Contractor Talk - Professional Construction and Remodeling Forum banner

Resilient Design & Masonry

22K views 183 replies 15 participants last post by  Kris Johnson 
#1 ·
A somewhat recent buzz word in the design / architectural arena is the term resilient design. The gist of it is to design / build buildings for the long haul,centuries if not longer. These buildings should be capable of withstanding natural and anthroprogenic (man made disasters,like terrorism). That said,obviously masonry has a real good chance to play a big role in that arena.


Was giving this topic considerable thought for some time.Re-enforced masonry appears to hold much promise to "assist" buildings to withstand high wind loading and seismic events. Having examined the pitfalls of rusting of steel embedded in concrete and masonry,(yes even epoxy and galvanized steel along with stainless) . I started to examine the possibilities of plastic re-bar for such applications. For what I read,the tensile strength is more than steel size for size.


Does anyone have any experience with plastic re bar ?
 
#3 ·
I've never been a fan of the combination of masonry and steel. I see cramps all the time that are rusted and not doing their job, rusted wall ties, rebar, and on and on. The masonry can be repaired for the most part but since the steel is embedded it's next to impossible without dismantling the masonry anyway.

I've wondered about plastic but know next to nothing about it other than I hate it for the most part. I also know that there are many types with different properties, but for the most part they aren't effected by oxidation or water, just UV, and being embedded there is little to no UV penetration.
 
#5 ·
You are spot on,glass does flow with time. Here is a fact also,so does concrete. Brick also "grows" it is the smallest it ever will be right out of the kiln,with age,it expands to never return to it's original size however,unlike concrete,the expansion of brick is finite.


The problem with rusting steel,the forces it exerts are fierce. I think if I was to pick my own poison,I'd hedge my bets the plastic would be the least problematic. Like the guy told Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate,"plastics man plastics".:laughing:
 
#8 ·
The problem with pure stone is that the structure needs to be really wide. Masonry has all the compressive strength you could ever hope for but has poor lateral strength. It tends to overcome that by either being very wide...or by adding some steel which has a lot of tensile strength. Make sure that the steel and the masonry are in contact and the masonry can "deliver" the lateral load to the steel hugely increasing the walls ability to accept that lateral load. Without the steel (or another product with tensile strength) a masonry structure needs to be quite wide at the bottom lessening every story or so....a 10 story mass masonry building though may have foundation walls that are 10' thick or more...on the other hand a re-inforced masonry wall can be 10 stories high and only 1' thick at it's base...Concretmasonry has even been on projects where 6" block walls have gone up 10 stories or so
 
#12 ·
For people out in tornado country I always liked the idea of round houses with nothing to allow the wind to catch like eves and whatnot.

I think somehow there needs to be a way to build a house with rounded walls and roofs with spray foam re inforced with plastic re rod.

My awesome idea on it anyhow.
 
#16 ·
Not challenging you. Just remarking that if its not tornadoes, its hurricanes, and the UK folks are quick to claim their masonry construction is storm proof and that "just ain't so".

In either case, I'd have a hard time choosing: whether to get speared in the chest by a flying splintered 2x4, or crushed by 10,000 pounds of masonry falling on me.

Either way, frequency of storm events don't matter much, if you are odd man out and on the receiving end of Mother Nature's wrath.
 
#19 ·
fjn-

It is very difficult to place all of your eggs in one basket until the products have stood the test of time. Steel reinforcement is well proven for decades of construction with masonry and poured concrete. Plastic and other materials have not really proven the long time durability for structural applications.

A similar situation existed a few decades ago when Owens Corning came up with a surface bonding reinforcement of masonry walls called "Block Bond". After a while it was found out that the concrete eroded the glass fibers to the point of deterioration, so an alkali-resistant glass fiber had to be used for durability.
 
#27 ·
What you say,I agree with.The problem is though,even the most durable steel (galvanized,epoxy and stainless) days are numbered when placed in concrete or masonry. It is not a matter of if it will decompose,it is just a matter of when. Hopefully,for those buildings we deem necessary to exist for centuries,we can think through the process of how to make that happen. A scary thing I read while diving into this topic,steel will start to decompose embedded in masonry or concrete with a moisture contend as low as 2% !.
 
#24 ·
I'll buy that.:thumbsup: Only problem,there are a finite number of caves. I think that may have been the catalyst for the first wars......someone trying to push another out of their cave. And it is still going on,you know ,turf wars.:laughing:
 
#21 ·
In a freeze thaw climate like mine, in a moderately wet area, most buildings will fail if left unheated and off the grid, Thus Civil factors outweigh design for achieving several hundreds of years of service, most Western buildings that have survived hundreds of years were/are owned by the State or organizations like the Roman Catholic Church. I wouldn't bet against the Latter Day Saints though....

Obviously use of chrome or basaltic rebars would increase the probable lifespan of most buildings.

