求助，97年左右，非plaster的房子= 潜在漏水房 吗？

love_3_month

97年左右的房子，外墙维护的很好，buildwe report也表示屋况，设计，湿度，都没有问题。但是，很大可能是untreated frame，毕竟是当时的主流，这是不是就好想一个废弃的定时炸弹，理论上好好维护就不会炸，但万一发生什么没有预料的意外，就炸了完蛋？

如果这样，那岂不是那个年代的房子，不管什么外墙，都最好不碰？

在图纸上找到这个说明，懂行的人看看和treat与否有关吗？10楼的图可能用手机看着更清楚

请大神现身点评吧！

nz大猫

zealot198226 发表于 2016-2-19 13:07
97-04？那么97年前的房子应该没问题了？

97-04遇到的几率最高，其次是1990~1997之间的。

zealot198226

97-04？那么97年前的房子应该没问题了？

snowlight

love_3_month 发表于 2016-2-18 16:59
以前也treat的，只是那几年的没treat

再早的，很多老的都有少许毛病，不像有问题的plaster那么多漏水。 ...

嗯，我说呢。我一直有听说，以前的房子用料都很好，质量比现在好，只不过盖房的技术可能比较老，还有规范和现在的不一样。90年代前，改动房子根本不需要什么康嫂的批准什么的

tww1

不要担心, 洋人会买的.

love_3_month

rui888888 发表于 2016-2-18 18:04
Wet boric or boron salts timber treatments were first introduced in 1952 – before that, native ti ...

两个理解，

那个年代的造的不好的房子已经被拆除了，留下的都不错

那个年代，和97-04的非plaster房子一样，漏水风险相对04之后的房子，比较高，如果保养的好没问题，保养的不好就比较麻烦。而97-04的plaster 房子风险更高，设计施工保养差了一点就是大麻烦。

房奴甲

可能那个时期的房子只能买砖的。砖的一般有缝，有缝就通风不会烂。或者买了持有几年再卖呗。

rui888888

love_3_month 发表于 2016-2-18 17:59
以前也treat的，只是那几年的没treat

再早的，很多老的都有少许毛病，不像有问题的plaster那么多漏水。 ...

Wet boric or boron salts timber treatments were first introduced in 1952 – before that, native timber and some of the first radiata pine framing was used untreated. From 11 September 1995, NZS 3602:1995 Timber and wood-based products for use in building allowed the use of untreated timber for framing provided it was kiln-dried and that its in-service moisture content did not exceed 18%. The change in the standard was cited in Building Code compliance document B2/AS1 on 28 February 1998. (Any use of untreated kiln-dried timber before this would have to have been consented as an Alternative Solution.)
写了， 1952年前的是没处理过的

love_3_month

snowlight 发表于 2016-2-18 17:34
我有住过三十还是二十年代的房子，感觉旧是旧，但是还挺结实的。现在的漏水屋，不到十年，房梁都能用手指 ...

以前也treat的，只是那几年的没treat

再早的，很多老的都有少许毛病，不像有问题的plaster那么多漏水。还有一些老房子，稍微有点问题的，可能被拆了吧。。。。。我猜的

rui888888

snowlight 发表于 2016-2-18 17:34
我有住过三十还是二十年代的房子，感觉旧是旧，但是还挺结实的。现在的漏水屋，不到十年，房梁都能用手指 ...

是呀， 1952年前的房子， 木框架都是没处理过的， 也没听说有什么漏水屋， 所以漏水屋可能跟木头有没有处理过没什么关系， 还是跟外墙或者用什么木头关系大些吧?

snowlight

rui888888 发表于 2016-2-18 13:51
http://www.standards.co.nz/touchstone/building/2013/oct/key-historical-dates-for-timber-treatment-re ...

我有住过三十还是二十年代的房子，感觉旧是旧，但是还挺结实的。现在的漏水屋，不到十年，房梁都能用手指按出洞，那快一百年的房子还不摇摇欲坠吗？我想以前没有处理，但是肯定有其他方法，比如木材的品种，就好比中国什么金丝楠木，通过木材自己的一些特性来避免此类事情发生

nz大猫

NewLynnHse 发表于 2016-2-18 15:45
http://www.building.govt.nz/weathertightness-timber-in-leaky-buildings

3.1 Timber treatments

这里找到个依据----From 1998 to April 2004, homes were often built with untreated kiln-dried radiata pine framing.-----实际上就是1997 - 2004时间段内碰到untreated的几率最大.

