# Resilient Design & Masonry



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

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 ?


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

For those interested,here is a site for the Resilient Design Institute.



http://www.resilientdesign.org/


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

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.


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

Pretty sure plastic wouldn't pass the test of centuries--it would tend to flow over time. Glass is much harder, and it flows even in the solid state.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

Tinstaafl said:


> Pretty sure plastic wouldn't pass the test of centuries--it would tend to flow over time. Glass is much harder, and it flows even in the solid state.




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:


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Tinstaafl said:


> Pretty sure plastic wouldn't pass the test of centuries--it would tend to flow over time. Glass is much harder, and it flows even in the solid state.


Hard isn't always the winner as the masonry world has found out in the last 20 or so years.

Flowing over time isn't necessarily a problem. All buildings require maintenance, the coliseum, the pyramids, the great wall all of them. What steel does is damage the masonry surrounding it by rust jacking. I've seen rusty lintels raise masonry by 3/4" in 30 years


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

My thinking is that pure stone is about as good as it gets, joints packed with non-structural crud just to stop the wind from whistling through. 

Not sure how to guarantee the structure won't be torn down to make way for the next freeway project, though...


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Tinstaafl said:


> My thinking is that pure stone is about as good as it gets, joints packed with non-structural crud just to stop the wind from whistling through.
> 
> Not sure how to guarantee the structure won't be torn down to make way for the next freeway project, though...


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


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

dom-mas said:


> The problem with pure stone is that the structure needs to be really wide.


That's a minor quibble when building for eternity. The most durable "structures" on the planet are built exactly that way: mountains. Nature's had a bit more time to practice than we have.

There's nothing intrinsically better about building tall & skinny rather than short & wide except as a nod to our propensity to huddle together in towns and cities.

The question isn't really so much whether we can build enduring structures; it's more about the desirability and practicality of doing so.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Tinstaafl said:


> The question isn't really so much whether we can build enduring structures; it's more about the desirability and practicality of doing so.


That's exactly it though, mass masonry as it was built in the past won't fly in today's world, too much material and too much time, so if "resilient design" is going to happen it will have to come in a different form.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

dom-mas said:


> That's exactly it though, mass masonry as it was built in the past won't fly in today's world, too much material and too much time, so if "resilient design" is going to happen it will have to come in a different form.






Exactly !:thumbsup: 


That brings us right back to the gist of this thread. Mass walled masonry is durable .........to an extant. A 12" , 16" possibly even 24" wall probably would not have a fighting chance with even a category 3 or 4 tornado or a seismic event of any consequence. Sooooo,we need to add something to provide lateral stability. Is it steel (probably not,it rusts) is it plastic or something else ? 


I'M one of the first to appreciate we learn something new all the time. The rather new learning experience for me (within the last year or so) is that Europe does not have to wrestle with extreme wind loading of their buildings as we do. Reason being,tornadoes are way more of a phenomenon of North America and much less so in Europe.


----------



## JBM (Mar 31, 2011)

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.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

We have had round homes ever since Buckminster Fuller introduced the geodesic dome. I think somehow,that type of design does not resonate with folks,unless you are an Eskimo.:laughing:


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

fjn said:


> Exactly !:thumbsup:
> 
> I'M one of the first to appreciate we learn something new all the time. The rather new learning experience for me (within the last year or so) is that Europe does not have to wrestle with extreme wind loading of their buildings as we do. Reason being,tornadoes are way more of a phenomenon of North America and much less so in Europe.


1968
Scotland
*Hurricane*


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

I did not say Europe never gets a tornado,they are just rather rare. That picture is from 1968,Oklahoma has had 3,750 documented tornadoes in the last 65 yrs !


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

fjn said:


> I did not say Europe never gets a tornado,they are just rather rare. That picture is from 1968,Oklahoma has had 3,750 documented tornadoes in the last 65 yrs !


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.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

SmallTownGuy said:


> 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.




I hope I never have to choose.:laughing:


----------



## heavyc (Jul 2, 2013)

When your number is up. Don't matter what type of structural composition your in.


----------



## concretemasonry (Dec 1, 2006)

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.