Few hours learning basic accounting skills involving ROI, and the relationship of inflation to rational spending on durability versus future maintenance would silence most voices uninformed bloviating regarding building structures that last"forever", rather build something that can be repaired several times without massive expenditures. If the various builders of the Egyptian Pyramids had spent less on their respective piles of wasted taxpayers incomes, Egyptians might still rule the World...
Over spending on monumental public buildings is one of many signs of a declining Culture.

Property taxes, Income taxes, and keeping government out of the market place are more essential to long term buildings survival than their actual construction: See Detroit or Stalingrad or Nagasaki.
 
#32 ·
Nothing synthetic about a cave? Simply a comparison level, that is positively unattainable with any of the building materials available. If however you could remotely near their integrity you surely would set the benchmark for construction, as the ancient Egyptians so seamlessly have done.
 
#33 ·
Smalltownguy;

One aspect of the video that triggered a previous thought was the discussion pertaining to gravel in trench for footing. A number of years ago, I saw an add in a trade publication for a product to resist the rising damp between footings and foundation walls.

I wonder if the gravel in the trench would negate the need for such a product.


Here is a connection to the company I believe ran such an add .http://www.cosella-dorken.com/bvf-c...footing_barriers/products/footing_barrier.php



Also,since pressed blocks "breathe" won't they carry water ? Back to the rusting steel syndrome.
 
#34 ·
Yeah, good points.

Moisture:
Compressed earth reaches a density that can exceed block, even reaching 2500 psi strength. Even at the minimum level of 300 psi, moisture migration seems to only occur at the general rate of the entire wall - that is, it is diffused and not concentrated.

There are several demonstrations of dimensional pressed earth blocks that contain 5% lime. In each case a power washer is used directly within inches of the exterior surface, and no discernable erosion takes place.

You have my word, that the rammed earth we repaired in Ste Genevieve - it would have just been scrubbed away - like dried mud on your truck.


Current practices allow for (and require, like in British Columbia), conventional rebar, or a system of vertical thru-bars, with a top plate held down by threaded fasteners. So whatever moisture presents itself doesn't (apparently) raise a flag with engineers and in-field tests.

Moisture: The "weak knee" in the whole system is the wicking action - constant sourcing of water being pulled into the earth matrix.

Remember "permanent wood foundations"? Is anybody still doing those?

Anyway, they were set directly on gravel with an impermeable membrane:
 

Attachments

#35 ·
Hey Fundi:

Man, I can see you doing good work and getting some production - IF you had one of those manually operated rammed earth block making machines.

Even if I put aside my personal hatred for noisy, engine powered machines, the fact is, a manual machine could be operated by anybody, and repaired with the minimum of sophisticated tools.

Yup, you could get walls up fast AND place those beautiful vaults over them. A true win-win.

Let me know if there's anybody I can call/write, whatever.

Hell, I don't even know what your internet bandwidth is, or if you can view videos like on YouTube.

Just saying. I really respect your work.
 
#43 ·
Hey Fundi:
IF you had one of those manually operated rammed earth block making machines.

...Even if I put aside my personal hatred for noisy, engine powered machines, the fact is, a manual machine could be operated by anybody, and repaired with the minimum of sophisticated tools.
I have looked at them. Rammed earth seemed much cheaper and easier, So i started there.
I have looked at CEB rams, like the aurroville ram. Hopefully i will figure out how to try them on my journey.

There are cinva ram machines around for decades but it has not widely been used.

I also dont like machines much with exception of some power tools


Hell, I don't even know what your internet bandwidth is, or if you can view videos like on YouTube.
Don't worry there.
times have changed we have fast internet, including fiber to the home, and then I own the service .
 
#36 ·
fjn,

Here's one for ya: All these fancy hi-tech mucky-mucks keep talking about the need to not only have the thermal mass that earth/masonry presents, but also that any wall system needs to have an insulating layer sandwiched between the inner and out wall.

So, that translates to have two wythes - and in-between a thickness of blue foam board.

To me then, I don't see how a credible system can be built, unless it has an earth mass interior wall, covered by blue foam, then finally, clad with a course(veneer) of fired brick.

The neanderthal in me likes the simplicity of just one wall component. But, the thinking part of me gets the insulating part too. However, now it just becomes another complex system.

Any thoughts?
 
#39 ·
Musings Of An Energy Nerd http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/all-about-thermal-mass



This paper drawing on findings of a reputable source (Oak Ridge Nat. Labs.) shoots some holes in the guy on the video along with those who feel ICF,s are the cats meow. Bottom line,one layer of insulation on an ICF is on the wrong side. Also,mass walls no insulation only work to the buildings occupants advantage in a rather small portion of the country.
 
#40 ·
Yup, remember that guy from greenadvisor, it's good to have both extremes represented - each are making a pitch.

I've lived in masonry and stone homes here in Michigan, I can assure you they are more comfortable, even during prolonged sweltering summer weeks, and much easier to cool.

