 65 ft. 130 sq. ft. 140 sq. ft. 85 Ib. 10 in. x 65 ft. Stripping 30 Ib. 6 inch overlap and use of Duro-Last Poly or Cleat Plates. 2 4 inch overlap and use of Duro-Last Oval Metal Plates. Overlap Line — A blue line, 6 inches from one edge of the sheet, is factory applied to the top of the sheet to assist in maintaining proper overlap between sheets. Seam Plate and Fastener Placement Guides — 'X's are placed at 6 -inch intervals along one edge of the sheet to assist in maintaining proper spacing between fasteners. Install fasteners so that the outside edge of the seam plate is flush with the edge of the sheet. www.duro-last.com w "T -Lap" Patches — A patch, with rounded corners, is required at all lap areas where 3 or more layers of membrane intersect ("T -Lap"). The minimum size of the patch is 4 x 4 inches or 4 -inch diameter. Patches can be made of either DT or DL membrane of any thickness. Refer to Detail Drawing DT1066. Energy Efficiency: White DT80 membrane is an excellent product for complying with California Title 24 and other energy efficiency programs requiring the use of a highly reflective roof membrane. Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC)' Solar Thermal Solar Reflective Reflectance Emittance Index (SRI) Initial 3 -yr Initial 3 -yr Initial 3 -yr White 0.85 0.73 0.89 0.88 108 90 t Duro-Last's CRRC Product ID: 0610. Warranty: The following warranties are available for projects utilizing DT80 membrane. Contact Duro-Last for warranty details. Consequential damage coverage is not available for Duro-Tuff installations. Available Warranties Supreme Not applicable for this product Ultra 15 -YR High Wind 20 -YR High Wind Basic 15 -YR NDL 20 -YR NDL Residential 15 -YR Material Only 20 -YR Material Only 1 of 2 Duro-Last, "World's Best Roof', Duro-Bond, and Duro-Tuff are registered trademarks owned by Duro-Last, Inc. Created: 01/09/2014 Revised: 05/13/2014, 06/10/2014, 01/23/2015, 05/18/2015, 07/06/2015, 02/15/2016, 06/29/2016 800-248-0280 DURO-TUFF' 80 -MIL MEMBRANE Codes and Standards: Underwriters Laboratories. Storage: Store rolls lengthwise on pallets. Use tarps to keep rolls dry. Membrane Attachment: Mechanically Fastened — DT80 membrane may be mechanically attached to a variety of roof deck and wall materials. An appropriate slip sheet or cover board may be required. Refer to the Roll Good Mechanically Fastened System Specification for system requirements. Duro-Bond° System — The Duro-Bond system (induction weld) may be used to attach DT80 membrane. Refer to the Duro-Last Duro-Bond System Specification for system requirements. Adhered — DT80 membrane may be adhered to a variety of properly prepared roof decks, walls, cover boards and insulations. Refer to the Duro-Last Adhered Systems Specification for system requirements. Physical Properties: DT80 membrane has been subjected to the tests required by ASTM 4434 "Standard Specification for Poly (Vinyl Chloride) Sheet Roofing"and has been classified as a Type III, internally reinforced sheet. The results of each test are listed below. ASTM's Overall Thickness requirements for the membrane are plus or minus 10% (nominal) of the listed Typical Value. Physical Property Test Method ASTM D4434 Requirement for Type III Sheet Typical Value Overall Thickness ASTM D751 > 0.072 and <_ 0.088 in. 0.080 in. (80 mil), nominal (>_ 72 and <_ 88 mil) Thickness Over Scrim ASTM D7635 >_ 0.016 in. 0.041 in. (41 mil) Breaking Strength' ASTM D751 Grab Method >_ 200 Ibf./in. 481 x 341 Ibf./in. Elongation' ASTM D751 Grab Method >_ 15% 33% x 33% Seam Strength ASTM D751 Grab Methodo >> 360 Ibf. 452 Ibf. (75/0 of Breaking Strength.) Tear Strength' ASTM D751 Procedure B >_ 45 Ibf. 53 x 196 Ibf. Low Temp. Bend ASTM D2136 Must Pass at -40° F. PASS Heat Aging ASTM D3045 Conditioned for 56 days in oven PASS maintained at 176° F. 5,000 hours total test time. Accelerated ASTM G154 Irradiance level of 0.68 W/m2-nm. PASS Weathering (Formerly G53) Cycle: 8 hours at 145° F, 4 hours condensation at 122° F. Conditioned for 6 hours in oven Dimensional Stability' ASTM D1204 maintained at 176° F. -0.10% x -0.10% Allowable change: <_ 0.5% Immersed in water at 158° F Water Absorption ASTM D570 for 168 hours. 