Cob: RE: Cob codes, etc.

[John Schinnerer]

Aloha,

-----Original Message-----
From: SANCO Enterprises <Paul & Mary Salas>
>John, I could respond in a very indepth manner to the "less than optimum"
>(borrowed form John Fordice) manner in which you view accepted test
practices,
>however in fairness to others, I will be brief.

I don't understand "...in fairness to others..." as an excuse for not
responding in depth.  Please respond in depth whenever you like (unless
others say they think it's unfair).  And please call me dumb if you feel the
need to.  If I were that thin-skinned I wouldn't be on this list... ;-)  My
main point was:

"So, if we're going to work for codes and whatnot, I suggest we work for
relevant testing of cob as actually used in actual structures, not abstract
testing of bits and pieces to satisfy some existing test methodology for
materials used in quite different ways."

In other words, if there are to be codes for cob I'd prefer codes that
empower individuals to build their own locally appropriate shelter from
local materials with a minimum of mechanization.  From your posts thus far
you appear to me to favor mechanized and industrial-scale methods, so
perhaps we differ in our basic intents in that area.

>Unless a person has a strong civil engineering or extensive construction
>background, one can be lead to believe that ASTM tests, codes and building
>standards are nonsense and should be done away with. 

In other words, only members of the club that makes the rules are qualified
to comment on the rules and everyone else (like Copernicus, Einstein,
Columbus, etc.) can't possibly have anything useful to offer.  I assume you
assume I have no engineering or construction background or experience?

I'm not saying they're nonsense and should be done away with.  I'm saying
the systems in place for testing, codes and code enforcement need lots of
critical examination and perhaps re-design, rather than blind acceptance,
relative to cob and other natural building materials and methods (and, I
would say, relative to more accepted materials and methods as well).

I would love to see regional and vernacular cob "codes" evolve so that
knowledgeable locals could assist others in constructing safe and
appropriate shelter from primarily local materials.  I'd rather not see
"natural building" materials force-fitted into a globalized system of
industrialized commodity housing production.

>Another major issue is how to
>encompass earthen materials as a whole, i.e., cob, adobe, rammed earth,
puddled
>earth, monolithic adobe, pneumatically applied earth, soil bags, earth
ceramic
>firing, soil cement and others.   The commonality is all these methods is
that
>they all use earth as the base material.  Is it necessary to have a
different
>code and a different standard for each?  I say NO !!!!

I would certainly not lump them together (any pun is a good pun, I say...
;-) under one set of tests or standards, because they all use earth in
different manners and result in structural materials with different
strengths and weaknesses suited for different applications, locations and
climates.  This manner of generalizing ("they all use earth") seems to lead
to lowest-common-denominator results like the UBC (Universal Building Code),
applied without thought (because bureaucrats aren't paid to think) across
cultures and climates it is totally inappropriate for.

>You are very incorrect in your assumption that cob and earthen materials
are not
>tested in the manner that they are used. Not only my work but that of Dr.
Fern,
>Paul G. McHenry and many, many others have documented the performance of
rammed,
>earth, adobe and. puddled earth (cob).

Where can I see info on the type of tests done and the conclusions reached?
I'd need some details beyond what you've offered here to determine what sort
of "performance" has been documented.  You see, it's not testing per se that
I question, but the relevance of any particular testing done in a laboratory
(and handed off to a bureaucracy for enforcement) to real shelter needs of
real people.  They may be quite relevant, or they may not, and I am the sort
of person who will want to find out for myself.

John Schinnerer