Tabby is a concrete made from lime, sand and oyster shells.

Its origin is
uncertain:although early documents record Indian burial vaults with walls made
of oyster shells and lime, no such structures have survived. It is likely that
Sixteenth-century Spanish explorers first brought tabby (which appears as "tabee",
"tapis", "tappy" and "tapia" in early documents) to the coasts of what would become
South Carolina and Georgia. Tapia is Spanish for "mud wall", and, in fact, the mortar
used to caulk the earliest cabins in this area was a mixture of mud and Spanish Moss..
There is evidence that North African Moors brought tabby to Spain when they invaded
that kingdom: a form of tabby is used in Morocco today and some tabby structures
survive in Spain, though in both instances it is granite, not oyster shells, that is used.
According to Janet H. Gritzner, "the vast majority of tabby structures were located on
the southern Atlantic coast. This distribution reflects diffusion from two primary centers
or hearths: one at Saint Augustine, Florida, and the other at Beaufort, South Carolina.
These centers represented the core areas for two separate traditions in tabby
building. ... British-built tabby arising out of Beaufort, South Carolina, had a quite
different history and distribution from that of Spanish origin." Although the British
tradition began later (around 1700, upon introduction of the technques from Spanish
Florida) than the Spanish (1580), it was less restricted. "Beaufort, South Carolina, was
both the primary center for British tabby and the location of the earliest British tabby in
the southeastern United States. It was here that the British tradition first developed, and
from this hearth tabby eventually spread throughout the sea island district."
Gritzner doubts that there is any connection between the use of tabby by the Spanish at
the Santa Elena site and the first uses of the material in British Beaufort about 120
years later.
Colin Brooker of the Historic Beaufort Foundation said that Beaufort County has the
largest number of tabby ruins in the United States. The Foundation has placed the
county's tabby structures on its endangered resources list. Mr. Brooker said that "much
of the destruction that has taken place has occurred naturally. Tabby, by its very nature,
is generally a poor quality material."
In the New World, Fort San Felipe, built in 1577 on what is now Parris Island, S.

C., is an early example of tabby construction. The compound contained more

than sixty tabby houses.

Oyster Shells: The Raw Material for Tabby

Photographs by Dennis Adams
(August 14, 2002)

Early settlers found only trees and the raw

materials for tabby (and none of the stones
and brick-clay they had known in Europe)
when they began building permanent
structures in this coastal area . The Native
Americans of the Sea Islands had left many
heaps of shells, the accumulation of
countless past oyster roasts. Builders
extracted the lime by burning the oyster
shells. They then painstakingly removed all
salt from the shells and from the sand to
keep the concrete firm and whole (the salt
weakened the concrete mixture). The
cleaned sand, a mixture of coarse and fine
varieties extracted from sand pits, was
added to the lime and shells to make the
tabby concrete.

"Oyster shells," wrote Earl D. Dietz, "are primarily calcium carbonate. When
they are 'burned' they are heated to a high enough temperature to decompose
the calcium carbonate to lime (calcium oxide) and carbon dioxide, which
dissipates in the air. The resulting lime mixed with the sand, the oyster shells
and water reacts with the water, and to some extent the sand, to form a bond
for the mixture. Thus Tabby is a concrete. Today, artificial tabby is made using
Portland cement instead of lime and the resulting 'tabby'is stronger and more
stable. In this area there are many driveways and walks made from the
artificial tabby."
Todd Dickinson reported that in his research of the lime burning process, he found that
"the books suggest burning 3/4 inch pieces of limestone or oyster shells in a kiln at
2,000 degrees F. Another source suggested that charcoal and lime be burned together".
Experimenting with the process, Mr. Dickinson "roasted oyster shells for 5 hours on a
gas grill at about 600 degrees F and they softened some. Then I roasted them for
another 3 hours, then made a camp fire at the Eno River Festival, covered part with
bricks and stoked the fire and shells for two more hours. Some of the shells got quite
soft and a portion of them burned, and the ground shell reacted to a vinegar acid bath,
so I guess that much lower temperatures will eventually result in producing the first step
towards mason's lime". (Please note that this description is not intended to serve as a practical
formula for producing tabby.)

Tabby was cheap to produce, but labor-intensive (the shells had to be

thoroughly washed). It was probably not much slower, however, than other
construction processes of the time: Georgian Thomas Spalding reported that
his "people" could produce thirty cubic feet per day with enough work to
"employ six hands for three days to compleat the rounds, mixing mortar one

day and filling in two, thus making two rounds a week", even accounting for
bad weather. Tabby construction required only unskilled laborers, not the more
expensive carpenters (and sawmills) that lumber entailed.
Wet tabby was poured and tamped into a wooden form made of two parallel
planks extending along the full length of a wall. The planks were tied together
by crosspieces . The boards were moved up repeatedly as each layer of tabby
dried (the imprint of the planks is often visible on finished structures), up to the
desired height of the wall. To create a window or door space, builders placed a
short plank across the inner and outer boards of the form and steadied it with
two poles. Stucco overlays and scoring (to imitate brick patterns) were
methods to disguise the humble tabby; the stucco also prevented the
accumulation of moisture within the rough surface of the shells. Wood (for
joists and lintels) and bricks (for corner columns, doors and windows) were
often incorporated into the tabby structures, either during the pouring or when
the mixture was still wet. Settlers also made individual bricks of tabby and
used the cement to construct all manner of houses, farm structures, churches,
fortifications, sea and exterior walls, fireplaces, tombstones, and other
structures -- including an extant mill wheel made from tabby. Of only two
remaining ruins of indigo vats in South Carolina, one is built of brick and the
other, recently discovered in Beaufort County, was made of tabby (both date
from the early 1700s). A report from 1775 mentions repairs to Fort
Lyttletons "two tapis walls and a tapis breakwater wall."
Local use of tabby decreased after the Revolutionary War, until around 1805,
when Thomas Spalding began using it on Sapelo Island, Georgia. Spalding's
formula was "10 Bushels of lime, 10 Bushels of Sand, ten bushels of shells
and ten bushels of water" to yield sixteen cubic feet of wall. He made some
walls fourteen inches thick and "below the lower floor 2 feet; for the second
story 10 inches -- beyond that (he) would not erect Tabby buildings."
Spalding's one-story tabby home ("of the Ionic order") was raised four feet
from the ground, measured ninety feet by sixty-five feet in depth, and stood
"sixteen feet in the ceiling and 20 feet in wall.