Archer_xlz

love_3_month 发表于 2016-2-18 12:41
好了我也不用纠结了，出了比cv高25%房东还是不接，还有几万差距，谈不拢就算啦 ...

看来你说的这个不是我说的那个，那个成交了。

NewLynnHse

http://www.building.govt.nz/weat ... -in-leaky-buildings

3.1 Timber treatments
Up to 1992, most timber used for house framing in New Zealand was radiata pine treated with boron. From the early 1990s, a range of alternative timber framing treatment options for radiata pine became available. From 1998 to April 2004, homes were often built with untreated kiln-dried radiata pine framing.

If the framing used is untreated or has a preservative treatment only effective against insects, it is more likely decay will be both severe and widespread in a leaky building.

The most reliable way of finding out what timber treatment (if any) has been used, is to take timber samples and have them tested in a laboratory. An assessment report completed on the building should provide some information on the type of timber treatment used in the building. However, the assessor is only able to access a limited part of the timber framing and it is quite common to find a mix of timber treatments in the framing of any individual building that have not been identified in the assessment report. If there are no markings on framing timber identifying the treatment type and level, it is safer to assume it is untreated.

3.2 Types of fungal decay
......

NewLynnHse

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/new ... mp;objectid=2998461

Warnings and revelations:

1991: New building code says homes must not leak but does not set out rules for popular new monolithic claddings.

1994: Prendos and others warn of "potential time bomb" in leaking and rotting new stucco homes.

1995: Regulations change to allow untreated timber with no resistance to rot. The cheaper product takes over after vigorous timber industry promotion.

April 1998: Philip O'Sullivan begins warning Building Industry Authority of widespread rot and leaks. He calls unsuccessfully for an action plan.

September 1999: Dr John Kinnonmonth, chairman of the committee which approved untreated timber, calls for the decision to be reviewed.

October 1999: Greg O'Sullivan warns BIA of "Cave Creek" disaster over rotting decks and balconies.

November 1999: Philip O'Sullivan sends the BIA graphic pictures of a rotting balcony.

May 2000: Forest Research scientist Mick Hedley publishes research showing boric treated timber resists rot but untreated timber does not - contrary to industry advertising.

November 2000: Philip O'Sullivan again warns of a widespread, significant problem in modern buildings and urges the use of treated timber or wall cavities to drain leaks. Again his advice is not accepted.

June 2001: The Herald reveals huge industry concern over the problem.

March 2002: An independent inquiry begins, chaired by former State Services Commissioner Don Hunn.

May 2002: The inquiry warns in its interim report of a potential "major systemic breakdown across the industry".

July 2002: The BIA admits it is considering a return to treated timber.

August 2002: Based on the inquiry team's strong recommendation, the BIA issues a public safety warning over rotting balconies.

September 2002: The Hunn report finds clear evidence of a significant and growing problem. It predicts a $240 million repair bill.

rui888888

http://www.standards.co.nz/touch ... -treatment-regimes/
Key historical dates for timber treatment regimes

01 October 2013


Wet boric or boron salts timber treatments were first introduced in 1952 – before that, native timber and some of the first radiata pine framing was used untreated. From 11 September 1995, NZS 3602:1995 Timber and wood-based products for use in building allowed the use of untreated timber for framing provided it was kiln-dried and that its in-service moisture content did not exceed 18%. The change in the standard was cited in Building Code compliance document B2/AS1 on 28 February 1998. (Any use of untreated kiln-dried timber before this would have to have been consented as an Alternative Solution.)

On 9 March 2003, the Building Industry Authority (BIA – the forerunner to both MBIE and DBH) issued BIA directive 23, which required that treated timber be used for all consents issued from 1 April 2004. Consents already issued that included use of untreated timber remained valid as long as the buildings were completed before 1 April 2005.

In April 2011, Amendment 7 to B2/AS1 further amended the treatment requirements of NZS 3602 to allow the use of H1.2 boron-treated radiata pine and Douglas fir framing within a closed space, except for cantilevered balcony floor joists and associated enclosed balcony wall framing where H3.2-treated timber was required. The amendment allowed the use of untreated Douglas fir in buildings with very low weathertightness risk.