0.10% Allowable weight change: <_ 3% static Puncture ASTM D5802 >_ 33 Ibf. >_ 33 Ibf. Dynamic Puncture ASTM D5635 >_ 14.7 ft-Ibf. (20 J) >_ 14.7 ft-Ibf. (20 J) Typical values are shown for both machine and cross machine directions. The machine direction results are listed first. 2 Values will be added upon completion of testing. c SPRI YY 7� M L u Pti��'N1�i4J ,.a r h* Hoa., 4r><L4 APPnrvcax� a.c-�rou roiv � � 89 129CKAMR www.duro-last.com 2 of 2 800-248-0280 Duro-Last, "World's Best Roof', Duro-Bond, and Duro-Tuff are registered trademarks owned by Duro-Last, Inc. Created: 01/09/2014 Revised: 05/13/2014, 06/10/2014, 01/23/2015, 05/18/2015, 07/06/2015, 02/15/2016, 06/29/2016 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION Basic Use Silicone Treated Perlite provides a quick, inexpensive and permanent method- for efficiently insulating masonry walls. Depending upon design conditions, reductions in heat. transmission of 50 percent or more may be obtained when perlite loose fill is used in the hollow cores of concrete block or cavity type masonry walls. Limitations Perlite Loose Fill insulation should be installed in well -sealed cavities and masonry unit walls as described under Item 5, Installation. Composition and Materials Perlite Loose Fill insulation is an inert volcanic glass expanded by a special heat process and treated with nonflammable silicone to improve water repellency. Texture and Color Silicone Treatment Perlite insulation is a white granular material. Applicable Standards Silicone Treated Perlite conforms with ASTM Specification C 549, Perlite Loose Fill Insulation; Federal Specification HH -1-574b; Thermal Insulation (Perlite); GSA Commercial Item Description A- A -903 Insulation, Thermal (Expanded Perlite). Acceptable in FHA Financed Housing -FHA Use of Materials Bulletin UM -37. Recommended by Brick Institute of America Technical Notes 21 and Expanded Shale, Clay and Slate Institute Bulletin No. 4 (July, 1972). TECHNICAL DATA Density Recommended density range of 2-11 lbs/ft.3 (32-176 kg/m3). ASTM C 520 Method of Test for Density of Granular Loose Fill Insulations. Thermal Conductivity At Various Densities: (See Table 1) ASTM C 177 Method of Test for Thermal Conductivity of Materials by Means of the Guarded Hot Plate. Table 1 and Table 2: As shown below: ASTM C 136 Standard Method of Test for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates (When mechanical sieving device is used the sieving time should be 5 minutes and test sample should.be 50 grams of material). TABLE 1. THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF EXPANDED PERLITE (AT VARIOUS DENSITIES) N TABLE 2. THERMAL CON DUCTANCEIRESISTANCE{ Section Thickness I it r.7r F11•R •171 -RE' of Perlite Loose Thermal Thermal Fill Insulation Conductance "C" Resistance" R" I t5lj �.5 U.S. (SI) U.S, 440.55) (SI) I 1 in. N TABLE 2. THERMAL CON DUCTANCEIRESISTANCE{ Section Thickness I of Perlite Loose Thermal Thermal Fill Insulation Conductance "C" Resistance" R" U'S. t5lj �.5 U.S. (SI) U.S, 440.55) (SI) I 1 in. em) 0.32 (1.82) 1 3.13 cm) 0.16 (0,91) 5.25 Sin. (7.6cm) 0.11 (0.61) �- 9.37 0 65) 4 in. (10.2 cm) � ` 0_08 40.45) I 12.50 (2.20) - 5 in. I (12.7 cm) C.06 (0.36) 15.63 (2.75) 6 in. (15.2 cm) 0.05 � (0.30) 18,75 7 in. (17.7 cm) 0.04_5 (0.26) 21.88 (3.