Talk:Rammed earth

Categories?
I'm wondering whether there should be a category called "sustainable technology" - but perhaps it would overlap too much with categories like Category:Appropriate technology & Category:Renewable energy. For the moment, I'll just use Category:Appropriate technology (which is a subcategory of Category:Development and Category:Sustainability).

In the cases of Rammed earth, Adobe & Dutch brick, I think they reasonably belong in Category:Appropriate technology. At the moment, though, the Appropriate technology aspect of these technologies is not developed in the articles. Anyway, feel free to make a different edit or suggestion.

btw, Mudbrick needs either a lot of work, or to be merged with the Adobe article.

(I posted this comment also on Talk:Adobe) --Singkong2005 03:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean. A friend of mine visited a rammed earth build in Scotland where the cold and rain had turned most of the site into a muddy quagmire. Given the (normally) high cost of labour in the UK, you could argue that it is most inappropriate technology here, but it still has the sustainability advantages.
 * Categorisation can get quite tricky in the fine details. You really need to find a group of like-minded editors to help sort out the best categorisation structure and then place articles appropriately. A good approach can be to setup a WikiProject on Green Building or the like, to help coordinate activity. Another thing to consider is that articles and list-type articles can also be a useful way of organising related articles and also have the advantage that subtleties can be explained along the way. For example, we don't appear to have an article on sustainable technology, which might be a good start. -- Solipsist 07:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Maybe the varying things I've read about lifespan of these materials reflects the different environments they were in.
 * I've started the sustainable technology article. --Singkong2005 03:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Green building section merger proposal
User:Lean greener has made significant contributions to the Rammed Earth Construction section of the Green building article. I suggest that that content would be better located here, with a paragraph left behind in the Green building article. Is there any agreement?

User:xxxMicrobexxx I started this article - ironically exactly 3 years ago to the day, March 8th 2004. It seems that the item at Green Building is pretty much a duplication of what is here with a few other pieces of information. Obviously it is preferable to have all the info in one place. Go for it.

With the support of User:xxxMicrobexxx above, User:Greener72 on the Green building talk page and User:Lean greener on his talk page, I have merged the Rammed earth section from Green building into this article.--Jrsnbarn 15:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Old buildings
I'd like examples of old buildings (with pics) still standing with discussion of how they aged. Has this been used for some interesting old palace or mosque or something like that? --84.20.17.84 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...
The current introduction says:
 * Rammed earth construction, also known as pisé de terre or simply pisé, is an age-old building method that has seen a revival in recent years as people seek low-impact building materials and natural building methods.

Isn't rammed earth construction, by definition, high-impact? :-D --Sneftel (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point, that is jarring, and a bit funny. To keep an encyclopedic tone in the intro, some other phrase, like "more environmentally correct" (although I don't like that phrase either) should be substituted. doncram (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree that this is a good point. Words have different meanings according to their contexts. That's why we know that "shaving off a few points" doesn't refer to literally using a razor, and this issue is still much less likely to cause confusion. The term low-impact here clearly refers to rammed earth's low impact on the environment as a green technology. Its use in this context obviously has nothing to do with how it is formed, even though the latter involves compressing or compacting earth, especially since neither of these processes relates directly to "impact", and only one of them even has a Latin root in common with this word. So "impact" and "compact" are cousins, but are far from synonymous, since compacting is roughly synonymous with compression, but "impact" is not. I see no reason to assume that anyone would confuse these usages here. Edits-to-improve (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias
This article extols the virtues of rammed earth without discussing its drawbacks or unsuitable uses to anything like the same extent. 128.232.228.174 (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume you know the concept of a wiki... Xxxmicrobexxx (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

To me this is a very biased article. In addition many biased claims lack citations too. I am adding the NPOV template to this article. --Stinkypie (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stinkypie: Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVD which says that 'The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies' Please state which claims are biased or lack citation and for what reasons. If you fail to justify your claim, please remove the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.167.196 (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If no justification for claims of bias are made by end of February 2009 I will be removing NPOV templates Xxxmicrobexxx (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

xxxmicrobrew, you're late! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.80 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. But done now Xxxmicrobexxx (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is quite an engrossing article, I was totally absorbed by the descriptions of rammed earth construction's strength, cheapness and environmentally friendly advantages. However I also say the article is fairly biased too. Particularly, sometimes the article seems to be stating rammed earth with cement combinations are inferior, and also says rammed earth is looked down upon compared to more 'modern' materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.30.245 (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The examples of rammed-earth structures are drawn almost entirely from North America and the same goes for the studies cited. I have included a reference to Craterre in the See also list.

Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Stylistic issues
The Green section has much information that is useful in an encyclopedic context, but does not present it in an encyclopedic style. Additionally, parts of the article delve into too much howto-level detail. I don't necessarily think that any information should be deleted; reorganizing and rewriting to maintain NPOV and encyclopedic style should be enough. 75.140.243.0 (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC) As well, it is very convoluted and repeats itself frequently, hard to read or make sense of.

some material removed
I removed a bit of material that is not really encyclopedic to this article.

''The walls require non toxic treatments and have no risk of off-gassing toxic fumes, making it ideal for chemically sensitive dwellers. ''

''In the UK it has been suggested that a compression strength of 2N/mm² (290 pounds per square inch) should be assumed in the absence of data derived from testing of the earth that will be used. Concrete typically used in UK construction is mixed off site and has a compression strength of 12-16N/mm² (1700–2300 pounds per square inch, from a cube strength fcu = 30N/mm² to 40N/mm²), around seven times stronger than rammed earth. However, there are many factors that affect the width of a wall, so a plain concrete wall will not necessarily be much thinner than an equivalent in rammed earth. ''

it might have a place in another one. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge taipa with rammed earth
Taipa (building material) is simply the Portuguese name for rammed earth and that article should be merged with this one. Notice the Portuguese interwiki link here at rammed earth is Taipa (material). —  AjaxSmack   23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple issues
I have added Multiple issues to the article for several reasons, mainly the odd (to me) arguing style.

I see this issue has been mentioned above: topics "Bias" and "Stylistic issues" above are both still relevant. I do not know this area and I cannot copy-edit myself, so here are notes on some of the problems I found, there are probably more.

The article reads well in most parts - the lede is good for example - but enters "point of view" territory in places. The text sometimes argues the benefits of the building method with insufficient context and insufficient specific explanation. Some examples:

Overview of use section needs copyediting, examples are "Using it involves a", "making a comeback", "modern times",. The sentence starting "However the use of cement is contentious" is jarring and seems out of place for an overview, maybe move it to a section on environmental effects? The rest seems Ok but needs minor copy-editing: "more it cures ", "it is much like". The section also needs citations for the claims. The second paragraph addresses the practical aspects reasonably well but is vague in places, especially at the end.

The paragraphs after the fourth stray outside the concept of use and express a point of view with "significant benefits", "excellent", "virtually", "Depending on conditions", but with no supporting numbers.

I skimmed the rest and saw several odd phrases and vague words, a short list: "millions of dollars", "extensive", "very reasonable".

However, the section "Rammed earth in green building" is clearly written from the pro-point of view, and has dubious uncited claims - the first sentence for example. In places it reads like a brochure extolling the virtues of the method, and it definitely needs work.

-84user (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Add to that the tedious repetition - how often does this article mention its thermal mass benefits? Jon (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Zero section
In the intro it says that "traditionally" rammed earth buldings are found on every continent. The article then goes on to show a 19th century building in the US, hardly traditional, but, be that as it may, I challenge the author of that statement to find a "traditional" home or other rammed earth building in Australia. "Traditional" taken to mean "prior to colonisation".KhProd1 (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Pound dirt
"Pounded earth has long been a construction material in human history. Chengziya was surrounded by pounded earth walls as did the Shang dynasty city of Huanbei. The colloquial saying "pound dirt" is a way of saying "get lost" as in go do something menial and tedious. Pounded earth is the base for many traditional homes."

