# Compressed Earth Blocks!!!



## Buelligan (Apr 12, 2013)

Today we were presented with a question about the use of Compressed Earth Blocks. The builder claims that these are approved and accepted in New Mexico. From what we can gather he will be using on site earth to manufacture the blocks with equipment he owns. These "blocks" will be used to construct the walls above grade to build houses and barns. Are any of you familiar with this process and what "_approved_" agency can do the testing? We have not seen anything like this here in West Virginia before. So any guidance would be very helpful. Thanks, Mike


----------



## mark handler (Apr 12, 2013)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=adobe%20construction%20code&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CD8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fadobeisnotsoftware.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F10%2F2011-Summary-of-California-Adobe-Regulation.pdf&ei=hFVoUYzpF8GriQLNpoH4CA&usg=AFQjCNG5dYUdABZNDhfqx8uaMyl7kGl_OQ&bvm=bv.45175338,d.cGE

This link is for CA but might help

It is basically adobe construction


----------



## Buelligan (Apr 12, 2013)

Thank you Mark. That gives us an idea which direction to go. We had the term adobe but just were not familiar with it in the codes. The alternative materials section states that it is tested by an "approved" agency. Just wondering what qualifies as an "approved" agency for Adobe structures.

R104.11.1 Tests.

Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods, the building official shall have the authority to require tests as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction . Test methods shall be as specified in this code or by other recognized test standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test methods, the building official shall approve the testing procedures. *Tests shall be performed by an approved agency*. Reports of such tests shall be retained by the building official for the period required for retention of public records.


----------



## north star (Apr 12, 2013)

*~ : ~*

Buelligan,

I did an elementary search on the internet and found a

code from New Mexico, ...on compressed earth blocks

[ CEB's ]....See the link: *Compressed Earth Block Building Code*

I do not know the date on it!

*~ : ~*


----------



## Mark K (Apr 12, 2013)

Adobe construction like unreinforced masonry construction performs poorly in earthquakes.  Thus  it very likely does not provide the equivalent performance that the code would provide and thus would not be acceptable as an alternate method of construction.

Attempting to justify this type of construction by means of tests is tricky and unless you are very familiar with the basis of the seismic provisions you should consult with an expert.  Statis tests are not adequate.  There are good reasons why this type of construction are not addressed in the seismic codes.


----------



## Rio (Apr 13, 2013)

The last time we were looking into adobe the regs required that they be stabilized with asphalt to make them more weather resistant and also had a minimum rebar schedule. That was in California but I'd bet  there's no jurisdiction in any seismic area of the United States, or Mexico for that matter, that is going to allow for non reinforced masonry structures.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 13, 2013)

Rio said:
			
		

> ...I'd bet  there's no jurisdiction in any seismic area of the United States, or Mexico for that matter, that is going to allow for non reinforced masonry structures.


http://adobeisnotsoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/2011-Summary-of-California-Adobe-Regulation.pdf


----------



## Rio (Apr 13, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> http://adobeisnotsoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/2011-Summary-of-California-Adobe-Regulation.pdf


From one the above information sheets

In practice,

*incorporating reinforcing required to satisfy seismic design requirements* suggests that wall construction be double-

wythe (two bricks thick) with an adobe mortar packed cavity *to allow for vertical reinforcing*.

The seismic design requirement is also going to require horizontal reinforcement at some interval...................


----------



## mark handler (Apr 13, 2013)

Rio said:
			
		

> From one the above information sheetsIn practice, *incorporating reinforcing required to satisfy seismic design requirements* suggests that wall construction be double-wythe (two bricks thick) with an adobe mortar packed cavity *to allow for vertical reinforcing*. The seismic design requirement is also going to require horizontal reinforcement at some interval...................


Yes, and?

You and Mark K were implying that Adobe Structures are, non reinforced masonry structures. And they are not.

Instead saying it can't be done, I provided how it can be done


----------



## Uncle Bob (Apr 14, 2013)

You left out a very important part of R104.11.  (excerpt) An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code.

It is up to the building official whether or not to allow the alternative material, design or method of construction.  Unfortunately the building official also takes responsibility for the alternative material, design or method of construction.  

Not a good idea,

Uncle Bob


----------



## Mark K (Apr 14, 2013)

I looked at the document Mark handler referred us to and have the following concerns.

The types of construction described in Chapter 6 of the IBC/CBC has to do with fire resistant.  It is not relevant when the question has to do with structural design criteria such as seismic resistance.

Reference is made to filling the space around the reinforcing with adobe mortar raises the question of what design procedure to use since I cannot find any place where the CBC addresses how you calculate strengths for this type of construction.  If you fill the space with concrete then you have a concrete wall with adobe forms that you leave in place.

