Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #91220 > unrolled thread

OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ???

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-10 01:22 -0400
    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-10 11:46 +0100
      Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-11 01:43 -0400
        Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-11 11:40 +0200
          Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-11 23:49 -0400
            Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-12 13:33 +0200
              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 17:46 +0100
                Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-12 21:47 +0200
                  Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-13 00:45 -0400
              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-12 18:58 +0000
                Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-12 23:59 -0400
              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-12 23:17 -0400
                Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 13:51 +0200
                  Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-13 16:30 +0000
                    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 19:45 +0200
                    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-13 21:05 +0100
                      Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 22:17 +0200
                  Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-13 21:03 +0100
                    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 22:18 +0200
                      Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-13 21:55 -0400
                        Glulam "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-14 22:01 +0200
                  Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-13 20:07 +0000
        Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-11 10:47 +0100
          Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-12 01:03 -0400
            Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 11:04 +0100
              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-12 13:48 +0200
                Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 17:48 +0100
            Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-12 13:40 +0200
              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 17:47 +0100
              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-12 23:29 -0400
                Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-13 05:09 +0000
                  Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-13 02:33 -0400
                    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-13 10:00 +0100
                      Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-13 19:50 -0400
                        Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-14 03:32 +0000
                          Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-14 00:24 -0400
                          Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-14 11:09 +0100
                            Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-14 12:57 +0100
                              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-14 19:09 +0100
                Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 13:57 +0200
                  Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-09-13 12:23 +0000
                    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 19:47 +0200
        Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-09-11 16:22 +0000
          Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-12 02:21 -0400
            Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 11:22 +0100
            Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-09-12 19:29 +0000
              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-13 00:16 -0400
                Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-13 05:09 +0000
    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-09-10 16:06 +0000
      Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-11 02:42 -0400
    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-09-10 09:46 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#91220 — OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ???

My existing house is OLD ... no longer really
trust the electric or plumbing or foundation
and I think there's a carpenter ant infestation
but can't FIND it.

HAVE a spare, smaller, lot.

Regs mean I'd have to kind of build AROUND the
existing trees - remember the house of Odysseus ? -
but there are several good reasons to put the new
house UP on piers, not just a dirt mound.

Only need like 24 inches. Greatly reduces bug
issues AND all the underfloor works can be GOT
at easily in the future.

Not looking for anything major - a 1:1 or maybe
2:1.5 retirement house. "Generous enough" but not
super large or expensive. WILL want to add an
eventual wheelchair lift to the front door though.
Legs ain't getting any better dontchaknow.

However, MOST houses in the area are either CBC on
concrete foundation on a "hill". But, you can't
get AT the 'works' - plumbing esp - with that
scheme.

You CAN put a wooden house up on 'piers'/supports
but wood ROTS HORRIBLY and attracts termites like
a magnet. Have also seen such designs literally
blown OFF the piers in high winds. Not great.
"Crackerboxes" have a poor rep for a reason.

"Chlorodane" use to deal with the termites - now
it's illegal. Too good ? "Heptachor" was even better,
like 50+ year protection. It's illegal now too.
Modern shit is, well, SHIT. It's a sort of
conspiracy and kick-back scheme from the
construction/restoration industry.

Now, clearly, concrete on top of concrete pilings
is nothing new. Multi-floor parking garages are
built that way. Friction piers, pour a slab, or
lay multiple pre-fab slabs, on top. But you do
not see it much for HOUSES in my area. The ideal
is some internal concrete walls for safety, but
foam-crete WOULD work OK if properly fixed.

Interested in the 100+ year house ... something
that does NOT readily fall apart or blow over.
People will PAY for that.

Hmmmmm ... HAVE seen weird "shock systems" for
termites ... once or twice a day placed wires
will send like a 50,000 volt shock under the
foundation. Kills or freaks termites and such.
You could home-build using an automotive ignition
coil if you wanted. Plenty of diagrams.

I know 'rbowman' or someone here lives in an OLD
house - and has apparently spent more money FIXING
it than it'd cost to throw together a NEW one.

