The total fire rating is determined by adding each component to reach a minimum total of 60 minutes. Fire protection rating is calculated from the flame side of the assembly and of course some assemblies have multiple flame sides.

Your wood framing members are required to be at a minimum of 16" on center. When they are you get 20 minutes in a wall and 10 minutes with floor and roof joists.

Wall Finishes and their ratings:
3/8" wood structural panel with exterior glue - 5 minutes
15/32" wood structural panel with exterior glue - 10 minutes
19/32" wood structural panel with exterior glue - 15 minutes

3/8" gypsum wallboard - 10 minutes
1/2" gypsum wallboard - 15 minutes
5/8" gypsum wallboard - 30 minutes

1/2" Type X gypsum wallboard - 25 minutes
5/8" Type X gypsum wallboard - 40 minutes

3/8" + 3/8" gypsum wallboard - 25 minutes
1/2" + 3/8" gypsum wallboard - 35 minutes
1/2" + 1/2" gypsum wallboard - 40 minutes

Where that isn't quite enough in wall assemblies you can add insulation for another 15 minutes. The spaces between studs must be completely filled with glass fiber mineral batts a minimum of 2 lb/cf or rockwool or slag material batts a minimum of 3.3 lb/cf or cellulose a minimum of 2.6 lb/cf.

Floors must have a subfloor of at least 15/32" wood structural panels or 11/16" T&G. Roofs must have a deck of at least 15/32" wood structural panels or 11/16" T&G and finished roofing.

There are quite a few additional rules for fire resistance so please ask questions.

Originally posted 2009-02-20 00:19:15.

Related posts:

1. Fire Door Protection Ratings May Be Less Than the Rating For the Wall Assembly
2. Opening Protection and Fire Rating in Garages – Requirements for the Door and Gypsum Board
3. Dwelling Unit Separation Wall at Duplexes and Townhomes (2 Hour Fire Wall)

Laminated Veneer Lumber

In any construction project, especially new additions to homes or commercial buildings, there is a limited amount of space to run utilities such as electrical wires or water pipes. Sometimes the only available option is to port these utilities through the beam. As with all timber construction, a square hole should never be cut into an LVL beam. Square cuts develop stress concentrations and are prone to splitting. Round (drilled) holes are preferred because they allow stresses to develop “more smoothly” around the opening. As a beam is loaded, stresses concentrate in different areas. Knowing this, the APA (The Engineered Wood Association) has created the illustration shown below as a field guide to the most desirable places drill holes in LVL beams. Please keep in mind that it is always safer to consult your licensed structural engineer when modifying any load bearing member.

From the APA document "EWS G535A"

The EWS G535A is a free publication from the APA which goes into much greater detail than presented here. The APA’s website is a great resource for builders, engineers, architects and home owners who are looking for information on manufactured lumber products.

Originally posted 2010-07-02 00:01:07.

Related posts:

1. Notching of Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) Beams
2. Lumber Sales Continue to Rise in 2010
3. 2010 Lumber Costs Soaring in First Quarter

First of all, I have to say that the core item that started the snowball effect of my thinking came from a simple object in my son's camping first aid kit: the space blanket. As first sight, I thought to myself, how could this paper-thin foil "blanket" (if you could call it that) possibly keep you warm. Upon further experimentation, it turns out the thing actually works remarkably well. Giving credit where credit is due, the folks at NASA really know what they're doing here. Now, it is important to note that while the space blanket will effectively reflect the body's radiation back to the body, those other modes of heat transfer (conduction and convection) are still at work, so if you are lying on a snowbank with a space blanket on, you will still arrive at the doorstep of hypothermia.

But enough about backcountry survival tips. The idea went from the simple space blanket very quickly to the idea of a space blanket for the home. I have posted before about heat loss through convection and conduction, and even how thermal mass plays into that equation. But I have spent relatively little time to date explaining the effects of radiant heat transfer for buildings. As it turns out, it is quite astonishing, and may really challenge conventional construction practices as we move forward into the 21st century trying to design zero carbon footprint homes and zero net energy buildings.

The basics are this: All objects radiate heat energy from themselves in all directions all the time through the mode of electromagnetic waves of energy. The hotter the object, the more it will want to radiate, however there is a very important material property that also describes how much the object "wants" to radiate. That property is called emissivity. Now, without going into the mathematics of Stefan's Law or it's derivative proofs, suffice it to say that it exists and explains why we feel thermal comfort or discomfort in different environments.