----------



## heavyc (Jul 2, 2013)

I'll take mother nature's design. No rebar no concrete. Pure rock and also lack there of. The oldest dwelling known to man. A CAVE.:whistling:clap:


----------



## Fouthgeneration (Jan 7, 2014)

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.


----------



## Fundi (Jan 5, 2009)

Excellent interesting discussion fjn!



Tinstaafl said:


> The question isn't really so much whether we can build enduring structures; it's more about the desirability and practicality of doing so.


Yep.

Just as i dont want to live in my grandfather's house (if it is standing?), should i build thinking of who is going to live in my house in a century from now. If yes then I should go thick masory, buttresses and vaulted roof.

If i suspect it will be torn down in mind i like the idea of which material can be reused a century from now.

But again it brings the issue of cost, it is cheaper to slice up a tree in North American than it is to reclaim stone, brick, or earth.

And then it depends upon your locality what is best material. This rammed earth city is i Yemen.








In a large city I think building for future centuries is not going to happen, unless it the the Hagai Sophia or parthenon.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Fundi said:


> But again it brings the issue of cost, it is cheaper to slice up a tree in North American than it is to reclaim stone, brick, or earth.


Is it cheaper?

We are now (finally!) moving towards something more realistic in terms of the thermal efficiency of the building envelope.

However, when the goal points of r40 for walls, r50-60 for ceilings are set, then there is no such thing as "affordable" for the average home buyer.

Here in N America, we have this clever rigged point system Called "LEED", which awards points for a buildings net energy/greenness.

Factor in seismic/tornado requirements for a particular locale, and what is left to build are bloviated, technically complex, prone to failure systems, that are temporary in lifespan, and even more difficult to dispose of as they become obsolete/broken.

So, I'm not inclined to think that our stick-framed homes are cheaper by ANY metric.

There's an old saying - and we use here on CT, that "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".

So, I get the "why" we are fixated on stick-framing here in N America. I just don't think a rational person can make either an economic or aesthetic case for it.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

heavyc said:


> I'll take mother nature's design. No rebar no concrete. Pure rock and also lack there of. The oldest dwelling known to man. A CAVE.:whistling:clap:






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:


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

SmallTownGuy said:


> Is it cheaper?
> .
> 
> So, I'm not inclined to think that our stick-framed homes are cheaper by ANY metric
> ...




My take on why we a fixated on stick framing is a result that less than 200 yrs. ago,sawmill technology entered the North American scene sitting right next to our vast forest resources. With the the advent of wire cut nails we were off and running. Before we understood the full implications of this quick and ready stripped down form of construction,before we had the mindset or faculty to grasp the many shortcomings (and they are plentiful) it became part of our social and economic fabric.



Only after stick framing was a defining part of our building culture did we begin to realize it's flaws. Not all at once,and this is important to note,because it explains how we incrementally backed ourselves into the current proverbial corner. One by one,we began to address issues,as our ability to understand them matured;in each instance adding resources--energy--man power to shore up what is essentially shack technology....each time backing up adding uniquely designed products,highly manufactured composites and even language like renewable to soothe the collective green conscience;all the while backing up as opposed to moving forward.


Each instance has been marked by a discovery of some new hole in convention needing to be filled until we now actually put more into the practice of disposable buildings than we would building authentically for the ages.

This is the dilemma ;we are now tightly lodged into this current position and we have walled ourselves in with a world economy dependent on the construction of pretend buildings.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

heavyc said:


> When your number is up. Don't matter what type of structural composition your in.





Exactly ! I just hope the structure I'M in does not cause my demise and become my tomb all in one .:laughing:


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

concretemasonry said:


> 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.




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% !.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

fjn said:


> Each instance has been marked by a discovery of some new hole in convention needing to be filled until we now actually put more into the practice of disposable buildings than we would building authentically for the ages.
> 
> This is the dilemma ;we are now tightly lodged into this current position and we have walled ourselves in with a world economy dependent on the construction of pretend buildings.


100% agree with your entire post, just wanted to focus in on this bit.

It's like you are saying we are putting patches on the patches, on the patches!