Interesting ... 12th-century building are STILL
around, STILL in use. Modern - esp USA - are not
built to LAST. 50 years, tear it all down and
spend big $$$ to replace. Idiotic.

And yea, "Portland Cement" is CRAP ... "Roman"
concrete and equivs are the way to go. Coal
ash works nearly as well as volcanic ash - but
in USA Mt.St.Helens burped enough volcanic ash
to last for 1000 years. And finally, 'rebar',
use SS, not iron. Rebar is the strength of
concrete AND it's DOOM.

Oh yea, tech note, "up on pilings", has anyone
seen like huge BOLTS in said pilings, maybe with
sensors, so you can easily COMPENSATE for any
sinking, keep yer slab level ??? No good set
of terms to Google it alas. "Stainless" 2"+
bolts ...... DO have to avoid binding, use
slightly diff SS alloys for the 'nuts'.

Linux ? Barely ... though you MIGHT find apps
to check some of the structural requirements.
Do a few simple sims. A lot of THIS kind of
thing is old FORTRAN code. CAN do FORTRAN,
but it's not my fave anymore.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#91230

On 10/09/2026 06:22, c186282 wrote:
> Interested in the 100+ year house ... something
> that does NOT readily fall apart or blow over.
> People will PAY for that.

Visit Germany or indeed any part of Europe.
It is rare to build with timber, although some of our oldest houses are 
timber framed.

Build masonry or concrete foundations up to a given level then damp 
proof course and concrete block and beam floor with a vented airspace 
underneath. Nothing for termites to eat, nowhere for damp to get in.

What you do above that is optional. As long as it meets stringent 
insulation requirements and so on.

Personally full insulation double glazing and heat recovery ventilation 
using as much high mass masonry as possible, with large windows with 
huge overhanging eaves nets you warmth in winter and shade in summer.

If you want storm proof, make it very heavy. I'd tend towards  steel 
reinforced concrete myself - up to a foot thick, with insulation of 
about 8 inches inside, and then a similar lining to stabilise internal 
temperatures, tied to the outside with steel ties. You need to think 
about wiring and plumbing well before you line the inside with concrete 
block however.

OR alternatively don't, just line the whole blockwork house with drywall 
and run your shit behind *that*.

Internals walls will be dictated by how much sound insulation you want 
between rooms
All houses should have large overhanging eaves and a massively insulated 
roof for summer coolth and winter warmth

-- 
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the 
other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

—Soren Kierkegaard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91258

On 9/10/26 06:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 10/09/2026 06:22, c186282 wrote:
>> Interested in the 100+ year house ... something
>> that does NOT readily fall apart or blow over.
>> People will PAY for that.
> 
> Visit Germany or indeed any part of Europe.
> It is rare to build with timber, although some of our oldest houses are 
> timber framed.
> 
> Build masonry or concrete foundations up to a given level then damp 
> proof course and concrete block and beam floor with a vented airspace 
> underneath. Nothing for termites to eat, nowhere for damp to get in.
> 
> What you do above that is optional. As long as it meets stringent 
> insulation requirements and so on.
> 
> Personally full insulation double glazing and heat recovery ventilation 
> using as much high mass masonry as possible, with large windows with 
> huge overhanging eaves nets you warmth in winter and shade in summer.
> 
> If you want storm proof, make it very heavy. I'd tend towards  steel 
> reinforced concrete myself - up to a foot thick, with insulation of 
> about 8 inches inside, and then a similar lining to stabilise internal 
> temperatures, tied to the outside with steel ties. You need to think 
> about wiring and plumbing well before you line the inside with concrete 
> block however.
> 
> OR alternatively don't, just line the whole blockwork house with drywall 
> and run your shit behind *that*.
> 
> Internals walls will be dictated by how much sound insulation you want 
> between rooms
> All houses should have large overhanging eaves and a massively insulated 
> roof for summer coolth and winter warmth

   Generally good advice. Where I'm interested in never
   gets very cold however. High winds and rains ARE
   possible though.

   Steel-reinforced ... steel is the strength, and DOOM, of
   concrete. Gotta use stainless rebar.

