Cob: clay mortar &stucco question

[John Fordice]

Charmaine,
A cautionary point.  The example of the gold country building, while
indicative of possibility, is perhaps a bit of an abstraction from a
broader seismic condition view.  I feel reluctant to say based on an
isolated example that  clay mortared masonry is a sound use in earthquake
country.  Base isolation is, I believe, a new solution to helping buildings

survive earthquakes.  It seems that a foundation that absorbs the forces of

an earthquake will work if the base of the building stays intact.  I wonder

that a clay / stone foundation ( and possibly dry stacked as well ) in some

conditions could be severely enough stressed by an earthquake that it would

start to come apart.  In this case, there would be a danger of failure of
the foundation and the thus supported building.  We need to exercise, I
feel, a bit of caution about this until it can be shown to survive and
earthquake in all locations / constructions and conditions.

I feel like a bit of a broken record to keep saying this, but a thorough
testing of natural building systems is really called for.  If all the
wonderful things & ways of using natural materials that we want and realize

need to happen are to be, this must be done.  If we as natural builders
don't do this, we keep ourselves and natural building marginalized.  We are

like fleas on a dinosaur.  We've got to wake up the dino before it dies and

takes us with it.
john fordice



Charmaine R Taylor wrote:

> Good point Pat, my reference tho is for the rebar/rod reinforcement in
> the codes here in CA...in other words you could not build this now as it
> would be considered unsafe..and yet..it stands because the clay absorbs,
> and the stones meld well..
>
> like the bunblebee that is not aware it is areodynamically too big to
> fly on small wings, it flies anyway  : >
>
> these buildings stand because the ancient methods of building work,
>
> Charmaine