Summarised from BRANZ Guideline September 2013.
根据上面文章的说法， 是不是1952年前建的房子， 所用的木头框架， 也是 untreated？ 那1952年前的房子， 风险也很大了？

adamzhou

直接买cedar木rimu木的不就好了，这个木头自带防腐，买了又结实又美观

love_3_month

songinator 发表于 2016-2-18 13:29
贫僧不想炒房  我只是作为一个工程师的习惯喜欢实事求是

好了我也不用纠结了，出了比cv高25%房东还是不接，还有几万差距，谈不拢就算啦

songinator

NewLynnHse 发表于 2016-2-18 12:26
大师请息怒，其实我真的觉得你可以考虑专门去炒plaster房子，真的

贫僧不想炒房  我只是作为一个工程师的习惯喜欢实事求是

NewLynnHse

songinator 发表于 2016-2-18 09:42
你哪只眼睛看到我只回plaster的帖子？  
到是有些人  一有plaster的帖子就high tide了
三月 大猫还有很多 ...

大师请息怒，其实我真的觉得你可以考虑专门去炒plaster房子，真的

songinator

love_3_month 发表于 2016-2-17 22:17
请高手看看这个里面有提到treat untreat 吗。。。。。。

回三月

6楼的理解蛮好    frank Xing告诉过我 他大概05-06年见过03-04年的房子两年新的砖房   里面木头烂的一塌糊涂         

回答你的问题： 图纸没有提到treated 提到了cavity  如果是一层砖房 risk少很多  砖房应该都有cavity和通风口（砖缝之间）
砖墙外墙不易漏水  一层的话也没有一层二层接口处漏水的隐患  而且你做了building report显示建房以来应该没有施工不合理的地方（20年没有大进水） 但不100%排除以后其他detail的地方漏水 结论是very low risk   我认为你这个情况在那期间的房子里属于最低risk的category了



这房如果是treated的话 可以说没有烂木头的risk了  2010年的ccc 最好问下是为什么10年才拿到
按道理说2010年issue的ccc应该需要满足当时的building regulation 也就是treated timber

songinator

NewLynnHse 发表于 2016-2-18 08:20
唐僧只对plaster有兴趣

你哪只眼睛看到我只回plaster的帖子？  
到是有些人  一有plaster的帖子就high tide了
三月 大猫还有很多人都比你客观地多  希望你作为版主不要太激进  做好本职工作 管好论坛   保持公正客观 少传谣

NewLynnHse

love_3_month 发表于 2016-2-18 08:30
唐僧呢。。。。。。

唐僧只对plaster有兴趣

Archer_xlz

love_3_month 发表于 2016-2-18 07:45
你知道的太多了。。。。。

我是菜鸟，所以整天猫在这里学习啊，刚好跟我关注的很像而已

love_3_month

Archer_xlz 发表于 2016-2-18 08:34
听起来好像是一个今天拍卖的房子，我猜的~

你知道的太多了。。。。。

Archer_xlz

听起来好像是一个今天拍卖的房子，我猜的~

love_3_month

唐僧呢。。。。。。

love_3_month

nz大猫 发表于 2016-2-18 00:24
按当前建筑业内认识，1997-2004是untreated使用最为集中的时期， 换句话，碰到的几率远超过其他时期；

...

我也这么想。。。。痛苦啊，估计要放弃了。。。。买错了可就是好几十万的损失啊

nz大猫

love_3_month 发表于 2016-2-18 00:11
大神出现！

请问一下，我才发现这个房子97/98造好的，但是某种原因我也不知道，ccc是2010年发的。这样说 ...

按当前建筑业内认识，1997-2004是untreated使用最为集中的时期， 换句话，碰到的几率远超过其他时期；

至于后来n年以后由于某种不知道的原因拿了ccc，我认为不能证明什么。通常已建成的部分，符合之前code即可，正在建的，未建的，受当前code控制。如果发生旧的部分改建，那才要按新的code执行。所以ccc不能证明什么。

love_3_month

nz大猫 发表于 2016-2-17 23:52
楼主甚有远见，所虑之问题以后会随着问题显现而逐渐为社会所认识。

大神出现！

请问一下，我才发现这个房子97/98造好的，但是某种原因我也不知道，ccc是2010年发的。这样说，是不是ccc发的时候证明了它符合2010当时的规定，也就是说房子Treated 过？

谢谢你啦！