   Friction pilings ... not TOO expensive to put in. Exactly
   how to put a supported concrete slab(s) on TOP of those
   is what I don't know. Also, over time, ONE piling is just
   SURE to subside a little. How to fix/compensate ?

   The IDEA is a 24" crawlspace underneath where it's possible
   to get at the pipes and such easily. Also, per local regs,
   the ability of rain to get UNDER the structure and thus
   absorbed may earn you eco brownie points.

   HEAVY stone ... well, heavy has heavy COST. Also would
   not entirely trust pure weight to hold the slab down
   in an extreme event, it'd have to be pinned/bolted/stuck
   somehow. Mortar is fragile, doesn't "stick" very well.
   Not much good natural stone in the area alas, it'd all
   have to be concrete - preferably the "Roman" variety.

   Oh ... and WHY do people build strong stone structures
   and then put a SHITTY wooden roof on them ? The roofs
   are always the first thing to go, often quite early.
   Yea, yea, "weight", but still. I've seen commercial
   buildings with FLAT concrete roofs, 2" concrete with
   'ribs' molded in. ARCHED roofs though, then you have
   to deal with the lateral loading more and maybe use
   steel tension bars at the base.

   Oh, remember "Dome Homes" - a 60s/70s fad ? By all
   reports they ALWAYS leak like mad. You'd have to
   spray about a half inch of molten PVC over the
   whole thing at minimum  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91269

On 2026-09-11 07:43, c186282 wrote:
> On 9/10/26 06:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 10/09/2026 06:22, c186282 wrote:


>    Oh ... and WHY do people build strong stone structures
>    and then put a SHITTY wooden roof on them ? The roofs
>    are always the first thing to go, often quite early.

You can see that even in ancient cathedrals.

My home is built like that, too.

Lighter than a stone roof with a stone vault. Like cathedrals. They put 
a wooden roof with tiles on top, waterproof.


>    Yea, yea, "weight", but still. I've seen commercial
>    buildings with FLAT concrete roofs, 2" concrete with
>    'ribs' molded in. ARCHED roofs though, then you have
>    to deal with the lateral loading more and maybe use
>    steel tension bars at the base.
> 
>    Oh, remember "Dome Homes" - a 60s/70s fad ? By all
>    reports they ALWAYS leak like mad. You'd have to
>    spray about a half inch of molten PVC over the
>    whole thing at minimum  :-)
> 


-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91286

On 9/11/26 05:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-09-11 07:43, c186282 wrote:
>> On 9/10/26 06:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2026 06:22, c186282 wrote:
> 
> 
>>    Oh ... and WHY do people build strong stone structures
>>    and then put a SHITTY wooden roof on them ? The roofs
>>    are always the first thing to go, often quite early.
> 
> You can see that even in ancient cathedrals.
> 
> My home is built like that, too.
> 
> Lighter than a stone roof with a stone vault. Like cathedrals. They put 
> a wooden roof with tiles on top, waterproof.

   Well, BRIEFLY waterproof ....... and then you
   pay, over and over and over ........

   Good stone/concrete roofs are heavy. You generally
   have to make special considerations to deal with
   the lateral forces (unless it's a FLAT roof). High
   arches can do it. "V" roofs can work IF you put
   'tension struts' across the bottom of the 'V' -
   which may be the cheapest solution.

   There are a few mid-60s houses in my area with
   flat roofs. They look a bit odd in comparison to
   the "usual" USA design but they're STILL THERE.
   At worst gotta spray some tar or foam shit on
   top every so often. Most commercial buildings
   use flat concrete roofs.