The movement of monies makes the world go 'round. In a sense then, 2x4s, bricks, whatever... are just another way of describing the currency of an active economy.

I don't have to know how much a gallon of milk or a 2x4 is selling for: all I have to know, is how many gallons, or 2x4s are sold at a given moment in time to gauge how "healthy" the economy is.

In other words, I don't have to know how much a dollar is worth - all I have to know is if my company is moving more 2x4s today, than yesterday, to be able to buy more of somebody else's milk.

And we in N America like to do "huge" whatever it is we do. So, the more gallons of milk, the more 2x4s moving thru the system, the better. And this system excels at bureaucracy (read "standards, regulations, inspectors, lawmakers") which then becomes the defining quality of it.

Anyways, as its stands right now, it looks to me we're f**ked. The "system" exists for "The System". Which is a shame, because I know first hand that adobe, brick - all forms of earth derived construction - is cleaner, easier to maintain, quieter, healthier.

Yet, I do see positive change, so I'm sticking with where I'm going on this stuff in my future work.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

This vid is the best summary I know of w/regards to masonry, compressed earth blocks, reinforcement, stabilizers, seismic and storm resistance, *vaulted roofs*, human factors, aesthetics, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLa4eu9HkCI


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

SmallTownGuy said:


> This vid is the best summary I know of w/regards to masonry, compressed earth blocks, reinforcement, stabilizers, seismic and storm resistance, *vaulted roofs*, human factors, aesthetics, etc.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLa4eu9HkCI





Interesting video. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Fouthgeneration (Jan 7, 2014)

HeavyC & fjn, I never realized I was in the synthetic cave business before, time for some new business cards.....


----------



## heavyc (Jul 2, 2013)

Fouthgeneration said:


> HeavyC & fjn, I never realized I was in the synthetic cave business before, time for some new business cards.....


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.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

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.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

fjn said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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:


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

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.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

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?


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

CEB is an insulating material.


----------



## Eaglei (Aug 1, 2012)

Carbon fiber reinforced plastic re-bar . I have the patent on it and looking for investor's .


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

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.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

fjn said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

In Canada a `conventional" mortgage is 25%. But since the early 2000's 5% while considered "high risk" is basically the norm. I don;t see much masonry except veneers here and a 4 side veneer is rare. 2 maybe 3 side if it's a corner lot...you know the rich guys in the neighbourhood

we've been US wannabees for quite a while. When I was a kid a lot of people looked to Europe particularly England as a source of inspiration...Lots of war brides made for lots of influence. These days it's full on US influence. Wouldn;t be a bad thing if it weren;t coming almost solely from the television


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Fundi said:


> I guess i was saying if you are going to build a crap house at least build it out of reuseable material.
> 
> what kind of logs is your house?


Even if we build good homes build them out of reuseable material. One of the reasons I prefer lime over cement mortars. Probably 50% of the brickwork I do is using reclaimed brick, both new construction and repairs, lime mortars both initially and for the repair. And the stone repair work I do I reuse all the stone except for the ones that have been repaired with cement based mortars. Those ones the stone is usually either deteriorated beyond use or is broken while removing it

No idea on what type of logs. My home has drywall on the inside and vinyl siding on the outside (soon to be board and batten). I've seen the logs numerous times when doing repairs but not enough to know what type they are. At a guess I would say White Pine, Red Pine or White Cedar or a mixture of all 3. Unlikely hardwood or spruce, but who knows


----------



## Fundi (Jan 5, 2009)

dom-mas said:


> I disagree almost 100%. If a home doesn;t have the right character it doesn;t matter how efficient or practical it is, it will be torn down for something new. And if the new one isn't attractive to later generations the same thing will happen. If i moved into a community with the CEB homes in that video I'd be looking to tear it down and build something new. to me they look like Soviet russia tenement housing


I agree both ways.

1. Does rammed earth have to look like stucco? No. what about making forms wider, laying stone on the outside wall in the formwork and the other half rammed earth. 

