Cob Codes

[Craig Hull]

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, John Schinnerer wrote:

> 	In reading these codes, I find that they 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...

I know that when we lived in Denver the building code allowed for the use
of techniques or matterials not specificly allowed by the code if approved
by a technical review. They charged $50 to conduct the review. What I
heard from people using this process was that the cost and hassle of
providing documentation could be major if wanting to use something for
which no existing research was available, but that they were good about
accepting existing studies. I even know of times when the inspectors would
help an owner builder find the evidence they needed and/or suggest plan
changes that would simplify approval. They would also require a engineer's
sign off on any plans involving structural matterials or techniques which
the inspectors were not comfortably familiar with.

It is my understanding that while most often it doesn't work this well,
this is the intent of the standard building codes.