>>    Yea, yea, "weight", but still. I've seen commercial
>>    buildings with FLAT concrete roofs, 2" concrete with
>>    'ribs' molded in. ARCHED roofs though, then you have
>>    to deal with the lateral loading more and maybe use
>>    steel tension bars at the base.
>>
>>    Oh, remember "Dome Homes" - a 60s/70s fad ? By all
>>    reports they ALWAYS leak like mad. You'd have to
>>    spray about a half inch of molten PVC over the
>>    whole thing at minimum  :-)
>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91310

On 2026-09-12 05:49, c186282 wrote:
> On 9/11/26 05:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2026-09-11 07:43, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 9/10/26 06:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 10/09/2026 06:22, c186282 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>    Oh ... and WHY do people build strong stone structures
>>>    and then put a SHITTY wooden roof on them ? The roofs
>>>    are always the first thing to go, often quite early.
>>
>> You can see that even in ancient cathedrals.
>>
>> My home is built like that, too.
>>
>> Lighter than a stone roof with a stone vault. Like cathedrals. They 
>> put a wooden roof with tiles on top, waterproof.
> 
>    Well, BRIEFLY waterproof ....... and then you
>    pay, over and over and over ........
> 
>    Good stone/concrete roofs are heavy. You generally
>    have to make special considerations to deal with
>    the lateral forces (unless it's a FLAT roof). High
>    arches can do it. "V" roofs can work IF you put
>    'tension struts' across the bottom of the 'V' -
>    which may be the cheapest solution.
> 
>    There are a few mid-60s houses in my area with
>    flat roofs. They look a bit odd in comparison to
>    the "usual" USA design but they're STILL THERE.
>    At worst gotta spray some tar or foam shit on
>    top every so often. Most commercial buildings
>    use flat concrete roofs.

Interestingly, I saw flat roofs in Ottawa.


And I know some supermarkets that have flat roofs here, supported by 
flat wooden beams. But as there are not thick enough, long enough wooden 
beams here, they pile maybe a dozen beams tied vertically with iron girdles.

                                                       ·······
   ==================== ====================           ·     ·
   === ==================== ====================       ·     ·
   ====== ==================== ====================    ·     ·
   ========= ==================== ==================== ·     ·
    ...                                                ·······

I don't know the name of the system. And on top of it, some sort of 
undulated metallic or fibre roofing.


<https://maps.app.goo.gl/R2HXY4CBsVJRvTYD7>



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91321

On 12/09/2026 12:33, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-09-12 05:49, c186282 wrote:
>> On 9/11/26 05:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-09-11 07:43, c186282 wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/26 06:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 10/09/2026 06:22, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>    Oh ... and WHY do people build strong stone structures
>>>>    and then put a SHITTY wooden roof on them ? The roofs
>>>>    are always the first thing to go, often quite early.
>>>
>>> You can see that even in ancient cathedrals.
>>>
>>> My home is built like that, too.
>>>
>>> Lighter than a stone roof with a stone vault. Like cathedrals. They 
>>> put a wooden roof with tiles on top, waterproof.
>>
>>    Well, BRIEFLY waterproof ....... and then you
>>    pay, over and over and over ........
>>
>>    Good stone/concrete roofs are heavy. You generally
>>    have to make special considerations to deal with
>>    the lateral forces (unless it's a FLAT roof). High
>>    arches can do it. "V" roofs can work IF you put
>>    'tension struts' across the bottom of the 'V' -
>>    which may be the cheapest solution.
>>
>>    There are a few mid-60s houses in my area with
>>    flat roofs. They look a bit odd in comparison to
>>    the "usual" USA design but they're STILL THERE.
>>    At worst gotta spray some tar or foam shit on
>>    top every so often. Most commercial buildings
>>    use flat concrete roofs.
> 
> Interestingly, I saw flat roofs in Ottawa.
> 
> 
> And I know some supermarkets that have flat roofs here, supported by 
> flat wooden beams. But as there are not thick enough, long enough wooden 
> beams here, they pile maybe a dozen beams tied vertically with iron 
> girdles.
> 
>                                                        ·······
>    ==================== ====================           ·     ·
>    === ==================== ====================       ·     ·
>    ====== ==================== ====================    ·     ·
>    ========= ==================== ==================== ·     ·
>     ...                                                ·······
> 
> I don't know the name of the system. And on top of it, some sort of 
> undulated metallic or fibre roofing.
> 
What a ghastly un-designed solution.