The basic outcome of the physics behind emissivity is this: If you stand near a warm object that has a reasonably high emissivity, then you, in turn will feel its warmth regardless of the air temperature that separates you and the object. Now, obviously, conduction and convection are still players in your comfort, however, if you are absorbing that heat from radiation, the surrounding air temperature can be significantly colder than what you would expect the appropriate comfort range to be. Anyone who has gone spring skiing in the rockies can attest to this fact as their sunburned bodies are exposed to the high altitude spring sun and feeling quite comfortable, while the surrounding air temperatures are still in the 40s and they're standing in a giant snowfield at an even 32 degrees. By the way, that snow field does a pretty good job at reflecting the sun's radiant energy to that sunburned body as well (so don't forget sunscreen under the chin).

So, getting back to our space blanket, the core idea is a simple one: If you can keep your body from releasing all of it's radiant energy to its surroundings, then you will be considerably more comfortable without having to add additional heat. Well, until we are all brandishing space blanket clothing (which will be my next business venture to be sure), we need to figure out how to get the buildings that we occupy to perform the same function.

If we can provide a building skin that can reflect as much of the radiant heat back into the space during the cold winter months, and release it to the outside during the warm summer months, we will have solved the radiant problem of buildings. Now, I would be perfectly satisfied with a permanently reflectant interior shell and an open window when the weather requires, but that is partly because I live in the mountains of Colorado and I prefer fresh air cooling in a climate that will allow for it. Someone in south Florida has different environmental factors, but we would simply apply all of these physics in reverse for that climate.

Consider the temperatures of the objects in your home. If the mode of heating is gas forced air, then you are probably uncomfortable most of the winter. The reason for this is simple. It takes a tremendous amount of warm air (or a significantly hotter amount of air) to heat a solid object. Here is a simple relationship that I calculated this morning (and I would be happy for anyone else to corroborate this simple analysis). I call it "The Spaghetti Pot Example" and it goes like this: In order to heat a spaghetti pot of water (1 cubic foot for the scientists in the room) by 1 degree, it is equivalent to heating the entire volume of three bedrooms of air (each 12'x12'x8' in dimension) by one degree. The implications here are really quite staggering. This, in a nutshell explains why radiant heating in any mode is going to be more effective than heating air to provide thermal comfort. Whether it's the floor that you heat, or radiators, or even a Franklin Stove, the heated objects are easier to heat and can carry much more heat per unit volume than air can.

It seems I may be getting off the subject of radiation, but this is actually the crux of the entire radiant space blanket discussion. It is this: We already have most of the heat energy necessary within our homes (and our bodies) to keep us quite comfortable in the cold winter months, if only we can efficiently contain it and manipulate it. By the Spaghetti Pot Example above, it can actually be inferred that you can open your doors in the winter and let all of the heated air out of the home as long as the heat is contained within the objects of the room, because the air carries a significantly smaller amount of heat within the home than the heated objects and building materials themselves. I do not encourage you to do this because it is still terribly wasteful, however, it is far more wasteful if your heating mode is gas forced air because there are fewer heated objects in the home to supplant that lost heat (only those heated by the warm air). In the gas forced air scenario, you're throwing all of your heating dollars out the window...literally, because doors and windows account for the largest piece of the energy loss pie within any building. There is something to be learned here.

What is that lesson? Heat your building with a radiant mode of heat that will actually heat the dense objects and building materials within the building. Use thermal mass within the building. Control radiation loss at the shell of the building. Also, I don't want to diminish the high value of controlling conduction and convection losses in that shell as well, but the point of this post is really about radiant heat control.

So, how can we make a thermal blanket around the shell of a building? That question will require a lot more research and development, but I can tell you that in the next building I design, I will consider finishes for the interior of the shell that are reflective in the infrared spectrum (IR). Building grade foils and IR reflective (aluminum based) paints like this are already in use with some radiant heating systems under the floors and I propose to use these relatively low-cost and easy to procure materials around the interior skin of the building, whether the exterior walls are cavity with insulation, SIPs, ICFs, or any other building type. With emissivities around .03 (very reflective), this skin can effectively reflect the radiant heat back into the home, saving a significant amount of radiant heat loss, while also directing heat directly back to the occupants (with emissivities around .9 - very absorptive). Low-e windows that have been available for some time also take this very phenomena into account and we are seeing significant enhancements to building performance by using windows that reflect the radiant heat energy back into the home. At the same time, it is vitally important to consider highly absorptive finishes for interior elements that have thermal mass or are a part of the heating delivery system for the building. Floors, interior walls, built-in objects and even furniture. In some cases, the exterior walls may also play a role in that thermal mass as well. Every building construction and configuration is different and will require its own analysis. The point here is that these are must-have technologies for every building we build from here on and should become standard details for our design.

