CRIMINAL penalties for non-permitted buildings!

[Seeb]

How did Yurts get through the process?

[Forester]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peteadams

As one example, Rob Tucker's "truly durable" Castleblock building materials which are routinely code approved here indicate that change is already here.

---

Is it code-approved, or does it get accepted by an engineer-stamped variance? There's a big difference.

Also, from what little of the method I could gather on its web site, it uses rebar-reinforced concrete, which is one of the most energy-intensive and non-durable materials out there. It's nice to have an alternative to wood, but over a couple of decades, the rebar will rust, expand and compromise the integrity of the very concrete it's meant to reinforce. That's why you always hear stories of America's infrastructure crumbling. It's all made out of concrete.

Other alternatives like rammed earth need to be accepted by code, and I know from my experience that they are not.

[Rob Tucker]

My products are all code approved, tested and certified and only one of them uses rebar.

Most every code I've seen had somewhere in it a clause along the line of:

"Nothing in this code shall disallow alternative materials or methods."

That phrase, or something like it, puts the issue squarely in the hands of the local building department. Generally that means the building department will put responsibility on any structural engineer who will sign off on it.

[Seeb]

Like to see one bridge made out of rammed earth

[Forester]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker
Generally that means the building department will put responsibility on any structural engineer who will sign off on it.

---

Thereby submitting it to the difficulties I mentioned above. For the record, from what I can garner, your method sounds like a great alternative to standard housing. I just wish more alternatives were explicitly code-approved so that they could be so straightforwardly permitted.

quote:

---

Like to see one bridge made out of rammed earth

---

My focus here has been on housing. Rammed earth makes excellent housing.

Regarding infrastructure, I should have been more specific. "Concrete" covers an enormous range of mixtures. My problem, primarily, is with concrete that relies on either Portland or asphalt cement.

[Seeb]

The strength of Rammed earth depends on the dirt you're using and very much on the person doing the packing and I don't know if there is any nondestructive way to test the finished product.
I do know of one person that is just finishing a large permitted Rammed earth house in orchid land. But they did or supervised every minute of the project.

Highway concrete is subject to water, salt, 100 degree temperature changes and constant motion ( stand on an large bridge with traffic on it)

[Forester]

Did they use superadobe or hyperadobe? I feel like those would be pretty easy to test because if the person packed it correctly, then once cured, those things are rock hard. Put some stress on it; if there's no deflection, the building passes.

Roman concrete breakwaters in Italy have held up under saltwater wave action for 2,000 years. Portland cement is used for its speed of hardening, not for its durability.

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/06/0...-concrete/

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker

Carol is making a very valid point. Home building rarely if ever affects only the initial home builder. Codes originated from a need to protect the occupants (tenants or owners) and future occupants. It is a fact that many people will build as cheaply as possible if free to do so and unfortunately that means safety is often a casualty of the profit motive.

Interestingly a lot of people think the "building code" is telling them how to build their home... the codes actually are telling the the lowest standard of construction allowed by law.

---

Really that's it? Codes have nothing to do with lobbyists who work for companies pushing their product on us? Interesting..

[VancouverIslander]

Actually an awful lot of the code is pushed by the insurance companies who would rather have us pay hundreds of billions in extra building costs so they can save a few billion in claims costs. But I bet those hundreds of billions that go to the building industry probably fund more than their fair share of lobbyists.

[kalakoa]

Code requirements are the leveraged interaction of insurance companies, banks, and tradespeople.

I grant that it's "necessary" to protect neighbors and future occupants, but the codes are somewhat less effective when structures and uses thereof can be "grandfathered" against both future revisions as well as the intent of their original provisions. Downtown Pahoa is an excellent example of meaningless codes and/or lack of enforcement.

I'm partial to the idea of an opt-out mechanism which includes recording the "non-permitted" status on the TMK, potential future buyers can perform their own due-diligence and make an informed decision.