> 
> <https://maps.app.goo.gl/R2HXY4CBsVJRvTYD7>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, 
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91335

On 2026-09-12 18:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/09/2026 12:33, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-09-12 05:49, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 9/11/26 05:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>> On 2026-09-11 07:43, c186282 wrote:
>>>>> On 9/10/26 06:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/09/2026 06:22, c186282 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>    Oh ... and WHY do people build strong stone structures
>>>>>    and then put a SHITTY wooden roof on them ? The roofs
>>>>>    are always the first thing to go, often quite early.
>>>>
>>>> You can see that even in ancient cathedrals.
>>>>
>>>> My home is built like that, too.
>>>>
>>>> Lighter than a stone roof with a stone vault. Like cathedrals. They 
>>>> put a wooden roof with tiles on top, waterproof.
>>>
>>>    Well, BRIEFLY waterproof ....... and then you
>>>    pay, over and over and over ........
>>>
>>>    Good stone/concrete roofs are heavy. You generally
>>>    have to make special considerations to deal with
>>>    the lateral forces (unless it's a FLAT roof). High
>>>    arches can do it. "V" roofs can work IF you put
>>>    'tension struts' across the bottom of the 'V' -
>>>    which may be the cheapest solution.
>>>
>>>    There are a few mid-60s houses in my area with
>>>    flat roofs. They look a bit odd in comparison to
>>>    the "usual" USA design but they're STILL THERE.
>>>    At worst gotta spray some tar or foam shit on
>>>    top every so often. Most commercial buildings
>>>    use flat concrete roofs.
>>
>> Interestingly, I saw flat roofs in Ottawa.
>>
>>
>> And I know some supermarkets that have flat roofs here, supported by 
>> flat wooden beams. But as there are not thick enough, long enough 
>> wooden beams here, they pile maybe a dozen beams tied vertically with 
>> iron girdles.
>>
>>                                                        ·······
>>    ==================== ====================           ·     ·
>>    === ==================== ====================       ·     ·
>>    ====== ==================== ====================    ·     ·
>>    ========= ==================== ==================== ·     ·
>>     ...                                                ·······
>>
>> I don't know the name of the system. And on top of it, some sort of 
>> undulated metallic or fibre roofing.
>>
> What a ghastly un-designed solution.

On the contrary, it is well designed on purpose.

> 
>>
>> <https://maps.app.goo.gl/R2HXY4CBsVJRvTYD7>
>>
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91345

On 9/12/26 15:47, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-09-12 18:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 12/09/2026 12:33, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-09-12 05:49, c186282 wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/26 05:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-09-11 07:43, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/10/26 06:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/09/2026 06:22, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>    Oh ... and WHY do people build strong stone structures
>>>>>>    and then put a SHITTY wooden roof on them ? The roofs
>>>>>>    are always the first thing to go, often quite early.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can see that even in ancient cathedrals.
>>>>>
>>>>> My home is built like that, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lighter than a stone roof with a stone vault. Like cathedrals. They 
>>>>> put a wooden roof with tiles on top, waterproof.
>>>>
>>>>    Well, BRIEFLY waterproof ....... and then you
>>>>    pay, over and over and over ........
>>>>
>>>>    Good stone/concrete roofs are heavy. You generally
>>>>    have to make special considerations to deal with
>>>>    the lateral forces (unless it's a FLAT roof). High
>>>>    arches can do it. "V" roofs can work IF you put
>>>>    'tension struts' across the bottom of the 'V' -
>>>>    which may be the cheapest solution.
>>>>
>>>>    There are a few mid-60s houses in my area with
>>>>    flat roofs. They look a bit odd in comparison to
>>>>    the "usual" USA design but they're STILL THERE.
>>>>    At worst gotta spray some tar or foam shit on
>>>>    top every so often. Most commercial buildings
>>>>    use flat concrete roofs.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, I saw flat roofs in Ottawa.
>>>
>>>
>>> And I know some supermarkets that have flat roofs here, supported by 
>>> flat wooden beams. But as there are not thick enough, long enough 
>>> wooden beams here, they pile maybe a dozen beams tied vertically with 
>>> iron girdles.
>>>
>>>                                                        ·······
>>>    ==================== ====================           ·     ·
>>>    === ==================== ====================       ·     ·
>>>    ====== ==================== ====================    ·     ·
>>>    ========= ==================== ==================== ·     ·
>>>     ...                                                ·······
>>>
>>> I don't know the name of the system. And on top of it, some sort of 
>>> undulated metallic or fibre roofing.
>>>
>> What a ghastly un-designed solution.
> 
> On the contrary, it is well designed on purpose.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> <https://maps.app.goo.gl/R2HXY4CBsVJRvTYD7>