" It took 'six men, two boys and two mules (one white man
superintending) two years to build the house'".
Although tabby was widely used throughout the Sea
Islands, few buildings in Charleston were constructed of
that material. Bricks were easy to obtain in that city.

Close-up of tabby
wall at Ft. Frederick
(Photograph by
Michael Broam)

Tabby walls may have helped to abate

the disastrous fire that struck Beaufort in 1907.
The January 21, 1907 issue of theSavannah Morning
News reported: " The firemen made a brave fight against
the fire, but the high wind caused it to get beyond their
control very quickly. Then it was beyond their power to
curb its progress. Not until a number of old buildings,
constructed with tabby, a material made of sand and shell,
had been reached by the flames could their ravages be
stopped."
Tabby cement, a combination of oyster shells and modern
cement mix, has been used to construct some local
buildings in the 20th century

Beaufort County's Tabby Landmarks

Chapel of Ease (Land's End Road
on St. Helena Island): The small
chapel was built of tabby and brick
from 1742-1747 for the Episcopal
parishioners on St. Helena Island.
On Sunday, November 4, 1861, the
services at the Chapel of Ease were
interrupted by a messenger sent by a
Capt. Fripp: the Union invasion that
would bring the Federal occupation
of Beaufort was at hand.
A forest fire caused extensive
damage in 1886, and St. Helena
Episcopal Church now has custody
of the ruins.

Photograph by Dennis Adams

(August 13, 2002)

The Sea Wall (Bay Street east of Carteret Street intersection, facing the Beaufort

River): Although its age is unknown (estimates range from the time of the Revolution to
the Civil War), it is an example of how tabby can withstand the elements (and salt water)
once it has set and hardened.

Fort Frederick (On the Naval Hospital

premises, Port Royal): The fortification was built
in 1734 to replace the Beaufort Fort of 1706. In
1758,Fort Lyttleton in turn replaced Fort
Frederick, which had already fallen into a state of
bad repair and had been left undefended since
about 1743. Only some of Fort Frederick's tabby
foundations remain.
Existing tabby walls of Ft. Frederick
(Photograph by Michael Broam)

Francis Saltus House (formerly known as the Habersham

House, 802-806 Bay Street, Downtown Beaufort): Built in
1774, the building has served as a customs house, hotel
and, during the Federal occupation of Beaufort during the
Civil War, a commissary store. The Francis Saltus House
was constructed of tabby and old English bricks.
Photograph by Dennis Adams
(November15, 2006)

Tabby Manse (1211 Bay Street, Downtown Beaufort): Built by Thomas Fuller in 1786,
the house has exterior tabby walls two feet thick (finished with stucco). Held by wooden
pegs, its structural timbers measure twelve inches thick.Richard Fuller (1804-1876),
the famous Baptist clergyman, was one of the builders seven children

Low Cost Housing

Posted in Building, Civil Engineering Information |

Email This Post |

Low Cost Housing is a new concept which deals with effective budgeting and
following of techniques which help in reducing the cost construction through the use
of locally available materials along with improved skills and technology without
sacrificing the strength, performance and life of the structure.There is huge
misconception that low cost housing is suitable for only sub standard works and
they are constructed by utilizing cheap building materials of low quality.The fact is
that Low cost housing is done by proper management of resources.Economy is also
achieved by postponing finishing works or implementing them in phases.
Building Cost
The building construction cost can be divided into two parts namely:
Building material cost : 65 to 70 %
Labour cost : 65 to 70 %
Now in low cost housing, building material cost is less because we make use of the
locally available materials and also the labour cost can be reduced by properly
making the time schedule of our work. Cost of reduction is achieved by selection of
more efficient material or by an improved design.
Areas from where cost can be reduced are:1) Reduce plinth area by using thinner wall concept.Ex.15 cms thick solid concrete
block wall.
2) Use locally available material in an innovative form like soil cement blocks in
place of burnt brick.
3) Use energy efficiency materials which consumes less energy like concrete block
in place of burnt brick.
4) Use environmentally friendly materials which are substitute for conventional
building components like use R.C.C. Door and window frames in place of wooden
frames.
5) Preplan every component of a house and rationalize the design procedure for
reducing the size of the component in the building.
6) By planning each and every component of a house the wastage of materials due
to demolition of the unplanned component of the house can be avoided.
7) Each component of the house shall be checked whether if its necessary, if it is
not necessary, then that component should not be used.
Cost reduction through adhoc methods
Foundation

Normally the foundation cost comes to about 10 to 15% of the total building and
usually foundation depth of 3 to 4 ft. is adopted for single or double store building
and also the concrete bed of 6(15 Cms.) is used for the foundation which could be
avoided.
It is recommended to adopt a foundation depth of 2 ft.(0.6m) for normal soil like
gravely soil, red soils etc., and use the uncoursed rubble masonry with the bond
stones and good packing. Similarly the foundation width is rationalized to 2 ft.
(0.6m).To avoid cracks formation in foundation the masonry shall be thoroughly
packed with cement mortar of 1:8 boulders and bond stones at regular intervals.
It is further suggested adopt arch foundation in ordinary soil for effecting reduction
in construction cost up to 40%.This kind of foundation will help in bridging the loose
pockets of soil which occurs along the foundation.
In the case black cotton and other soft soils it is recommend to use under ream pile
foundation which saves about 20 to 25% in cost over the conventional method of
construction.
Plinth
It is suggested to adopt 1 ft. height above ground level for the plinth and may be
constructed with a cement mortar of 1:6. The plinth slab of 4 to 6 which is normally
adopted can be avoided and in its place brick on edge can be used for reducing the
cost. By adopting this procedure the cost of plinth foundation can be reduced by
about 35 to 50%.It is necessary to take precaution of providing impervious blanket
like concrete slabs or stone slabs all round the building for enabling to reduce
erosion of soil and thereby avoiding exposure of foundation surface and crack
formation.
Walling
Wall thickness of 6 to 9 is recommended for adoption in the construction of walls
all-round the building and 41/2 for inside walls. It is suggested to use burnt bricks
which are immersed in water for 24 hours and then shall be used for the walls
Rat trap bond wall
It is a cavity wall construction with added advantage of thermal comfort and
reduction in the quantity of bricks required for masonry work. By adopting this
method of bonding of brick masonry compared to traditional English or Flemish
bond masonry, it is possible to reduce in the material cost of bricks by 25% and
about 10to 15% in the masonry cost. By adopting rat-trap bond method one can
create aesthetically pleasing wall surface and plastering can be avoided.
Concrete block walling
In view of high energy consumption by burnt brick it is suggested to use concrete
block (block hollow and solid) which consumes about only 1/3 of the energy of the
burnt bricks in its production. By using concrete block masonry the wall thickness
can be reduced from 20 cms to 15 Cms. Concrete block masonry saves mortar

