Pros and Cons of Superadobe Earthbag homes

July 18, 2020

743 views

3 min read

In the realm of innovative construction methods, inspiration can come from the most unexpected sources. From geodesign domes inspired by crystals to cargo containers transformed into tiny homes, the world of architecture never ceases to amaze. One such ingenious creation is the superadobe earthbag home, which draws inspiration from sandbags originally used for flood control and military bunkers.

Introduction

These earthbag homes utilize bags made of natural materials like hemp or burlap, or more durable synthetic materials like water and insect-resistant polypropylene. Filled with a mixture of 70% sand and 30% clay, these bags are stacked in courses, much like bricklaying, forming curved walls that offer excellent lateral stability. For added strength, barbed wire, twine, and rebar can be integrated into the structure. The exterior is finished with plaster to shed water and protect the fabric.

The concept of earthbag homes dates back to Gernot Minke, a German professor who built a prototype house in 1978. However, the movement gained momentum with Nader Khalili, an Iranian architect, who developed the superadobe building system. His vision of using sandbags as a solution for temporary housing in emergencies and low-cost housing took shape with structures like the Eco Dome, featured on HGTV.

Advantages

Let’s explore the advantages and considerations of superadobe earthbag homes. Firstly, they are cost-effective, utilizing inexpensive earth and affordable bags. Construction costs are reduced due to the minimal need for an experienced crew on-site, as no additional resources like wood or metal are necessary. Moreover, these homes demonstrate excellent structural integrity, withstanding seismic, wind, and snow loads, as well as surviving fires, floods, and hurricanes. The thermal mass of earthbag walls ensures efficient temperature regulation, making them ideal for regions with significant day-night temperature differences. Additionally, these homes use locally available materials, reducing their carbon footprint and eliminating the need to transport construction materials.

Disadvantages

On the downside, the curved walls of earthbag homes make space utilization challenging, requiring custom-made furniture and finishes. Their limited size, with a recommended diameter of 20 feet, may necessitate creative solutions for expanding the building’s footprint. As the interior walls are not framed, pipes, cables, and ductwork will be exposed. Obtaining financing for such unconventional structures can be challenging, as lenders may struggle to estimate their value, affecting potential resale value.

Attention to detail during construction is vital to avoid using biodegradable materials, which may compromise the stability of the walls. The labor-intensive nature of building earthbag homes, along with the absence of power tools and prefabricated components, increases construction time significantly. Moreover, the scalability of this model may be limited, with mass production presenting challenges.

Conclusion

While superadobe earthbag homes may have a positive impact on disaster shelters, exploring methods and materials applicable to mass-produced homes could offer more significant environmental benefits. Innovative approaches that convert the earth on construction sites into standardized building blocks could hold promise for future sustainability.

In conclusion, superadobe earthbag homes showcase ingenuity and resourcefulness, offering cost-effective and environmentally conscious housing options. However, careful consideration of their structural limitations and labor-intensive construction process is essential. As the architecture and construction industries continue to evolve, a combination of innovative and scalable methods will play a pivotal role in shaping a sustainable future.