2. as you bring up Soviet then we are allowed to look globally. Most of the world can't afford character. Rammed earth in some areas could be the difference between having a comfortable house or living in unplastered cement block and rusted iron roof. the savings could go into reinforcement. I built a flawed house becuase that is what i could afford 30 years ago. 

I used to think brick and stone was the most appealing. I have changed my mind about earth. First that it is a legitimate method and now my quest broadens to can i make it have pleasing character.


----------



## Fundi (Jan 5, 2009)

dom-mas said:


> Even if we build good homes build them out of reuseable material. One of the reasons I prefer lime over cement mortars. Probably 50% of the brickwork I do is using reclaimed brick, both new construction and repairs, lime mortars both initially and for the repair. And the stone repair work I do I reuse all the stone except for the ones that have been repaired with cement based mortars. Those ones the stone is usually either deteriorated beyond use or is broken while removing it


We don't have ready made mortar bags. What is your mixture? or is it ready made? both for mortar and plaster/stucco.

Almlost all our brick building is done with clay/sand even some stone walls that way

I ask as i do alot more stone work than a year ago. I think i need to stop the cement in the mixture. Right now i am building stone foundation for a 15x25 ft out building.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Fundi said:


> I agree both ways.
> 
> 1. Does rammed earth have to look like stucco? No. what about making forms wider, laying stone on the outside wall in the formwork and the other half rammed earth.
> 
> ...


1. I was sort of commenting on that video of that guy giving the lecture. His claim that the houses don't have to look "adobe" but then he shows a bunch of "adobe" looking house just with different shapes...interior and exterior to me were painful and disheartening to look at. Could they lay up stone or brick on the exterior wythe of CBE? Maybe? @ 300psi I doubt it, @ the 2000psi he claimed absolutely but how much more energy would go into that? It would endear it more to me, even adding clapboard would be something....anything but stucco inside and out. 
2. I agree a lot of the rest of the world can't afford character in their homes and a lot of the rest of the world lives in even more temporary housing than we do. I'm not saying the CBE or rammed earth isn't a good solution in some areas, but if we're talking about designing buildings that will continue to be used for generations and not just for years, they have to be attractive

I look forward to the results of your broadened quest


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Fundi said:


> We don't have ready made mortar bags. What is your mixture? or is it ready made? both for mortar and plaster/stucco.
> 
> Almlost all our brick building is done with clay/sand even some stone walls that way
> 
> I ask as i do alot more stone work than a year ago. I think i need to stop the cement in the mixture. Right now i am building stone foundation for a 15x25 ft out building.


I don't do plaster stucco, but my mortar mix is generally a Type O, 2:1:9 for stone or 3:1:12 for brick. I only add the cement because I don;t want to babysit the mortar for weeks. On my pizza oven I've been using a 1:0:2.5 mix, 0 portland, and it's curing fine. I had done some toothing and in taking out the bricks from the toothing the centre of the mortar was still considerably softer than the inside. And that was work I had done a few weeks ago. work I had done over a month ago was totally cured. But I have to keep it hydrated after the initial set for at least days if not weeks. On a small scale like my oven it's not hard to do, on a larger scale it would be a pain. No recent irish potato famine immigrants around here anymore to keep busy


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

fjn said:


> Move to Chicago Illinois. No kidding,in all total seriousness,they have over 80,000 brick bungalows almost exactly as I described !
> 
> 
> http://www.wbez.org/news/culture/100-years-chicago-bungalows-109448


All it takes is one little itty-bitty city-wide firestorm, and suddenly, masonry is cool!


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

SmallTownGuy said:


> All it takes is one little itty-bitty city-wide firestorm, and suddenly, masonry is cool!





You betcha,they learned their lesson in October of 1871 that sticks and twigs are not the route you want to go.

Can't remember,was the Chicago fire before or after the three little pigs had their encounter with the wolf ?:laughing:


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

fjn said:


> You betcha,they learned their lesson in October of 1871 that sticks and twigs are not the route you want to go.
> 
> Can't remember,was the Chicago fire before or after the three little pigs had their encounter with the wolf ?:laughing:


After the wolf, I think the piggy's all became brickies....:whistling

Thought it was O'leary's cow???


