Repost of Cob Codes

[Steve Berlant]

Hello everyone.  I was told that my last post was unreadable by some of
your systems so I'm sending it again. 



There is some code phobia regarding cob.  As an attorney and a natural
building educator, I would like to dispel it. 

The latest comments on my cob codes posting were as follows:

<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...>


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.  

Cob construction goes by many names.  The 3 Arizona codes refer to cob as
puddled adobe.  [I have documented this in my book.]  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.

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!)  

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.  These tests are easy, fast and not
expensive. 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.

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". 

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 The Natural Builder, one book is on
earthen construction, one on cob construction and one on natural plasters.

Have fun cobbing!

Steve Berlant

www.naturalbuilder.com