consumption, speedy construction of wall resulting in higher output of labour,

plastering can be avoided thereby an overall saving of 10 to 25% can be achieved.
Soil cement block technology
It is an alternative method of construction of walls using soil cement blocks in place
of burnt bricks masonry. It is an energy efficient method of construction where soil
mixed with 5% and above cement and pressed in hand operated machine and cured
well and then used in the masonry. This masonry doesnt require plastering on both
sides of the wall. The overall economy that could be achieved with the soil cement
technology is about 15 to 20% compared to conventional method of construction.
Doors and windows
It is suggested not to use wood for doors and windows and in its place concrete or
steel section frames shall be used for achieving saving in cost up to 30 to
40%.Similiarly for shutters commercially available block boards, fibre or wooden
practical boards etc., shall be used for reducing the cost by about 25%.By adopting
brick jelly work and precast components effective ventilation could be provided to
the building and also the construction cost could be saved up to 50% over the
window components.
Lintals and Chajjas
The traditional R.C.C. lintels which are costly can be replaced by brick arches for
small spans and save construction cost up to 30 to 40% over the traditional method
of construction. By adopting arches of different shapes a good architectural pleasing
appearance can be given to the external wall surfaces of the brick masonry.
Roofing
Normally 5(12.5 cms) thick R.C.C. slabs is used for roofing of residential buildings.
By adopting rationally designed insitu construction practices like filler slab and
precast elements the construction cost of roofing can be reduced by about 20 to
25%.
Filler slabs
They are normal RCC slabs where bottom half (tension) concrete portions are
replaced by filler materials such as bricks, tiles, cellular concrete blocks, etc.These
filler materials are so placed as not to compromise structural strength, result in
replacing unwanted and nonfunctional tension concrete, thus resulting in economy.
These are safe, sound and provide aesthetically pleasing pattern ceilings and also
need no plaster.
For more on filler materials check Filler Materials Used in Concrete
Jack arch roof/floor
They are easy to construct, save on cement and steel, are more appropriate in hot
climates. These can be constructed using compressed earth blocks also as
alternative to bricks for further economy.

Ferrocement channel/shell unit

Provide an economic solution to RCC slab by providing 30 to 40% cost reduction on
floor/roof unit over RCC slabs without compromising the strength. These being
precast, construction is speedy, economical due to avoidance of shuttering and
facilitate quality control.
Finishing Work
The cost of finishing items like sanitary, electricity, painting etc., varies depending
upon the type and quality of products used in the building and its cost reduction is
left to the individual choice and liking.
Conclusion
The above list of suggestion for reducing construction cost is of general nature and
it varies depending upon the nature of the building to be constructed, budget of the
owner, geographical location where the house is to be constructed, availability of
the building material, good construction management practices etc. However it is
necessary that good planning and design methods shall be adopted by utilizing the
services of an experienced engineer or an architect for supervising the work,
thereby achieving overall cost effectiveness to the extent of 25% in actual practice.

History:
Original tabby was made from a mix of slurry of water, homemade lime, local
sand, and oyster shells. Occasionally, aggregates of broken glass, brick or
other similar products were added. The mixture was poured into a wooden
forms or rectangular bottomless cradles made of finished boards
approximately two inches thick. The length of the cradle varied; the height was
20 to 22 inches in the eighteenth century but was reduced to 10 to 12 inches
in the nineteenth century to minimize collapse and provide greater strength.
The sides were held in place by dovetailed braces. The tabby was tamped
and leveled by hand.

Round pins set at regular intervals held the cradle in

place during the entire process. The tabby air-dried in its cradle for two to
three days. After it hardened, the form and pins were removed and placed
atop the first pour or round for subsequent rounds, thus building a wall in a
layer-like fashion. The finished wall was then brushed with a broom before
stucco or whitewash was applied.
Minute modifications to this procedure distinguish Tabby Revival tabby from its
copied original. In addition to the commercially available Portland cement and
lime altering the mix after 1880, the cradle was modified to eliminate the use
of pins: huge clamps now held the sides. The qualities of the cement enabled
builders to discard the previously essential stucco.
The sand was always from a local body of water. Sand from salt water was
washed to remove as much salt as possible, since salt causes decay and
deterioration, such as spalling. Oyster shells, procured from Indian middens or
trash piles, provided a well-washed aggregate and, when burned, produced
the third ingredient, lime. A rick, or bonfire, was built, starting with a frame of
hardwood tree trunks surrounding a deep pit filled with pine knots. Layers of
logs and oyster shells were then piled on top and set afire. The intense fire
burned the shells, turning them into a white powder called quicklime, which
reacted with water to set or cure the mixture. After 1880, this burn was omitted
in favor of purchasing pre-bagged lime and Portland cement.
Tabby making was labor-intensive and dependent on weather. February
through September were the recommended months for making Tabby. This
allowed builders to avoid winter freeze-thaw cycles and rainy, hurricane-prone

autumn months, and take advantage of months of high humidity, which

shortened the setting time. Drying tabby was protected from rain by palmetto
branches. With the introduction of Portland cement set times decreased
however, tabby builders heeded this traditional advice, but may not have
always needed to follow it.