$5) 8 in. (20.3 cm) 0.04 {0.23} 25.t3C} {4.44} "'C" values expressed in Btu'h ■ W & 'F PW)K) were calculated using maximum thermal conductivity'•k." factor of 0.32 Biu inch • IV • *F (.016 Whn K) at 75'F (24°C) mean ternperature. •"R" valuesexpressed in h . f tI * "FlBtu (K a ml,lW) were calculat- ed using 1 hP, f ❑rmrrla R = 1!C. Noncombustible In accordance with ASTM E136: Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C. Fire Rating Underwriters Laboratories Design No. U905 shows that a 2 -hour rated 8 in. (20.32 cm) concrete block wall is improved to 4 hours when cores are filled with Silicone Treated Perlite. Water Repellency Silicone treated perlite minimizes water transmission -Laboratory tests on water transmission by Structural Clay Products Research Foundation show a cavity wall filled with Silicone Treated Perlite will not transmit water to the interior wythe even under the most severe conditions. Performance of over-all was rated "excellent" in accordance with procedures established by the National Bureau of Standards in BMS 82. However, it should be noted that silicone treated perlite insulation will not waterproof a poorly constructed masonry wall. Permanency Silicone Treated Perlite is inorganic and therefore rot, vermin and termite resistant and non- combustible with a fusion point of approximately 2300°F (12600C). It is as permanent as the walls which contain it. Non -Settling Perlite Loose Fill supports its own weight in the wall without settling. INSTALLATION Location The insulation shall be installed in the following locations: 1. In the cores of all exterior (and interior) hollow masonry unit walls. 2. In the cavity between all exterior (and interior) masonry walls. 3. Between exterior masonry walls and interior furring. The insulation shall be poured directly into the wall at any convenient interval. Wall sections under doors and windows shall be filled before sills are placed. All holes and openings in the wall through which insulation can escape shall be permanently sealed or caulked prior to installation of the insulation. Copper, galvanized steel, or fiber glass. Method Perlite Loose Fill Insulation cuts installation costs since it is lightweight and pours easily and quickly in place without need for special installation equipment or skills. The insulation may be poured directly into walls or emptied into a simple wood or metal hopper which can be slid along the wall to direct the perlite into cores or cavities. Perlite loose fill is free flowing and fills all voids without bridging. AVAILABILITY AND COSTS Availability Silicone Treated Perlite insulation is available throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico, and other countries. Cost Contact local manufacturer. GUARANTEE Certificate of Conformance stating product conforms to the Standard Specifications for Silicone Treated Perlite Loose Fill Insulation as adopted and published by Perlite Institute, Inc. is available from the manufacturer. None required. MAINTENANCE TECHNICAL SERVICES Manufacturers of Silicone 'Treated Perlite Loose Fill Insulation maintain qualified technical representatives to assist in installation and advise on design requirements. FILING SYSTEMS SPEC -DATA"" 11. Sweet's Architectural Catalog File No. 7.14d/Pe. Additional technical literature on Perlite Loose Fill Insulation is available on request front the Perlite Institute, Inc. Perlite Institute, Inc. 4305 North Sixth Street, Suite A, Harrisburg, PA 17110 717.238.97231 fax 717.238.99851 www.perlite.orq Technical data given herein are from sources considered reliable, but no guarantee of accuracy can be made or liability assumed. Your supplier may be able to provide you with more precise data. Certain compositions or processes involving perlite may be the subject of patents. R905.13 Thermoplastic single -ply roofing. The installation of thermoplastic single -ply roofing shall comply with the provisions of this section. R905.13.1 Slope. Thermoplastic single -ply membrane roofs shall have a design slope of not less than one-fourth unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2 -percent slope). R905.13.2 Material standards. Thermoplastic single -ply roof coverings shall comply with ASTM D4434, ASTM D6754, ASTM D6878 or CGSB CAN/CGSB 37.54. R905.13.3 Application. Thermoplastic single -ply roofs shall be installed in accordance with this chapter and the manufacturer's instructions.