   For a "traditional" USA home, metal roofing is now
   the most-desired solution. Fairly strong and lasts
   a LONG time. A bit more expensive, but worth it.

   Have seen rubber/plastic 'over-coating' tricks for
   shingle roofs ... but sometimes it works and then
   sometimes you get RIPPED OFF badly.

   STILL ... best service I've seen are flat concrete
   roofs. Not as "traditional looking" but pretty
   damned solid and simple. DID see one with a sort
   of road-facing 'facade' that made it LOOK more like
   a traditional roof, but it was mostly just an
   angled sheet.

   BUT, all 'commercial' type buildings have FLAT
   metal or concrete roofs. Bigger ones may have a
   helipad up there.

   Hmmmm ... saw a news story, "DailyMail?", about
   some Florida teen girl who went up on an old
   abandoned WOOD-supported condo flat roof. She
   fell through, three floors, DEAD. Somewhere
   in/near Sebastian FL.

   Remember that infamous beach condo near Miami
   that COLLAPSED ? "Permits"/"inspections" during
   the time usually involved a big brown envelope
   full of cash. There WERE some pix on the News
   later of the 'structural' columns - the rebar
   had totally rusted and destroyed the concrete,
   so they slapped some plaster and paint over
   them and said "All Fixed !" .......

   NOW ... thousands live in condos they CAN'T SELL.
   In very similar, dangerous, condition. Trying to
   fix them would be way WAY too expensive or just
   impossible. Gotta tear 'em all down and start over.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91328

On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 13:33:45 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> n 2026-09-12 05:49, c186282 wrote:
>> On 9/11/26 05:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-09-11 07:43, c186282 wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/26 06:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 10/09/2026 06:22, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>    Oh ... and WHY do people build strong stone structures and then
>>>>    put a SHITTY wooden roof on them ? The roofs are always the
>>>>    first thing to go, often quite early.
>>>
>>> You can see that even in ancient cathedrals.
>>>
>>> My home is built like that, too.
>>>
>>> Lighter than a stone roof with a stone vault. Like cathedrals. They
>>> put a wooden roof with tiles on top, waterproof.
>> 
>>    Well, BRIEFLY waterproof ....... and then you pay, over and over
>>    and over ........
>> 
>>    Good stone/concrete roofs are heavy. You generally have to make
>>    special considerations to deal with the lateral forces (unless it's
>>    a FLAT roof). High arches can do it. "V" roofs can work IF you put
>>    'tension struts' across the bottom of the 'V' - which may be the
>>    cheapest solution.
>> 
>>    There are a few mid-60s houses in my area with flat roofs. They
>>    look a bit odd in comparison to the "usual" USA design but they're
>>    STILL THERE. At worst gotta spray some tar or foam shit on top
>>    every so often. Most commercial buildings use flat concrete roofs.
> 
> Interestingly, I saw flat roofs in Ottawa.
> 
> 
> And I know some supermarkets that have flat roofs here, supported by
> flat wooden beams. But as there are not thick enough, long enough wooden
> beams here, they pile maybe a dozen beams tied vertically with iron
> girdles.