Modern Tabby:
Today, buildings are rarely constructed with Tabby unless historic reconstruction is necessary. The shell finish, however, has come back in style all
over the U.S. Tabby stucco is an art. Without the proper man power and
equipment, the finish could easily become an expensive disaster.
Begin by preparing the wall using the traditional method of moisture barriers,
lath, link etc whichever is correct for the substrate. Apply base coat and
scratch coat as required. See How to Stucco if you need additional
information.
Before applying the finish coat, create sifting boxes out of chicken wire and
2x4s and elevate them near a water source. The wire gauge will vary
depending on what size shell is desired. Spread about a 1 layer of shell in the
sifting boxes. Use a spray nozzle on a garden hose to pass a constant stream
of water over the shell as the boxes are shaken back and forth vigorously.
Rake the shell with the back of a steel rake as it is being shaken. This process
is absolutely necessary to remove as much of the fines as possible.

Lay Masonite or plywood under the wall to catch the shell that does not stick
so it may be washed and re-used. Mix the finish coat a little rich and apply
over the scratch coat. While applying the finish, have someone cast the shell
into the wet mud. Make sure the arm strokes are consistent. It is best to have
the same person cast the shell on each wall so if a slight pattern emerges, it
will be consistent. The very best way to apply the shell is with a pneumatic
gun. While the shell is being cast into the wall, have someone pat the shell in
place with a soft float. This will seat the shell in the finish coat. Wait until the
finish coat starts to ridge (you shouldnt be able to pull the shell off the wall
easily) and knock the shell down with a soft float.
Continue wetting the wall down for the next few days as is normally done with
a traditional stucco finish. It is important to seal the finished product after
waiting at least one week (refer to sealer instructions for details).
By using this method, a Tabby finished look will be achieved without the use of
actual Tabby building material. Tabby building material has a multitude of
issues and does not withstand the elements well. It crumbles easily and has
terrible moisture issues. By simply applying the shell to the exterior of a
properly stuccoed surface, the historic beauty may be appreciated without the
historic issues.

Traditional Tabby: For a more traditional Tabby look follow these instructions.
Begin by preparing the wall using the traditional method of moisture barriers,
lath, link etc whichever is correct for the substrate. Apply base coat and
scratch coat as required. See How to Stucco if you need additional
information.
Make the tabby stucco topcoat using Oyster Shells. In a concrete mixer, mix 1
part lime, 2 parts cement and 3 parts sand. Mix thoroughly for at least 20
minutes gradually adding just enough water to make a thick, mortar mix. Then
add the oyster shells towards the end of the mixing. Keep adding them until
you see the Shell distributed consistently in the stucco. (The closest Shell we
carry to Oyster Shell is our Inland Shell, it has Oyster Shell in it but is not pure
Oyster Shell.)
Apply a layer of the tabby stucco to the walls, using a trowel. The layer should
be about as thick as the oyster shells. Apply firm pressure. Start from the
bottom and work your way up. Once finished, mist the stucco occasionally
over the course of 5 to 7 days this will help the Stucco cure.
- See more at: http://carrollsbuildingmaterials.com/landscape-products/florida-shell/how-to-create-tabbyshell-stucco/#sthash.MCJzkHIf.dpuf
THE CARE AND PRESERVATION OF
Historic Tabby
Lauren Sickels-Taves, Eastern Michigan University

Historic tabby buildings can be maintained for years of use and enjoyment provided that some basic attention is given to
their care and preservation. The conservation staff at The Henry Ford have compiled the information in this fact sheet to
assist in helping individuals to care for their tabby buildings. The first step in the care of buildings is to understand and
minimize or eliminate factors that cause damage. The second step is to develop and follow a basic maintenance plan for
care and longevity.
Contents:
Identifying Tabby Buildings
Tabby Preparation
Identifying Features
Pours
Pin holes
Stucco
Other
Wedges and Bricks
Roofs
Floors
Plugs
Architectural Designs
Causes of Deterioration
Environment
Water
Vegetation, Wildlife, and Insects
Structural Damage
Incompatible Materials
Portland Cement
Silicone Sealants
Asphalt

Chemicals
Lack of Maintenance
Repair
Tabby
Waterproofing
Removal of Earlier Repairs
Patching
Structural Repairs
Stucco
Maintenance Plans
Bibliography
Suppliers
References

IDENTIFYING TABBY BUILDINGS

Tabby refers to a unique, centuries old, southern U.S. coastal building material purportedly composed of equal proportions of
homemade lime, sand, oyster shells and water. A surface layer of stucco originally protected the finished product. After the
introduction of Portland cement in the 1870's, the tabby recipe was modified to include cement and substitute pre-made bag
lime for homemade lime, and the stucco was omitted. Various modern forms of tabby, employing only cement are still used
today. Modern imitations often expose the shell and forego the stucco in an inaccurate attempt to recreate the appearance of
this historic material.
Terminology has been established to clarify the different construction techniques and their time of use. Original is the
adjective used to define tabby constructed before 1875. This material employed only the fore-mentioned ingredients of lime,
sand, oyster shells, and water. Tabby Revival is the term given to tabby made between 1880 and 1925; although additional
ingredients were added, the construction method remained the same. (The five-year span between two types covers a
period of no documented construction of either form of tabby.) Tabby falling into either of these categories is considered to
be historic or traditional tabby. The present surge of tabby-like construction, termed Pseudo-Tabby, visually represents a link
with the past, but is basically a thin cement panel with shells shot into it. Its characteristics do not represent historic tabby,
and therefore fall outside the realm of this fact sheet.