----------



## S.U.M (Apr 17, 2013)

dom-mas said:


> I don't do plaster stucco, but my mortar mix is generally a Type O, 2:1:9 for stone or 3:1:12 for brick. I only add the cement because I don;t want to babysit the mortar for weeks. On my pizza oven I've been using a 1:0:2.5 mix, 0 portland, and it's curing fine. I had done some toothing and in taking out the bricks from the toothing the centre of the mortar was still considerably softer than the inside. And that was work I had done a few weeks ago. work I had done over a month ago was totally cured. But I have to keep it hydrated after the initial set for at least days if not weeks. On a small scale like my oven it's not hard to do, on a larger scale it would be a pain. No recent irish potato famine immigrants around here anymore to keep busy



Did someone say potato?


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

The best explanation of the Great Chicago fire is, oddly enough, meteor strikes. The Peshtigo and several other fires took place at the same time and in the same general area, all of which had suffered a drought episode and were thus dry tinder.


----------



## S.U.M (Apr 17, 2013)

Little bit late to this topic and this may have nothing to do with anything, 

My home was built in 1934 ish, the guy who built it was a Brickie and built it for him an his wife.
She passed away shortly after it was finished, and he sold it to the lady I bought it off.
What attracted me to the home was the fact it was solid masonry built,plus the fireplace, garage and garden, it had and still does have all of the original trim, kitchen doors and wooden panels around the walls. 
The only work I have done to the original house was rebuilt the chimney about 3 years ago.
The brick windows sills on the back are still I great shape as is all the brick around the bottom of the home. I have made a few upgrades like a/c, new windows and small addition on the back but I bet this house will stand for another 80 years...
The reason it was built with knowledge, skill and pride 3 very important things a lot of people in this business today are missing, it's all about $$$$$$$.
Home's today arrive on trucks for Christ sake, the are thrown together in days and the masonry is slapped up in the same amount of time, in all weather conditions, I have seen it.
I have worked on homes for people in subdivisions, replacing sills, rebuilding pillars and fixing cracked arches, all while the 2nd or 3rd phase of the subdivision is being done, don't even bring up the warranty as it never works out for the h.o. 
Sure quality of today's materials might not be up to scratch as those of years gone by, but neither is the workmanship of those laying it. My 50 year old timber frame garage will outlast most new builds as will my grandmothers 300 years old stone house in Ireland, which is still lived in today by my aunt.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

I think that's it again, well built AND attractive


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

dom-mas said:


> 1. I was sort of commenting on that video of that guy giving the lecture. His claim that the houses don't have to look "adobe" but then he shows a bunch of "adobe" looking house just with different shapes...interior and exterior to me were painful and disheartening to look at. Could they lay up stone or brick on the exterior wythe of CBE? Maybe? @ 300psi I doubt it, @ the 2000psi he claimed absolutely but how much more energy would go into that? It would endear it more to me, even adding clapboard would be something....anything but stucco inside and out.
> 2. I agree a lot of the rest of the world can't afford character in their homes and a lot of the rest of the world lives in even more temporary housing than we do. I'm not saying the CBE or rammed earth isn't a good solution in some areas, but if we're talking about designing buildings that will continue to be used for generations and not just for years, they have to be attractive
> 
> I look forward to the results of your broadened quest



Have you seen Portmeirion in Wales?


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Just took a quick internet tour. Nicer than the homes in the video, but still not my taste at all. At least at portmeirion there is a little architectural character. But really, I dislike stucco quite a bit. Not as an accent, or even as the body, so long as there are other accents, lots of other accents.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

dom-mas said:


> Just took a quick internet tour. Nicer than the homes in the video, but still not my taste at all. At least at portmeirion there is a little architectural character. But really, I dislike stucco quite a bit. Not as an accent, or even as the body, so long as there are other accents, lots of other accents.


There' an old axiom of "form follows function". What the carcass of a dwelling requires in traditional construction dictates its final appearance, eh?

I'm not saying I disagree with you: My first experience wit adobe homes in New Mexico - even the ones built by gringos, seemed just too alien and monolithic to me, compared to the bloom-framed, fancy trimmed farm houses in mid-Michigan.

