Developing new building materials and construction methods

[Tylor B.]

All,

I'm interested in investing in a technology within the real estate space. It is very early stage. It utilizes new materials and new methods for constructing the envelope of a house in a very environmentally friendly way. 

My technical background helps me understand why it could build a great house. However, I have no construction experience. I am mostly concerned about the various permits and codes that go along with constructing a building/home. How strict are the regulations on new materials? What about regulations on new construction methods? 

Is there anything I may be missing? Is there anyone here who has experience in investing in technologies in this space?

Thanks!

[Matt Devincenzo]

@Tylor B. I work in CA as a land use/planning and site Civil Engineer (think roads, grading, sewer lines, water lines, curb and gutter, storm water drainage ect.) 

When you're looking to build you can in theory get lots of "non-traditional" technologies approved. We do it all the time, as we have to meet new storm water requirements which often lead us to new solutions with emerging technologies. Or we do it when our specific conditions don't fall into the "normal" category, we can still propose a design that will work we just have to do more design calculations and "show our work" for the math behind it.

The problem becomes not that we can't do it, but that every new item we propose has a level of scrutiny it undergoes before it will be approved. The more familiar a product or way it is used is to the building department the easier it is for them to look at your proposed design and say "yeah that works" and give it an approval. The other part of that is how critical is the product/process to the overall structural integrity....what is the risk if it fails. 

Proposing pervious concrete (that ends up failing) for a residential driveway, may mean a couple inches of minor flooding in someone's yard or it prematurely fails and disintegrates under the traffic loads. The end result is fairly minor and may at worst end up in a lawsuit against the builder to replace the item. Which is a big deal obviously, but was a calculated risk on the developers part. The same item proposed in a fire access lane that fails under the weight of a fire truck responding to a call, could mean a lawsuit for the death of a person. This exact scenario is why the City where I work will not allow pervious pavement in any fire access areas, even though those pavements by design should be able to hold up to the weight of the fire truck.

Building codes specify certain things for existing materials and technology, so getting an approval is as simple as meeting those criteria. So say exterior sheathing: You can look up on the 2013 CBC and see that it needs to meet some specific wind load and testing standard. Those are all of the ASTM, ANSI ect testing criteria. So it says meet 100 MPH wind speed and ANSI 1234 which for plywood is a minimum of X/X" thick sheathing fastened with X nails every X" OR fastened with Y staples every Y". If I design that then the approval is pretty simple. If I wanted to propose a new type of structural sheathing as long as I can demonstrate that it meets the wind loan and underlying testing standard then I stand a chance of getting it approved.

So a big part of this is how similar or dissimilar is it to an existing product? If you're proposing wood frame construction with a hemp fibre sheathing the hurdles to show that it will meet that testing standard may be fairly easy since OSB is in common use so you just need to show that it can meet that same criteria. If it is way out of the norm like a....recycled beer can wall bonded with a recycled plastic polymer (just the craziest thing I could think of right now) then you stand to have quite an expensive hurdle getting it tested and designed to pass scrutiny. 

The easiest will be your "means and methods" type stuff. The 3D printing type of technology shown before. Concrete poured in place walls are normal, so there it is just the method of placing the concrete that is different. So the structural integrity of the concrete and steel isn't in question, just whether or not placing it that way in somehow undermines it. Showing that it doesn't is an easier thing than showing that the material itself is suitable.