TABBY PREPARATION
Original tabby was made from a mix of slurry of water, homemade lime, local sand, and oyster shells. Occasionally,
aggregates of broken glass, brick or other similar products were added. The mixture was poured into a wooden form or
rectangular bottomless cradle made of finished boards approximately two inches thick. The length of the cradle varied; the
height was 20 to 22 inches in the eighteenth century but was reduced to 10 to 12 inches in the nineteenth century to
minimize collapse and provide greater strength. The sides were held in place by dovetailed braces. The tabby was tamped
and leveled by hand.
Round pins set at regular intervals held the cradle in place during the entire process. The tabby air-dried in its cradle for two
to three days. After it hardened, the form and pins were removed and placed atop the first pour or round for subsequent
rounds, thus building a wall in a layer-like fashion. The finished wall was then brushed with a broom before stucco or
whitewash was applied.
Minute modifications to this procedure distinguish Tabby Revival tabby from its copied original. In addition to the
commercially available Portland cement and lime altering the mix after 1880, the cradle was modified to eliminate the use of
pins: huge clamps now held the sides. The qualities of the cement enabled builders to discard the previously essential
stucco.
The sand was always from a local body of water. Sand from salt water was washed to remove as much salt as possible,
since salt causes decay and deterioration, such as spalling. Oyster shells, procured from Indian middens or trash piles,
provided a well-washed aggregate and, when burned, produced the third ingredient, lime. A "rick", or bonfire, was built,
starting with a frame of hardwood tree trunks surrounding a deep pit filled with pine knots. Layers of logs and oyster shells
were then piled on top and set afire. The intense fire burned the shells, turning them into a white powder called quicklime,
which reacted with water to set or cure the mixture. After 1880, this burn was omitted in favor of purchasing pre-bagged lime
and Portland cement.
Tabby making was labor-intensive and dependent on weather. February through September were the recommended months
for manufacture. This allowed builders to avoid winter freeze-thaw cycles and rainy, hurricane-prone autumn months, and
take advantage of months of high humidity, which shortened the setting time. Drying tabby was protected from rain by
palmetto branches. With the introduction of Portland cement imparting increased setting time among other properties;
tabby builders heeded this traditional advice, but may not have always needed to follow it.

IDENTIFYING FEATURES
POURS
Pours, when visible, are a key characteristic of historic tabby. By locating the lines demarcating individual pours, distinct
differences in pour layers are notable which aid in separating eighteenth century military fabrication from nineteenth century
plantation manufacture. The eighteenth century was distinguished by pour heights of 20" or higher; irregular, vertically
spaced pinholes; and obvious mold marks with distinct jogs, that showed the forms were not secured at the ends. The late
1790s onward were characterized by 10 to 12" pour heights; uniformly spaced and aligned pinholes; and no mold marks.
PIN HOLES
In original tabby manufacture, round pins were used to hold the bottomless cradle in place during construction and prevent it
from sliding down onto the previously poured layer of tabby. These pins (along with dovetail bracing) also kept the two sides
of the cradle from spreading. They were periodically placed but generally not aligned vertically from layer to layer until after
the late 1790s.
At a few unrelated locations, surviving pinholes indicate the use of square pins. Although the shape is an anomaly, their
placement and alignment were similar to that for round pins. Intriguingly, the sites are separated by hundreds of miles and
approximately 100 years.
STUCCO
Original tabby was meant to be covered by stucco or lime wash for protection. The pitted and brushed sides of tabby
provided an excellent surface for bonding with the stucco. Generally limited to a single coat, 1/8 " thick, it required
constant renewal. The quality varied with the use of the structure and the wealth of the owner. The mix consisted of
quicklime, sand and water and was applied with a trowel. The surface coating also covered the pinholes made during
construction. Early twentieth-century coating repairs to historic tabby have often incorrectly employed neat cement or
asphalt caps.
OTHER
Although poured walls were the norm, wedges, bricks, roofs, floors and plugs were just a few of the additional features
fashioned from tabby. The flexibility of tabby allowed builders to be creative.

Wedges and bricks: By the altering the recipe slightly to employ crushed oyster shells, smaller shapes
could be constructed with tabby by suing special cradles or moulds. Wedge-shaped moulds were used
for columns: four wedges of dried tabby were placed together to create a circular unit. One unit was set
atop another to the desired height. Due to the fireproof qualities of tabby, chimneys were often
constructed of rectangular bricks when fired clay ones were unavailable. Tabby mortar, incorporating
either finely crushed oyster shells or other similar aggregate, such as coquina shells, were used to
cement the wedges or bricks together.

Roofs: Tabby roofs tended to be flat (pitched roofs were rare due to their massiveness). They were
created by pouring a three-to-four inch tabby mix over roof-bearing timbers covered by wooden lath or
layers of twigs, in a key-like fashion similar to adobe roofs. To prevent leaks from standing water, a
coating of tar and sand was applied.

Floors: Tabby floors were also popular along the coast. Depending on the wealth of the owner, tabby
was poured directly on top of tamped earth or, in better buildings, on top of a sub-grade of shell rubble or
boards. Laid three to six inches deep, the tabby was tamped, then coated with linseed oil to form a seal.
Slab tabby could not withstand concentrated weight and easily became rough and pitted. Tabby floors
had a short life span, but could be renewed by pouring subsequent layers over the old.

Plugs: Tabby plugs were merely chunks of tabby mortar. They were created to ingeniously solve a
problem when stucco or plaster was unavailable. Holes left by pins that held the cradle in place while a
wall was being poured produced a structure that was neither weatherproof nor critter-proof. A quantity of
fresh, or wet, tabby mortar was simply inserted into the pinholes and allowed to dry. These plugs
effectively filled the holes and did so permanently.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS
If wood could be bent to create a mould, architectural designs in tabby were limitless. Walls, rarely exceeding two stories,
could take on unique shapes. One plantation house, now in ruins, near Woodbine, Georgia, was poured in the shape of a
large anchor; sugar mills had octagonal walls; military fortifications had bastions. Foundation walls were constructed by
merely pouring tabby minus the pins several feet below ground level. Where time prohibited construction of an entire
tabby structure, tabby foundation piers were built, with upper stories of wood.
Across the centuries of its use, tabby was most commonly employed in the erection of homes, exemplifying its ability to
reflect architectural styles. A few of the styles uniquely utilizing historic tabby were:

Georgian (1700-1870, rural to 1830): Although tabby was not uniquely manipulated beyond the expected
norm, simple domestic plans reflected Georgian characteristics: large, two rooms deep, two-story. Toothlike dentils made of tabby bricks on the cornice have also been employed as decoration. Dentils were
first introduced as a Georgian feature, but were retained during the subsequent Federal style (17801820).