Is this a separate subject? The same subject? OrganicEarth (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Multiple issues (again)
I have added the Multiple Issues template again as it seems many of the things discussed above have not been resolved. First and foremost, much of the article relies on the (currently) fourth reference (named "six" for some reason), which in fact is a "research paper" assigned as part of an English 102 course (frequently American educational institutions number courses by the year they are typically taken &mdash; 100- or 1000-level for first year, 300- or 3000-level for third year, etc.) at a community college/technical school, which are not often associated with rigorous scholarship. Basically, it was written by an 18 year old as part of his first college class. It does contain some references (no links, of course), the most recent of which was a Discovery Channel show called Beyond 2000 from 1993; most of the others were from the 1950s or before. Additionally, this article cites a publication from the US Dept. of Agriculture claiming that rammed earth houses are 2/3 the cost of comparable wooden frame houses. The article neglected to mention in the text, until I added it, that said publication was from 1925. Several other references appear to be companies or other organizations with a vested interest in promoting this type of construction. Independent, unbiased, recent research citations are clearly needed. Finally, the article is absolutely full of unreferenced statements. I've been pretty liberal with the Citation Needed template &mdash; I apologize for the look it creates, but people need to realize that most of the content is unsubstantiated.

The second component of the Multiple Issues template calls into question the article's neutrality. It is clearly pushing the idea that rammed earth construction is a fantastic, inexpensive, strong, environmentally-friendly way to build anything, anywhere. Any drawbacks of the technology are either glossed over or completely ignored, with the possible exception of the discussion regarding cement's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Earthquake resistance is briefly mentioned in passing, as are issues with moisture/humidity, but both need to be significantly expanded upon. Structural integrity and building codes around the world need to be addressed, as do questions such as the structural impact of adding doors and windows. Longevity also needs to be critically examined &mdash; just because there is an example of a rammed earth structure that has survived in a tectonically-stable desert for thousands of years doesn't mean it's an appropriate building method in a rain forest on an active fault line, for example.

The third template I added was Expert Needed. I'll also be searching for appropriate WikiProjects to notify. Basically, this needs the attention of someone in the fields of materials science, engineering, and/or construction who can comment (and cite) more authoritatively regarding the issues discussed above. This could be a pretty good article, it just needs more and better citations and a more even, encyclopedic tone. I've tried to make some edits where I could, but unfortunately I am not an expert in this field. DadOfBeanAndBug (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rammed earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070122083859/http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/ggbfs.htm to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/ggbfs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rammed earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225224741/http://www.aaronhauser.com/rammed-earth-books/farmers-bulletin-no-1500-rammed-earth-walls-for-buildings/ to http://www.aaronhauser.com/rammed-earth-books/farmers-bulletin-no-1500-rammed-earth-walls-for-buildings/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Citation needed" overuse
It is used 35 times throughout the article, and can be at times very annoying to read. Is there a bot we can ask that can clean it up? Silenceisgod (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

"Edifice"
Wow, whoever wrote/corrected this article sure loved to use the word "edifice." It's like, overused to be honest. Spend some time with a thesaurus, would ya?

Excuse-making
"The prevailing perception that such materials and techniques perform poorly in regions prone to earthquakes has prevented their use in much of the world.[citation needed] In Chile, for example, rammed earth edifices normally cannot be conventionally insured against damage or even be approved by the government.[citation needed]"

So, why is this "prevailing perception" wrong? Can we give the Chilean building insurance industry some credit here? If they don't insure rammed earth buildings it's probably for a damned good reason. 2001:8B0:DFDC:12BC:78D9:AC2C:119F:E76C (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Studies by the French institute "Craterre" have shown that it is possible to improve the earthquake performance of rammed-earth structures. The structural modifications and techniques have been included in the technical manuals written by Craterre for UNESCO since the 1980s. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Cob
The article says cob is a similar material. This may be so but cob construction requires a significantly different technology. All earth construction uses similar materials, so perhaps this qualifier could be modified so that the distinction can be usefully made. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Question: remarkable ´World Heritage Earthen Architecture Programme´ ?
https://whc.unesco.org/en/earthen-architecture/ --Visionhelp (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)