One of the problems with ANY institution, whether its that compressed block guy, Oakridge, University of New Mexico or University of Michigan (I have reviewed reams of data from them) is they are going to magically develop findings that support whatever agenda is behind their research monies.

It's up to us guys with boots on the ground to hatchet our way through the jungle.
 
#42 ·
A lot of it has to do with the simple algorithmic scope of innovation. We knapped a rock 2 million years ago, but didn't shape an arrowhead for the next one million six hundred and thirty thousand years. We built on that startling development, and 30,000 years later we drew pictures on the wall of a cave.

Progress after that was amazing! We discovered how to grow crops instead of simply gathering them, we taught animals to be our helpers and our food within another ten thousand years, along with writing, plumbing, and BEER!

In construction terms, at this point we were building low dams, irrigation systems, and mud brick everything. Building technology advanced rapidly. In our own lifetimes, we have seen computer rooms converted into something you hold in your hand, and oh, by the way, it is also a telephone, camera, moving and still, jukebox, watch, and the entire most current Encyclopedia Britannica.

Is it any wonder that building technology has mirrored this trend? The problem with current envelope technology is not with it's performance, it lies with the failure of any given part, leading to the failure of the system.

That is the inevitable result of systems technology; one aspect fails and it cascades to total failure fairly rapidly.
 
#44 ·
Very few can (or will) build a building that anyone wants to or can use in centuries from now. And if history tells us anything those few are mass masonry.

Questions about reinforcement:

How long do hardwoods last in a wall ?

what about bamboo instead of rebar? I am serious.

I wonder if reinforcement for vaults would be better to be exposed inside and outside instead of inside the wall?

I still am of the opinion houses should be built so that you can reuse, recycle, or dispose of in 100 or so years. That means masonry walls.

Normal joe does not maintain his house.


thirty years ago I read somewhere that bamboo might be used for tensile strength in ring beams. So i tried it in a small dairy barn. I need to chisel out and see what happened to it. Since then I have learned there are proper ways to harvest, cure, and bend. I am not convinced yet but it is something i think about.
 
#46 ·
Very few can (or will) build a building that anyone wants to or can use in centuries from now. And if history tells us anything those few are mass masonry.



I still am of the opinion houses should be built so that you can reuse, recycle, or dispose of in 100 or so years. That means masonry walls.

Normal joe does not maintain his house.

The riddle of durability,sustainability and resiliency in buildings is multi faceted. IMHO,the "Greenies" tout all their stuff,cradle to cradle,recycled content,embodied energy,etc.etc.and gloss over a key component,beauty. If the buildings we construct are not beautiful,no one will cherish them and they are destined to fall to the wrecking ball in short order. I will readily admit,beauty is somewhat subjective however,that is a topic in itself.


If the designers / architects keep cranking out what I call cartoon / TV architecture (vinyl villages with one elevation architecture) how can the people residing in such buildings get excited about keeping them up ?


We know where the beautiful buildings in the world are and are willing to travel many miles to view and touch them. We all know the heavy hitters,they need no mention. Here in the States people will travel to St Augustine Fl.,Williamsburg Va.,The old section of Philadelphia Pa.,New Orleans La. Charleston SC.,among others but who the heck will circle Schaumburg Il. on the map as a destination point ?


Beauty must not be over looked as a key component of durability / sustainability,its importance is paramount.
 
#47 ·
Fundi;3133114 Questions about reinforcement: How long do hardwoods last in a wall ? what about bamboo instead of rebar? I am serious. thirty years ago I read somewhere that bamboo might be used for tensile strength in ring beams. So i tried it in a small dairy barn. I need to chisel out and see what happened to it. Since then I have learned there are proper ways to harvest said:
I remember reading something along those lines also. I have to pull my copy of the book called A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander off the shelf ,it may have been in there that I read it.
 
#52 ·
Understood, but he seems to be saying that we shouldn't be building expecting that future generations will live in those same buildings. Maybe I read it wrong. And all of the things that were wrong with grandpas house can re repaired or replaced at a much lower cost, both financially and in energy, than tearing it down and building a new home...almost no matter what style of home it is.
 
#51 ·
Have to agree with Tscar. My grandpa's house was a fine one in its heyday, including a stair banister just made for kids to slide down [when the oldsters weren't looking].

But it also had a wood/coal kitchen stove, very few electrical outlets, not even a dream of the concept of air conditioning, and was overall inimical to today's lifestyle. Sure, it could be retrofitted with today's amenities--and that's exactly what it would look like.
 
#53 ·
You'll are pointing out adequate long term housing. But what about the failing infrastructure of the entire country also including our brothers on the other side of the Canadian borders. They are much more relevant. What good is having dwellings that can last through the ages when the bridge you cross to get there is failing along with the railway systems and the list goes on. Highways that weren't designed for the mass transit of modern proportions. That is much scarier than redoing a housing component from century to century.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top