IBC Section 2109.1.1 makes it clear that empirical design of masonry is subject to Section 5.1.2 of the masonry design code.  The masonry code makes it clear that empirically designed masonry does not apply to the design or construction of masonry for structures in Seismic Design Categories D, E, or F and does not apply to the design of the seismic-force-resisting system for structures in Seismic Design Categories B or C.  Further ASCE 7 does not recognize adobe construction as one of the recognized lateral force resisting systems.

The net result is that adobe construction is not feasible in much of California.

While building officials often allow things that defy explanation, if one was to apply IBC Section 104.11 as it is written you would realize that it is not feasible to show equivalence to the intent of the code.

Even if you complied with the provisions in section 2109 I would expect more damage in moderate to large earthquakes than you would expect for other types of construction.

In California the state licensing laws would require that adobe construction be designed by an engineer or architect contrary to what is implied by the analysis.  I would recommend any architect who is not very competent in structural design not undertake such a design on his own.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 14, 2013)

Why are we so concerned with CA, the OP is for West Virginia.


----------



## Rio (Apr 14, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Yes, and?You and Mark K were implying that Adobe Structures are, non reinforced masonry structures. And they are not.
> 
> Instead saying it can't be done, I provided how it can be done


_I didn't and wasn't implying  that adobe structures are non reinforced masonry structures although there have been many adobe structures that are.  I was pointing out that under current building codes it was going to be necessary to put in some steel;  I was also pointing out that it's a common requirement to stabilize the adobe block in some fashion, usually with asphalt, meaning that it's probably not going to be a go to use sun dried only blocks._


----------



## Architect1281 (Apr 14, 2013)

When Posed with such questions preffeaced by "we do it like this in New York all the time" I casually instruct them to apply for the permits there.

or if they are beyond prescriptive code then have a LOCAL engineer provide new or Peer Review of outside engineering


----------



## mark handler (Apr 14, 2013)

I actually have done an "adobe" retrofit after the "northridge" earthquake. We created a steel tube frame for the structure.The adobe, became non-bearing "infill".


----------



## brudgers (Apr 16, 2013)

Adobe in a temperate climate? Good luck with that.


----------



## Buelligan (Apr 16, 2013)

Thanks everyone for your responses. Seems we have some homework to do. Well the BO does anyway.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Apr 17, 2013)

Adobe may be good in the arid Southwest, but it is likely to turn into a mudpile in the east.  At the minimum it needs wide roof overhangs, a weathertight coating that isn't too rigid (portland cement stucco is too rigid and can damage the adobes), good slopes all around to divert water, and protection from ground moisture (rising damp) to have any chance of standing more than a few years.  Seismic shouldn't be a major concern in most of W Va.


----------



## DRP (Apr 20, 2013)

A lime plaster is fairly common on old work. I've seen it claimed that it is dry where portland is wet, that it can "heal" by moving lime into a small crack, and that it gets stronger with age as the lime absorbs co2 and reverts back to limestone.Old timberfarmes often formed the structural frame but were infilled with a wattle and daub infill finished with a lime render. If it has a frame bearing the load the infill could about be cheerios.


----------



## Jamie Somma (Aug 30, 2018)

Just want to clarify a point I think is important for this (now dated) thread:  Compressed Earth Block is not the same as Adobe Brick and when properly manufactured has very different properties and can exceed the ASTM C90 standard for Concrete Masonry Units.  They are also sometimes referred to as Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks to more accurately reflect that they are stabilized with from 5-10% cement or lime.  Many of the hydraulic molds that are manufactured for making CEBs include interlocking geometries with voids for horizontal and vertical rebar stabilization, as well as plumbing and electrical conduit.  See https://dwellearth.com/ for more information on the Vermeer BP714 Earth Block system.  New Zealand has a building standard for Compressed Earth Block and they are on the seismic ring of fire.


----------



## cda (Aug 30, 2018)

Jamie Somma said:


> Just want to clarify a point I think is important for this (now dated) thread:  Compressed Earth Block is not the same as Adobe Brick and when properly manufactured has very different properties and can exceed the ASTM C90 standard for Concrete Masonry Units.  They are also sometimes referred to as Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks to more accurately reflect that they are stabilized with from 5-10% cement or lime.  Many of the hydraulic molds that are manufactured for making CEBs include interlocking geometries with voids for horizontal and vertical rebar stabilization, as well as plumbing and electrical conduit.  See https://dwellearth.com/ for more information on the Vermeer BP714 Earth Block system.  New Zealand has a building standard for Compressed Earth Block and they are on the seismic ring of fire.




Welcome

My wife thinks they should change the name to "Nelson"  as in Willie


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 30, 2018)

Have them get plans designed by an engineer or architect if they can fine one and then go from there.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 31, 2018)

Thank you Jamie. Names can often mislead.
What are Spanis buildings in St. Augustine built of ?


----------