Greek Revival (1825-1860): This style best reflected the ingenuity of the builders of tabby. The key
characteristic of Greek Revival was a full-faade porch comprised of wide, simple cornices supported by
rounded columns. Columns were constructed of tabby wedges mortared into circular units which were
then stacked atop one another to achieve the desired height.

Queen Anne (1860-1890): Eclectic and asymmetry characterize Queen Anne, one of the many Victorian
styles. Tabby suited this style due to the flexibility of the mould or brick. Chimneys were massive and
patterned. Another feature is to use wall surfaces as primary decorative elements. By modifying the
typical cradle, arches over all door and window openings could become segmental arches, even
Palladian windows.

Spanish Mission (1890-1920): The key feature of this style is the mission-shaped or Baroque curve.
Walls were usually smooth stucco. Tabby once again lent itself well to this style. The curves were easily
produced with the malleable material, and the smooth walls created by the cradle produced the desired
surface finish without employing stucco.

CAUSES OF DETERIORATION
Water, incompatible materials, and lack of maintenance are the major causes of damage to tabby buildings. The introduction
of water is usually the result of the incorrect use of materials, particularly non-compatible repair materials, and the lack of
maintenance; 95% of all deterioration can be linked to water. Once introduced and allowed to remain, water can weaken the
chemical structure of tabby and encourage wildlife and insect infestation. Allowed to continue, a building will eventually
become unstable and collapse.
NOTE: The bulk of deteriorating tabby was built before 1875. Of the documented Tabby Revival sites, only one is in ruins
and the denseness of the cement walls are by far more stable than original tabbys lime-based, porous walls. Unless
otherwise noted, the rest of this fact sheet is directed at the preservation of original tabby.
ENVIRONMENT
Stucco forms a protective barrier over original tabby. This does not prevent deterioration of tabby under adverse conditions;
however, it greatly reduces it, minimizing the risk for infestation by wildlife and insects, and instability by water.
WATER
The moisture content of building materials varies in response to changes in the local humidity and will not usually damage
the material or induce decay. The paradox of tabby is that it is a highly porous material and yet was built in coastal areas,
which normally have high salt water tables. Tabby is forced to absorb high levels of salt water; however, its porous nature in
collaboration with the warm climate allows it to adequately evaporate this same level without harmful side effects. This
cyclical feature is assured as long as the pores are not clogged by incompatible, less porous materials and the structure is
being maintained.
Water can enter and harm structures in a variety of ways. The path it takes in buildings from entrance to exit can be illogical.
There are three sources of water: rain penetration, rising damp and condensation.

Rain penetration in original tabby structures is generally caused by the effects of structural
movement, the wrong choice of materials for repair, badly executed repairs or lack of routine
maintenance. It is the single, greatest source of tabby deterioration.

Rising damp occurs when tabby is in direct contact with damp soil. Moisture is drawn into the
pores by a physical process called capillary action. The absorbed moisture will rise in the wall to
a height at which there is a balance between the rate of evaporation and the rate at which it can
be drawn up by capillary forces. This height will vary somewhat with the time of year and the
level of the water table of the soil. Rising damp is not a great concern to tabby unless the pores
are clogged as mentioned in the proceeding paragraph.

Condensation is the product of cooled water vapor. When moisture in the air is cooled at a
certain temperature called dew point, it will change to liquid water. Due to the climatic location
of tabby, this source of water rarely affects tabby.

The grounds immediately around tabby structures play an important role in minimizing water damage. Poor drainage and
shallow eaves can allow water to build up near the foundation, permitting excessive rising damp and coving. Excessive
water can ultimately pop stucco and break down a tabby wall's chemical and physical bond.
VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND INSECTS
Vines and trees, with their extensive, creeping root systems, are the most detrimental of all vegetation, weaving into porous
tabby walls, upheaving them and creating cracks for future growth. Without intervention, complete failure is imminent.
Maintenance and early detection are therefore vital. Despite legislative protection, several ruins near Woodbine and Darien,
Georgia, have recently collapsed from tree encroachment, tunneling by gopher turtles and riverbank erosion.
All vegetation within 12 to 18 inches of a building should be removed. This eliminates the potential for damage from roots
and permits air circulation near the stucco surface, discouraging mildew. Roots and vines that have penetrated tabby and
become a structural support should be treated cautiously: they should be cut to prevent further growth, yet left in place as
they are now an integral part of the wall. Birds and burrowing animals should be discouraged.
Tabby interiors exposed to the elements invite other infestations. Joist beams experience rot and termites, and the pockets
are often filled with spiders and birds' nests.

STRUCTURAL DAMAGE
One key link to structural problems is derived from the weak or inadequate lime produced by burning oyster shells. The best
lime was made when bonfire temperatures exceeded 1094oC (2000oF) and no rain penetrated the lime before it was placed
in barrels. Any deviation created a weaker lime and a weaker block of tabby. Weaker limes can place buildings structurally at
risk. Inferior tabby, carrying the weight of a second story, was apt to slowly compress and settle at a rain enters and further
erodes the lime, collapse is imminent. This construction flaw may manifest itself only under certain conditions (e.g. rain and
missing stucco.)
Today quality control is expected in bag lime, and a repair can be made easily, using a simplified cradle. Neat cement or
synthetic additives of any kind should be avoided in repair, because their plasticity is incompatible with that of lime.
Another potential structural problem may occur in the foundations. Tabby foundations were generally poured only two to
three feet deep and lacked spread footing or buttressing. Walls were 10 inches thick underground. Fortunately, the nature of
tabby and its construction prevented the risk of toppling: each pour had hardened sufficiently before a subsequent pour was
added, and cradles were made to pour around corners in a continuous form, thereby linking one wall to the next cohesively.
Joists and other beams merely added additional support to the structure. However, high winds can put pressure on walls.
Cracks in stucco are a good indication of structural problems.
INCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS
Traditional building materials are more porous than their modern substitutes. They will absorb more water but have the
advantage of allowing it to evaporate freely under drier conditions. When certain modern materials with low porosity are
introduced during maintenance and repair, incompatibility becomes an issue. There is a decrease in natural ventilation that
can cause persistent dampness in many old buildings. The logical progression is deterioration.
PORTLAND CEMENT: Cement and its various forms can do irreparable damage to tabby structures. It has most popularly
been used as the sole ingredient in repairs or stucco, which in itself is historically inaccurate. Its density reduces uniform
breathability throughout a structure, effectively sealing the porous surface from water. Clogged pores mean that the tabby is
unable to breathe.