The adobe was awesome to live in, especially after a 10-12 hour day doing geoseismic work - just not crisply "homey".

But even worse,is contrivance-what we do now -trying to stick bits of "looks like" on crackerbox shacks.

I used to get a laugh, and even took a picture of a home down the road from me: It was basically a New England Saltbox. They used lick&stick fake stone for the bottom half of the front elevation, and then plastered the two dormer dog houses with the fake stone as well!

I can just imagine the real estate agent point out the "stonework", and then the proud home buyers showing it off to their friends saying "What really sold us, was it being so close to the lake, and all the handcrafted stonework".

All I know is, I've hit a personal "wall". I just cannot do any more Walmart housing. It literally makes me ill in my gut. It is NOT what I got in this profession to do.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Below is a vid of Portmeirion. Maybe Fundi will get some inspiration?

The guy who designed it Clough Williams-Ellis, did some of the structures with eammed earth.

He wrote a paper/book on it (rammed earth) nearly 100 years ago. The choice for him was also an economic one: post WWI, a severe lack of wood and brick.

"It is not the land of my Fathers that concerns me so much as the land of my children"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wna2GTKVIQg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAtuRenrOBY


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Well, dammit, now I'm on a roll.

The last time I got married was in 1985. I was working for the county at Oakland Airport, a busy executive airstrip (we used to have the most take offs and landings in the entire USA). Lot's of high-rollers and shenanigans.

Anyhow, fellow I knew was chief pilot for Alfred Taubman (of shopping mall and past owner of Sotheby's). This fellow bought a place on Mackinaw Island, and was about 80% complete in bringing it up to modern standards. He offered me "The Audubon Suite" as a wedding gift for a week.

Well, there went Niagara Falls, in came Stonecliffe. It was built by an Irishman who made a fortune in the meat packing industry, Michael Cudahy.

There's too much to tell about the place, except that it had a damned manual return bowling alley in the basement, and I was fascinated by that.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

SmallTownGuy said:


> There' an old axiom of "form follows function". What the carcass of a dwelling requires in traditional construction dictates its final appearance, eh?
> .





Just a bit of trivia. The saying attributed to Louis Sullivan,which became the rallying cry for the modernist movement starting in the 1930,s is misinterpreted quite often. It does not imply materials dictate the form the structure takes in final appearance.


It is just a battle cry to remove all ornamentation.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

That place i could get behind. Some wood accents go a long way in breaking up the monotony of the stucco


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

SmallTownGuy said:


> The Nicole Curtis project redoing the exterior of the Ransom Gillis house here in Detroit is wrapping up, and Mlive.com featured a photo update.
> 
> http://www.mlive.com/business/detro...cole_curtis_and_team_h.html#incart_river_home
> 
> Haven't been by there, but was disappointed to see OSB used for sheathing the porch roof structure. Eh, whatya gonna do? Still, its impressive how a structure that has been virtually abandoned for a century can be brought back.


Update: It is about completed, will be a public invited showing on Nov 1.

They have a weird 5 dollar donation - no pics or vids allowed thing going on.

Will be shown in an eight-part Rehab Addict special at 9 p.m. on Nov. 5 on HGTV.

http://www.mlive.com/business/detro...urtis_ransom_gillis_re.html#incart_river_home


----------



## Fouthgeneration (Jan 7, 2014)

Superseal @ 179: property taxes are 100 % deductible on commercial/business property and of course building depreciation can taken---why work in an old building when your neighbors are giving back tax $ to you to pay for a New unit? Or why build anything to last when the Tax code doesn't reward that behavior?

The US real estate market has been socially engineered for generations.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

Way back when,in the first post in this thread,I threw out the ideas of rebar in masonry and the detrimental effects that only 2 % moisture will cause to start the corrosion process. 

Ran across this site today, their admixture may offer a solution to that problem. Who knows the long term viability.



http://www.hycrete.com/


----------



## Kris Johnson (Dec 20, 2013)

Fundi said:


> This rammed earth city is i Yemen.
> View attachment 192986
> 
> 
> ...


----------

