[GSBN] SB Overhangs
ArchiLogic at yahoo.ca
Fri Sep 17 12:21:13 CDT 2010
DANG! Just when I thought I could shut this infernal machine off and get
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:00:03 -0400, <gsbn-request at greenbuilder.com> wrote:
> From: Sarah Johnston <sarahjohnston at ihug.co.nz>
> We agree that eaves are very important and also feel there should be a
> minimum eave depth included for a SB code, the difficult part is
> making it appropriate for all climates
[snip] (of an incredibly large amount of redundant, previously posted
I disagree (mostly just to be an @$$#%^!% and get a dig in on that
gazillion lines of unsnipped material).
I would venture that if anything is written into the Code it should simply
state performance requirements rather than specify particulars like eave
depths which, as pointed out would be very site-specific.
I can think of situations where even ridiculously wide overhangs (ie
exceeding 1.8 metres) still wouldn't provide sufficient protection.
And there are many situations where wide eaves would almost certainly
guaranty that the roof would be ripped off by winds or invite destruction
of the roof by wildfires.
I would venture that if something is written into the Code it should be
"The building shall be provided with means to keep the wall materials dry
or if allowed to get wet, the drying regime exceeds the wetting regime
over any given period of ## days".
=== * ===
Kanata, Ontario, Canada
< A r c h i L o g i c at Y a h o o dot c a >
manually winnow the chaff from my edress if you hit "reply"
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the GSBN