They usually don't collapse :). Back in the '70s when people started 
worrying about the cost of heating oil there was an emphasis on improving 
the insulation in older buildings. The unforeseen consequence was the roof 
had been designed so heat loss would reduce the snow load.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91342

On 9/12/26 14:58, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 13:33:45 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> n 2026-09-12 05:49, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 9/11/26 05:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>> On 2026-09-11 07:43, c186282 wrote:
>>>>> On 9/10/26 06:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/09/2026 06:22, c186282 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>     Oh ... and WHY do people build strong stone structures and then
>>>>>     put a SHITTY wooden roof on them ? The roofs are always the
>>>>>     first thing to go, often quite early.
>>>>
>>>> You can see that even in ancient cathedrals.
>>>>
>>>> My home is built like that, too.
>>>>
>>>> Lighter than a stone roof with a stone vault. Like cathedrals. They
>>>> put a wooden roof with tiles on top, waterproof.
>>>
>>>     Well, BRIEFLY waterproof ....... and then you pay, over and over
>>>     and over ........
>>>
>>>     Good stone/concrete roofs are heavy. You generally have to make
>>>     special considerations to deal with the lateral forces (unless it's
>>>     a FLAT roof). High arches can do it. "V" roofs can work IF you put
>>>     'tension struts' across the bottom of the 'V' - which may be the
>>>     cheapest solution.
>>>
>>>     There are a few mid-60s houses in my area with flat roofs. They
>>>     look a bit odd in comparison to the "usual" USA design but they're
>>>     STILL THERE. At worst gotta spray some tar or foam shit on top
>>>     every so often. Most commercial buildings use flat concrete roofs.
>>
>> Interestingly, I saw flat roofs in Ottawa.
>>
>>
>> And I know some supermarkets that have flat roofs here, supported by
>> flat wooden beams. But as there are not thick enough, long enough wooden
>> beams here, they pile maybe a dozen beams tied vertically with iron
>> girdles.
> 
> 
> They usually don't collapse :). Back in the '70s when people started
> worrying about the cost of heating oil there was an emphasis on improving
> the insulation in older buildings. The unforeseen consequence was the roof
> had been designed so heat loss would reduce the snow load.

   Well, you CAN jam a kind of support grate up against
   a concrete flat roof. Same thermal effect. Can also
   spray foam up against the concrete.

   My old office, SOMEBODY talked them into putting what
   amounted to a FAKE peaked roof OVER the old flat
   concrete roof. CONSTANT problems thereafter - they
   put too many cracks/holes in the old roof. New
   'roof' leaked, then it trickled down. The 'extra space'
   above was never used for anything. A disaster disguised
   as "aesthetics".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91339

On 9/12/26 07:33, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-09-12 05:49, c186282 wrote:
>> On 9/11/26 05:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-09-11 07:43, c186282 wrote:
>>>> On 9/10/26 06:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 10/09/2026 06:22, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>    Oh ... and WHY do people build strong stone structures
>>>>    and then put a SHITTY wooden roof on them ? The roofs
>>>>    are always the first thing to go, often quite early.
>>>
>>> You can see that even in ancient cathedrals.
>>>
>>> My home is built like that, too.
>>>
>>> Lighter than a stone roof with a stone vault. Like cathedrals. They 
>>> put a wooden roof with tiles on top, waterproof.
>>
>>    Well, BRIEFLY waterproof ....... and then you
>>    pay, over and over and over ........
>>
>>    Good stone/concrete roofs are heavy. You generally
>>    have to make special considerations to deal with
>>    the lateral forces (unless it's a FLAT roof). High
>>    arches can do it. "V" roofs can work IF you put
>>    'tension struts' across the bottom of the 'V' -
>>    which may be the cheapest solution.
>>
>>    There are a few mid-60s houses in my area with
>>    flat roofs. They look a bit odd in comparison to
>>    the "usual" USA design but they're STILL THERE.
>>    At worst gotta spray some tar or foam shit on
>>    top every so often. Most commercial buildings
>>    use flat concrete roofs.
> 
> Interestingly, I saw flat roofs in Ottawa.
> 
> 
> And I know some supermarkets that have flat roofs here, supported by 
> flat wooden beams. But as there are not thick enough, long enough wooden 
> beams here, they pile maybe a dozen beams tied vertically with iron 
> girdles.
> 
>                                                        ·······
>    ==================== ====================           ·     ·
>    === ==================== ====================       ·     ·
>    ====== ==================== ====================    ·     ·
>    ========= ==================== ==================== ·     ·
>     ...                                                ·······
> 
> I don't know the name of the system. And on top of it, some sort of 
> undulated metallic or fibre roofing.
> 
> 
> <https://maps.app.goo.gl/R2HXY4CBsVJRvTYD7>


   Use GoogleMaps to zoom in on most any USA city.
   All the commercial structures - biz/apts - have
   flat roofs.

