Cob Codes

Thu Jun 11 12:31:11 CDT 1998

Help - Is there a way to send what you have to say so it's more readable?
the only way my server will display it even this well is in "reply mode"
and that ain't purty!:

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Steve Berlant wrote:

> <html>
> Hello everyone.<br>
> <br>
> There is some code phobia regarding cob.  As an attorney and a
> natural building educator, I would like to dispel it. <br>
> <br>
> The latest comments on my cob codes posting were as follows:<br>
> <br>
> <div align="center">
> <I find that they [The 3 jurisdictions which specifically include cob
> as a building system] consist primarily of descriptions of a multitude of
> ASTM, UBC, etc. materials specifications and standards that need years
> and $$$ for formal testing procedures to "prove" that one's
> materials "meet code."  Either that or a friendly building
> official is needed to let such formally stated requirements pass and look
> the other way...><br>
> <br>
> </div>
> I'd first like to respond to these statements by saying that I feel that
> it is very exciting that cob is recognized as a legitimate building
> system in at least 3 building codes in the United States.  This is a
> very important first step in legitimizing cob building in this
> country.  I have had more than one building official laugh when the
> word "cob" was mentioned.  Being able to show such an
> official that there are adobe building codes [especially in major
> metropolitan ccommunities] that specifically allow cob construction is a
> huge credibility booster.  <br>
> <br>
> Cob construction goes by many names.  The 3 Arizona codes refer to
> cob as puddled adobe.  I prefer the term monolithic adobe myself
> instead of "cob" or "puddled adobe" since these two
> terms often lead to quick judgements and prejudice by some uninformed
> persons.<br>
> <br>
> The 3 adobe/cob codes are more like performance based codes and do not
> specify exactly how one is to build with cob other than the usual wall
> height to thickness formulas, use of lintels, buttressing and other
> basics of adobe construction.  Do not forget that cob is
> adobe.  It is just one big piece of adobe ( and a lot more fun to
> work with too!)  <br>
> <br>
> Any adobe construction would be required to show "prove" 
> that the earthen building materials meet standard compression and modulus
> of elasticity tests.  If you made your own bricks, you would be
> responsible for having the tests done.  If you purchased the bricks
> at an adobe yard, the yard would have the tests done for you. 
> <u>These tests are easy, fast and not expensive. </u> Any certified
> engineering laboratory can do them.  It makes sense to test the
> materials to make sure that they can hold the weight of the structure's
> walls and roof.  We do not need any cob buildings falling down and
> hurting anyone.  That would be the end of cob construction in
> permitted areas in this country.<br>
> <br>
> I also prefer that the codes do not set stringent restrictions
> [prescriptive standards] on exactly how one must prepare the cob and
> apply it to the wall.  As long as the material (cob) is structurally
> suitable for construction purposes and the building's design meets the
> adobe code provisions, the building department will be
> pleased.   Standard building practice for adobe construction is
> set forth in the codes.  Any reasonably built cob structure can meet
> these requirements. There is no reason that a "friendly building
> official" should need to "look the other way". <br>
> <br>
> I hope that this helps to clear things up.  You can visit my web
> site to see the full "cob" code.  I also discuss this in
> more detail in my latest books on natural building which are also
> available only at the web site.  I have written a series of 3 books
> called <u>The Natural Builder, </u>one book is on earthen construction,
> one on cob construction and one on natural plasters.<br>
> <br>
> Have fun cobbing!<br>
> <br>
> Steve Berlant<br>
> <a href="http://www.naturalbuilder.com/" eudora="autourl">www.naturalbuilder.com</a></html>

I agree reguarding your overall positive take on codes and cob.  I've
found that if treated positively, like human beings just trying to do
their jobs and not stick their neck on the chopping block for some
hairbrained technique they don't understand, most code folks will give a
well thought out but "unusual" design a chance.  Early in the process, I
like to meet with the official (if the department is big enough, ask if
they have one person who specializes in "alternaive" building) and explain
just what it is I am trying to accomplish, how and why and ask what their
areas of concern might be.  If there are some and they seem not to be
resolvable in the way I've envisioned, I ask how they would suggest doing
it.  Often their suggestions are most reasonable and sometimes more
lenient than I would have dared ask for.  If they suggest it, they'll
approve it and when it's their idea, they feel respected and included in
the process and that makes for continuing good working relationships.  

Using this approach, one recent project encorporating earth-sheltering,
strawbale, rammed earth, soil cement, annualized indirect gain thermo-
syphon solar heating and recycled materials, when actually submited for 
permit, was approved in less than a day, when conventional designs usually
take about 3 or 4.  This was more interesting to them than the run-of-the-
mill stuff and they were anticipating it, so they put it on the top of the
stack and did it first!  And they seem to find it refreshing to have some
one come in with something a little different, unaccompanied be a big chip
on the shoulder! Just a thought - Don

Rethink Your Life! Finance, health, lifestyle, environment, philosophy	The Work of Art and The Art of Work Kiko Denzer on Art