Spot repairs with cement create saturated surrounding areas, thus weakening the bond between the new and old materials.
Stucco should be flexible, and it should never be stronger than the material to which it adheres. By employing cement, a
rigid, incompatible stucco is being introduced, basically sealing the tabby structure in a plastic bag.
SILICONE SEALANTS: Sealants are soft or liquid moisture-impervious compounds. They are designed to be flexible in
areas with anticipated movement, but have little or no ability to breathe. These modern products are not suitable for historic
tabby structures due to their non-porous nature as well as being historically inappropriate. Sealants, generally, have
improved lately to achieve color stability, and resist ultraviolet rays and mildew, but their impervious nature prohibits them
from working with traditional building materials, particularly porous ones.
ASPHALT: Asphalt caps were a popular solution to sealing the tops of tabby ruins in the 1950s. Unfortunately, the asphalt
did not merely coat the tabby; it also penetrated into the honeycomb fabric of the wall. Once hardened, it effectively sealed
the top surfaces from rain penetration, but prohibited its removal.
CHEMICALS
Water-based and toxic chemicals should never be used on or near tabby. They can escalate decay as well as visually alter
the color and appearance of tabby. The walls draw the chemicals into its pores by capillary action and water rarely can
dissipate the effects fully.

LACK OF MAINTENANCE
While water does the most harm to buildings, it is merely a source. Lack of maintenance is the key catalyst to its
introduction. No building can go without maintenance. If regular maintenance is carried out, the longevity of the structure is
assured and the financial outlay for major repairs is minimized.
Lack of maintenance can be graphed as a downward curve. Initially, the plateau of status quo begins to sag. As
maintenance is deferred, the curve deflects more until it reaches a vertical line, indicating that collapse is imminent and the
costs of salvation will be exceedingly high.

REPAIRS
Reversibility is a prime issue in repairing historic buildings. It minimizes problems during maintenance and future repairs,
and helps to maintain the integrity of the structure. Replacing deteriorated components with compatible materials ensures
that the new and old materials will work together. Repairs are best made with materials that are traditional to the structure.
NOTE: Tabby is technically an early form of concrete, using oysters shells as aggregate. Unfortunately, many contractors
assume incorrectly that neat cement or a pre-mix with cement in it is a suitable repair material. Cement was not introduced
in this country until around 1870, so is not a compatible material for original tabby. Cement and its many twentieth century
variations may physically harm tabby structures, creating long-term problems, and they may not be totally reversible.
TABBY
There are varying degrees of tabby restoration, ranging from patching to structural repairs. Each tabby structure should be
evaluated on its own merits to determine the most appropriate repair. Every attempt should be made to save as much
historic tabby as possible.
WATERPROOFING
The simplest, most effective, and perhaps sole means of waterproofing original tabby, is to retain and maintain its traditional
stucco coating. Stucco reduces the potential for water infiltration and protects tabby from permeability and absorption until
carbonation has increased its strength.
REMOVAL OF EARLIER REPAIRS
The easiest form of tabby restoration involves repairing neglected structures. In other cases, earlier repairs must be
removed. Documented examples of unacceptable, incompatible repairs include Portland cement stucco, caps of asphalt tar,
silicone sealants, and visible alterations created by the sculpting of the stucco to redefine the edges and basic appearance
of the tabby.
Tar and cement are difficult to remove, since they tend to be stronger than the material to which they adhere. Upon excision
of the tar or cement, substantial sections of tabby may come away as well. Subsequent repairs, therefore, are more costly,

necessitating the employment of cradles to fill significant voids. It is best to leave these repairs alone. Asphalt will eventually
deteriorate and actually become weaker than the tabby. It can then be carefully removed, prior to the installation of a more
suitable cap.
Silicone sealants have also been applied to the external surface of tabby and/or stucco. Unfortunately, they cannot be
removed or reversed, since the silicone seeps into the pores and voids of tabby. Time alone can aid in stabilizing the
imbalance of moisture levels.
Even with the use of proper ingredients and proportions, a new tabby mix and/or stucco can be applied inappropriately or
carelessly, dramatically altering the visual character of the original structure. Color and application are as important as
ingredients and proportions. Historically, tabby has been light gray, from the combination of white lime and gray-to-black
wood ash (ash being included inadvertently when lime was retrieved from the pit after burning.) The stucco was either the
same color or a soft beige, if the sand dominated the color more than the ash. The gray in Tabby Revival tabby was the
result of the cement since ash was no longer a component from burning oyster shells to obtain lime.
The use of boards and dovetailed corners in cradle construction produced a flush wall with sharp corners. When stucco was
applied, masons retained this appearance. Efforts should be made to duplicate tabby in color, texture, and application, as
well as ingredients and proportions. The basic preservation guidelines outlined in the Secretary of the Interiors Standards
for Rehabilitationare applicable.
PATCHING
Simple tabby repairs can be made employing a trowel and a tabby mix including broken oyster shells. In its historic form,
tabby utilized only whole oyster shells. However, broken shell pieces are better suited to small repairs.
Stucco (the tabby mix minus shell) may be used to repair portions of a tabby wall, if the depth of the repair does not exceed
1 inch. (The basic thickness of the first or scratch coat of stucco is one-quarter to one-half inch.) Extending the depth will
slow the stuccos drying time, but will not irreparably harm the tabby or its final appearance.
When a restoration project requires new tabby, a properly formulated mix must be specified. All materials should conform to
ASTM standards.

Lime should conform to ASTM C-207, Type S, hydrated lime, or ASTM C-141 for hydraulic
hydrated lime.

Sand should conform to ASTM C-144 to ensure proper gradation and freedom from impurities.
Sand, or other type of aggregate, should match the original as closely as possible. Research
suggests that channel sand, not pit sand, was the key source.

Cement should conform to ASTM C-150, Type II, white, non-staining Portland cement.