As we continue to learn more about the science behind these concepts, and commit ourselves to looking forward into 21st century design and construction (rather than repeating the errors of our past out of convenience or ignorance), we will be able to develop truly revolutionary new details with relatively simple and cost-effective solutions that will take sustainable and energy efficient design into a completely new stratosphere. I encourage everyone to test and challenge these principles and ideas in order to further innovation, as I too am committed to this search for knowledge in order to drastically improve every building that we design.

Originally posted 2008-11-09 12:24:52.

Related posts:

1. The Heat is on…
2. The Skinny on Thermal Mass
3. Geothermal the "hot" new thing?

The IBC states that "The provisions of this code relating to the construction, repair, alteration, addition, restoration and movement of structures, and change of occupancy shall not be mandatory for historic buildings where such buildings are judged by the building official to not constitute a distinct life safety hazard"

Historic Buildings are defined as "Buildings that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or designated as historic under an appropriate state or local law. "

That's a fairly narrow set of buildings, so generally speaking older buildings need to be brought up to code when they are substantially improved. It is generally easier to prove that the cost is prohibitive if the cost of the upgrades are more than 20% the cost of the total project.

Originally posted 2009-09-08 00:01:15.

Related posts:

1. Avoid Costly Future Alterations: Free Fair Housing and Accessibility Presentation
2. Historic Structure Assessments in Preservation Planning
3. ANSI 117.1 Accessibility Standard Voluntary or Enforceable

We are currently working on a government contract that requires paperless gypsum board but it has brought up the question of the pros and cons of the various products available and the tradeoffs involved for each.

Standard Gypsum Board is a fantastic product when installed and maintained correctly but one of its weaknesses is the Paper face .  Anyone who has seen a piece of gypsum board exposed to water or a focused impact has seen this problem in action.

To address this issue manufacturers have responded with newer more advanced products but they come at an increased cost and have some of their own drawbacks.

Paperless Drywall:

Pros-

• Typically covered in fiberglass
• No paper for mold to feed on
• More Durable
• Vapor Barrier often not needed (cost savings)

Cons-

• Harder to install and finish
• 2x more expensive
• Not as much recycled content

Mold Resistant Drywall:

Pros-

• Added treatment on paper for Mold resistance
• Higher Recycled content
• Easy to finish

Cons-

• No added impact resistance
• Slightly more expensive
• Vapor Barrier still needed (dependent on assembly)

Standard Drywall:

Pros-

• Least Expensive
• Higher Recycled content
• Easy to finish

Cons-

• Limited moisture resistance
• No added impact resistance
• Vapor Barrier still needed (dependent on assembly)

Originally posted 2011-05-18 11:57:32.

Related posts:

1. Opening Protection and Fire Rating in Garages – Requirements for the Door and Gypsum Board
2. Gypsum Association 2009 Fire Resistance Manual
3. Dwelling Unit Separation Wall at Duplexes and Townhomes (2 Hour Fire Wall)

When installing a drinking fountain in a renovation project, there may not always be a water source nearby.  A water cooler would be the more practical choice.  In a recent educational renovation, we specified an Elkay EZH20 Water Cooler which has a faster fill rate than a traditional drinking fountain, and is smaller in size than a traditional water cooler.  With the unit being in the center core of the building, a traditional drinking fountain would have only been able to provide water at room-temperature, since there is quite a distance to the nearest water source.

Although the Elkay EZH20 is a wall-mounted unit, we framed a small alcove for the water cooler to fit into in order to keep the required floor space clearance in the corridor.  We made sure to leave room on each side for the side pushbar use.  The client also chose to include the optional bottle filling station that attaches to the unit, in order to help minimize disposable plastic bottle waste.  The unit also has an innovative ticker that counts the number of 12 oz. bottles saved from landfills for refrigerated units.

Originally posted 2010-05-25 02:00:26.

Related posts:

1. Accessible Drinking Fountain Guidelines ADA
2. Drinking Fountains – The Plumbing Fixture That May Be Overlooked
3. Primo Plant Based Water Bottles and Denver Recycles Options

Your first option is always referrals from other friends and family members that have worked with an architect. If you have already selected a builder or contractor for your project they may have some recommendations based on their experience.

Oftentimes, the next source should be the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Both the national website and the local websites have tools to link you to architects that do the type of project you have in mind. Not every architect is a member of the AIA, but I'd recommend working with an AIA architect.

The next source is going to be the internet. My main caution is that you'll really want to dig through the results. In my test searches, many of the top page results are about architecture but not necessarily about architecture firms. In addition, the top search results are often about larger firms who may not be the right choice if you have a smaller project.

