SB: re:laying bales

[Robert W Tom <archilogic@juno.com>]

on Mon, 25 Jun 2001 
 an OzWoman in Ohio wrote:

[snip] 
> 1.  If two pieces were used, what (if anything) could lay
>     in between the pieces of wood?  We were thinking blueboard,
[snip]
> 2.  Moisture barriers have been used between the cement and the
>     wood in the sb houses that have been built around here.  I
>     don't like the idea of using a plastic/tar moisture barrier
>     below the bales, because I feel like it would trap more
>     moisture than prevent moisture intrusion from below
[snip]
> 3.  Last question - Locust is considered to be extremely resistant
>     to rot - could this mean that it resist the wicking of water


Lee;

First of all, you would not be responsible for the failure (or 
success) of your friends' project based upon your advice. 
Obviously, it's their responsiblity to seek out and implement 
good techniques. And hopefully they do it far in advance.

re: Question #1 

The purpose of any details at the base of the bales is 
many-fold. (Manifold ?) (Womenifold ?)

    (i) to provide an upstand to raise bales up and away from any liquid 
         moisture that may accumulate at the top of the foundation, from
any
         number of sources which I won't bother going into here. 
         
   (ii) to provide a capillary break and drainage capacity between the 
          foundation and the bales

    (iii) to provide attachment for things like lath, screeds, flashings,

          external pins, strapping, door & window framing etc.

    (iv) to provide insulation and minimise air leakage at the junction
of
            the floor and wall.
    
     (v) to prevent the instrusion of critters , vermin and miscellaneous
           widgety-bugs

    (vi) (More I'm sure but enough from me on this for now)     
    
Two pieces of rot-resistant wood with some sort of non-moisture 
sensitive insulation bewteen them (ie EPS, XPS, rigid mineral wool
ie Roxul Foundation Drainage Board) with a moisture-impervious
membrane as a damp-proof course beneath the plates and insulation
would be the *bare minimum* that would be suitable in Ohio 
(as a bottom plate) I would think.  

re: Question #2. 
Maximum prevention of moisture transport from below is the 
intent of a  moisture barrier. Unless the foundation is poorly drained 
and poorly insulated I can't think of any negatives to keeping 
(ie "trapping" as you call it) moisture that is in the foundation 
materials, in the foundation materials. 
Any relatively moisture-impervious materials may be used as an 
(ie not just tar and  plastic. ie sheet aluminum/copper/ galvanised/
galvalume/stainless, ceramic could be used as an MB membrane.
There are any number of gooey glops that may be used instead of 
tar.)

The key point to consider in the prevention of moisture intrusion 
(up through the foundation) is of course, to provide good 
(sub-surface and at-grade) drainage for the foundation.


re: Question #3

I think that the only way that any wood could resist the wicking 
of water is if it were completely  encased within some impervious 
material or if all of the voids within its cell-structure were filled 
with some impervious material. 
Even ebony, which is so dense that it doesn't float in water, must
wick water or else it could not have supported any foilage when it
was still a tree.


                 ===    *     ===
Robert  W. Tom          Kanata, Ontario, Canada       
Rob_Tom@ncf.ca

please visit:  http://www.theHungerSite.com daily
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to:
   <strawbale-unsubscribe@crest.org>

or for the digest to:
   <strawbale-digest-unsubscribe@crest.org>

Please send any list administration questions to
strawbale-owner@crest.org