One suggested mix for original tabby is:

1 parts by volume
1 parts by volume
4 parts by volume

hydraulic lime
hydrated lime
sand

If Tabby Revival tabby is being repaired, Portland cement may be included in the mix. One recommended recipe is:

1 parts by volume
2 parts by volume
9 parts by volume

white Portland
cement
hydrated lime
sand

These recipes may vary depending on the tabby under restoration. Additional information is given in the sources listed in the
bibliography.
Once the appropriate tabby mix has been selected, the ingredients need to be measured out by volume, not weight. Mixing
is a critical factor in proper application; tabby can be overmixed, ultimately causing crazing or shrinkage from a too-rapid set.
Manual mixing should be limited to 15 minutes, and machine mixing should not exceed four minutes. All substrate surfaces,

defined here as the apparent surface layer, be they tabby or a stucco base coat, must be thoroughly wetted to retard drying
and minimize the rate of moisture absorption from the new materials into the old. Drying tabby should be covered with burlap
and misted during the daylight hours to prevent rapid moisture loss and cracking.
STRUCTURAL REPAIRS
Before patching or stucco repair, structural tabby should be assessed. Tabby is a structurally sound building material.
Historical documents cite its strength and re-use value in converting ruins to new structures. For example, the wall thickness
of one tabby structure, examined after a fire, had diminished to six inches, a loss of two inches on each of the external and
internal surfaces, yet it is still a substantial wall. Where vines have become a structural support within tabby walls, and the
full thickness remains, the different layers may have shifted from alignment. In evaluating repairs, therefore, one needs to
ascertain whether the traditional 10-to-12-inch width is extant and aligned, and if not, whether the missing portion requires
repouring or just a thicker stucco.
If repouring is required, traditional cradles or forms must be made, utilizing wood boards of a minimum one-inch thickness.
The sturdiness of the boards helps to minimize the potential for warping from shrinkage. The existing wall must be stabilized
with bracing as necessary. All disintegrated tabby must be removed, leaving a clean, detritus-free surface. Simple brushing
by hand may be sufficient, but where necessary, low-pressure mechanical air blowing is acceptable.
Once a clean surface has been exposed and wetted to improve adhesion, a new cradle must be fashioned to fit the repair
area. Resting on substantial lower pours, if possible, or bracing, the cradle should be made of sideboards only. The new
tabby slurry should be mixed and poured in the traditional manner and tamped periodically to settle oyster shells and
minimize air pockets. ) See recommended mixes cited under patching.) The cracks and grooves of existing tabby serve as
points of adhesion for the new tabby. No attempt should be made to fill the void or repair areas with substances other than
tabby slurry, such as brick chips, unless clear evidence exists of its inclusion in the original mix.
After drying in its cradle for two to three days, the boards may be removed and set above for subsequent pours. Walls
should be roughened by brushing to improve the adhesion of newly applied stucco.
It is difficult to define the point at which cradle restoration is substituted with a thicker stucco. A one-inch thickness
represents a lower limit for the use of a cradle, since the oyster shells might not be adequately seep into areas of less than
one-inch depth. If a pour shows more erosion on its lower half than its upper, tabby may have to be repaired by hand with a
trowel or the vertical cradle board pivoted outward to allow tabby slurry to reach the repair area. Once the deteriorated area
is nearly filled, the cradleboard can be returned to its upright position and the pouring resumed to the desired height.
Some tabby structures have been constructed from tabby bricks rather than from the more traditional pouring method.
Structural repairs should include reconstruction of handmade sundried tabby bricks, held in place by a tabby mortar.
However, some handmade clay bricks in earlier repairs do not appear to have damaged surrounding tabby bricks.
STUCCO
Traditional materials are recommended when stucco repairs or replacement are necessary, despite the fact that they may
require annual attention. The retention of historical integrity and the lack of problems due to compatibility far outweigh the
trouble of undertaking seasonal repairs.
Since stucco is by and large tabby without the shells or at most, crumbled shell, the recipe for stucco is the same as for
original tabby.

1 parts by volume
1 parts by volume
4 parts by volume

hydraulic lime
hydrated lime
sand

Though generally not used, ground oyster shells have been noted in some surviving examples of original stucco.
The use of hydraulic lime imparts increased strength while retaining plasticity; Portland cement increases strength, but
reduces plasticity. White Portland cement is not as strong as gray cement. Any decision to substitute Portland cement should
be made by a professional knowing the detrimental qualities of cement, and its use is largely recommended only on a Tabby
Revival structure with cement in its original mix. Manmade additives should never be used. The properties, such as freeze
resistance, they impart to the recipe are generally unnecessary and have largely been tested on modern tabby only.
Stuccoing should be completed before cold weather and freezing temperatures, above 10 oC (50oF) is best.
When replacing stucco, a maximum of two coats should be applied. This may vary from the more common single coat (oneeighth to one-quarter inch), but historical documents mention annual restuccoing. A thicker, two-coat stucco will obviate the

need for annual renewal. The substrate of tabby must be thoroughly cleaned and misted not saturated with water before
restuccoing begins. This will increase the bond of the stucco with the tabby, and will prevent the stucco from drawing the
water out of the tabby, shrinking, and developing hairline cracks upon drying.
After applying the scratch coat (one-quarter to one-half inch) with a trowel, the surface should be gently scored with a comb,
and excess stucco removed before the layer completely dries. The wall should be draped in burlap and the latter frequently
misted during sunlit hours to prevent the stucco from drying too quickly and to aid in reducing hairline cracks. An effective
drying time is two days, after which the final coat of one-eighth-inch thickness may be applied smoothly and evenly. The
burlap and misting should be repeated after this coat as well.

MAINTENANCE PLANS
Historic tabby structures require annual inspections. Traditional stucco may need annual renewal or spot repairs.
Maintaining stucco, roofs and gutters; and monitoring vegetation, burrowing animals and other soil-eroding activities can
virtually eliminate major problems. Without this care, the above environmental causes of deterioration will inevitably occur.
By establishing a regular maintenance plan, areas comprised of missing materials or problems that can ultimately cause
decay can be addressed early. Repair costs will be dramatically reduced while the longevity of the historic tabby structure
will be assured.

http://www.thehenryford.org/research/caring/tabby.aspx