The phone book is an option, but without any images of the work, it could make for a daunting task.

Finally, one last plug for my company, EVstudio. We do a wide variety of project types and a variety of styles throughout the country. Please feel free to email me or give me a call. I'm happy to give you advice on your project and if I can't help you, I'll give you good advice on your architect selection.

Originally posted 2009-04-19 23:34:37.

Related posts:

1. When Should You Contact an Architect? What Phases of Your Project Can an Architect Help With?
2. EVstudio is a Local Partner Architect in Denver Colorado
3. When Do You Absolutely Have to Hire an Architect in Colorado?

First, you have to be making an alteration to a "primary function area". A "primary function area" is any area where a major activity takes place whether that area is public or private including workrooms and offices in a commercial occupancy.

Second, the alteration is only required where it is not "disproportionate" to the cost of the alterations to the primary function areas. The ADA website puts this threshold at 20% of the cost of the alterations. If it will cost more than 20%, you're not required to make the path fully accessible.

Oftentimes making a path accessible can be a minor expense, however where it will require significant ramps, elevators, revised stairs or changes to corridors you may discover that you fall above the threshold.

Finally, the ADA Standards for Accessible Design do not call this out but it is on their website.

Originally posted 2009-04-03 15:46:03.

Related posts:

1. ADA Standards for Accessible Design – ADA Design Manual 1994
2. How To Make Your House More Accessible
3. Fire Door Protection Ratings May Be Less Than the Rating For the Wall Assembly

First, it is very important to note that different project types may have very different fees and different architects provide different levels of service. This will be reflected in the fee that you see. You should also be aware that projects with more consultants contracted through the architect will have higher fees.

There are five methods of determining fees that I have commonly seen from architects:

The first one is guessing what someone is willing to pay, personally I don't subscribe to this one but I've seen it. I would ask any service professional to give you the reasoning at how they arrive at their fee.

The second one is charging hourly. We tend to prefer hourly fees on projects that are particularly open ended or very small scope. Our hourly rates are currently between $60 and $120 per hour depending on who is doing the work. That's a fairly typical range with some firms going a little lower and some going much higher. Keep in mind that picking a talented quick thinking architect will result in fewer hours.

The third method is fairly common with architects and that is a percentage of construction cost. There is a vast range of percentages that you'll see and projects with larger budgets tend to have lower percentages because of the economies of scale on those projects. I've seen ranges from 3-20% depending on the scope and project type. Complex drawings and buildings are at the top but the vast majority are in the 4-10% range. Most of the time the number is based on the initial budget.

The fourth method is a $/sf rate. This is very common on residential and tenant improvement projects and not common on higher cost projects. The common range on these types of projects runs from $1.50/sf to $6/sf depending on what is in or out and sometimes engineering is included. On residential projects we tend to include structural design, site planning and electrical layouts and on TI work we generally include MEP engineering.

The fifth method is a fixed fee based on hours. We use this to verify our that our percentages or $/sf numbers are correct. We also use this for projects that fall outside of normal parameters and make an educated guess based on previous work.

It is important to note that these fees are indicative of the overall industry and EVstudio's fees fall in a much tighter and affordable range. Our fees are exceptionally competitive and directly tied to the amount of work that we are doing. We discuss our fees in conjunction with our scope and we offer free estimates so please email or call for a precise budget number. We work with clients across the country and even have a toll free number 866.323.5882.  On a simple project giving you a fee is a 5 minute process.

Originally posted 2008-12-16 00:06:01.

Related posts:

1. Free Consultation

With mountain construction, as we see near our Evergreen office, granite bedrock is typically located at or closer to ground level than 36”. In these instances, section R403.1.4.1 of the 2009 IRC states that frost depth does not need to be met if the structure is erected on solid rock. As a side note, it is always a good idea to have a structural engineer or geotechnical engineer out at your site to evaluate the competency of solid rock before exercising this option.

The following detail shows an alternative to meeting frost depth we recently specified for a client. The continuous spread footing was able to be eliminated because in this situation because instead of the foundation bearing on decomposed granite bedrock which has an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square inch (psi) (2009 IRC table R401.4.1) the foundation bears on solid granite bedrock which has an allowable bearing pressure of 12,000 psi. It is good practice to pin the foundation to the bedrock with epoxied rebar dowels to help prevent any possible lateral foundation movement.

Originally posted 2010-10-24 00:01:09.

Related posts:

1. Wall on Grade Foundation
2. Straight Shaft Drilled Concrete Pier Foundation
3. Spread Footing Foundation