09-11-2023, 03:47 AM
If you are not going to ask for approval then you can try anything you want.. If you ARE asking for building code approval, what Rob says rings true. You are not going to build with local timber and get it approved.
Various types of earth and stone masonry are the most common building materials in developing countries but when an earthquake hits, thousands die. Deaths are at least an order of magnitude less in areas with wood and modern steel reinforced construction. The 2010 quake in Haiti killed 200,000 people, most crushed in the rubble of poorly built masonry buildings (including the palace) but a properly built tele-communications building just down the road survived well. In northern India there is a traditional form of architecture that is a sort of alternating layers of logs and stone rubble and the form of the buildings is tall and skinny towers. Those still standing today have survived hundreds of years in a seismically active region. How? Part of the answer is the massive timbers built in which are no longer available due to deforestation. Also it must be drier there since I have seen ohia logs rot in 5 years if left on the ground in the rain.
Then there's Machu Pichu which is dry stacked stone and has survived hundreds of years in earthquake country.
That's cool and all but the knowledge and skills to do that are gone and the bldg dept wouldn't care anyway. I can't say that I blame them as the average DIY builder in Puna would do just as bad a job here as they do throughout the rest of the developing world.
Personally I favor concrete block with lots of reinforcement and the cores poured solid. That could be code approved. For non-code approved, some kind of pole barn if you can avoid burying the timber poles in the wet ground. The Hawaiians did it somehow. A quick search on the internet shows single story structures with stone foundations and walls that come up only waist high and are thus not likely to fall on the occupants.
Various types of earth and stone masonry are the most common building materials in developing countries but when an earthquake hits, thousands die. Deaths are at least an order of magnitude less in areas with wood and modern steel reinforced construction. The 2010 quake in Haiti killed 200,000 people, most crushed in the rubble of poorly built masonry buildings (including the palace) but a properly built tele-communications building just down the road survived well. In northern India there is a traditional form of architecture that is a sort of alternating layers of logs and stone rubble and the form of the buildings is tall and skinny towers. Those still standing today have survived hundreds of years in a seismically active region. How? Part of the answer is the massive timbers built in which are no longer available due to deforestation. Also it must be drier there since I have seen ohia logs rot in 5 years if left on the ground in the rain.
Then there's Machu Pichu which is dry stacked stone and has survived hundreds of years in earthquake country.
That's cool and all but the knowledge and skills to do that are gone and the bldg dept wouldn't care anyway. I can't say that I blame them as the average DIY builder in Puna would do just as bad a job here as they do throughout the rest of the developing world.
Personally I favor concrete block with lots of reinforcement and the cores poured solid. That could be code approved. For non-code approved, some kind of pole barn if you can avoid burying the timber poles in the wet ground. The Hawaiians did it somehow. A quick search on the internet shows single story structures with stone foundations and walls that come up only waist high and are thus not likely to fall on the occupants.