When dealing with Adobe you need to have a pair of hip boots to wade through the claims.
The reality is that when earthquakes are significant, and this is not just limited to California, an adobe building will not perform as well as other types of construction. You can reduce the damage by following many of the recommendations in the linked article but do not assume that it will provide the level of performance that you expect out of a new building.
IBC Section 104.11 requires that the performance of a new system be equivalent to that intended by the code. I would understand this to mean the level of performance of typical new buildings and not the performance associated with proscriptive adobe provisions.
The rules for the use of adobe are for the most part prescriptive and are inadequate when the building or elements of the building need to be justified by engineering calculations.
Not being a member of EERI I was not able to retrieve a copy of the article. Still EERI provides articles of interest but is not in the business of adopting standards or endorsing design provisions.
The NM provisions seem to focus on how to make adobe better but do not provide assurance of the level of performance to be expected.
In the linked article reference is made to California Codes but you will find those provisions in the IBC. Note also that in California Adobe construction is prohibited in hospitals and I suspect public schools and essential service buildings. From observation adobe construction in California is very rare for new construction.
Given that the provisions are in the IBC which served as the basis for the California codes why did the author feel the need to refer to them as the California provisions and not the IBC provisions.
The reality is that when earthquakes are significant, and this is not just limited to California, an adobe building will not perform as well as other types of construction. You can reduce the damage by following many of the recommendations in the linked article but do not assume that it will provide the level of performance that you expect out of a new building.
IBC Section 104.11 requires that the performance of a new system be equivalent to that intended by the code. I would understand this to mean the level of performance of typical new buildings and not the performance associated with proscriptive adobe provisions.
The rules for the use of adobe are for the most part prescriptive and are inadequate when the building or elements of the building need to be justified by engineering calculations.
Not being a member of EERI I was not able to retrieve a copy of the article. Still EERI provides articles of interest but is not in the business of adopting standards or endorsing design provisions.
The NM provisions seem to focus on how to make adobe better but do not provide assurance of the level of performance to be expected.
In the linked article reference is made to California Codes but you will find those provisions in the IBC. Note also that in California Adobe construction is prohibited in hospitals and I suspect public schools and essential service buildings. From observation adobe construction in California is very rare for new construction.
Given that the provisions are in the IBC which served as the basis for the California codes why did the author feel the need to refer to them as the California provisions and not the IBC provisions.