   The 'peaked' roof is kind of Euro Manor ... more
   popular for free-standing houses outside the urban
   centers. If the house is big enough you can use
   the space for storage or a spare room. But, alas,
   you're increasing the chance of nasty leaks and
   expensive repairs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91375

On 2026-09-13 05:17, c186282 wrote:
> On 9/12/26 07:33, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-09-12 05:49, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 9/11/26 05:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>> On 2026-09-11 07:43, c186282 wrote:
>>>>> On 9/10/26 06:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/09/2026 06:22, c186282 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>    Oh ... and WHY do people build strong stone structures
>>>>>    and then put a SHITTY wooden roof on them ? The roofs
>>>>>    are always the first thing to go, often quite early.
>>>>
>>>> You can see that even in ancient cathedrals.
>>>>
>>>> My home is built like that, too.
>>>>
>>>> Lighter than a stone roof with a stone vault. Like cathedrals. They 
>>>> put a wooden roof with tiles on top, waterproof.
>>>
>>>    Well, BRIEFLY waterproof ....... and then you
>>>    pay, over and over and over ........
>>>
>>>    Good stone/concrete roofs are heavy. You generally
>>>    have to make special considerations to deal with
>>>    the lateral forces (unless it's a FLAT roof). High
>>>    arches can do it. "V" roofs can work IF you put
>>>    'tension struts' across the bottom of the 'V' -
>>>    which may be the cheapest solution.
>>>
>>>    There are a few mid-60s houses in my area with
>>>    flat roofs. They look a bit odd in comparison to
>>>    the "usual" USA design but they're STILL THERE.
>>>    At worst gotta spray some tar or foam shit on
>>>    top every so often. Most commercial buildings
>>>    use flat concrete roofs.
>>
>> Interestingly, I saw flat roofs in Ottawa.
>>
>>
>> And I know some supermarkets that have flat roofs here, supported by 
>> flat wooden beams. But as there are not thick enough, long enough 
>> wooden beams here, they pile maybe a dozen beams tied vertically with 
>> iron girdles.
>>
>>                                                        ·······
>>    ==================== ====================           ·     ·
>>    === ==================== ====================       ·     ·
>>    ====== ==================== ====================    ·     ·
>>    ========= ==================== ==================== ·     ·
>>     ...                                                ·······
>>
>> I don't know the name of the system. And on top of it, some sort of 
>> undulated metallic or fibre roofing.
>>
>>
>> <https://maps.app.goo.gl/R2HXY4CBsVJRvTYD7>
> 
> 
>    Use GoogleMaps to zoom in on most any USA city.
>    All the commercial structures - biz/apts - have
>    flat roofs.
> 
>    The 'peaked' roof is kind of Euro Manor ... more
>    popular for free-standing houses outside the urban
>    centers. If the house is big enough you can use
>    the space for storage or a spare room. But, alas,
>    you're increasing the chance of nasty leaks and
>    expensive repairs.

Flat roofs we have in the millions, they are normal here. Commercial 
buildings with flat concrete or metal roof, very normal. Typically 
concrete pillars and metal horizontal support beams.

But wood beams, not single beams, but made from multiple horizontal 
beams tied together with bolts and girdles (see the photo), is new. It 
must be superior to metal beams somehow.

We don't have huge trees like the USA or Canada do. So they created a 
solution using smaller trees.
-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91380

On 2026-09-13, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> But wood beams, not single beams, but made from multiple horizontal 
> beams tied together with bolts and girdles (see the photo), is new. It 
> must be superior to metal beams somehow.
>
> We don't have huge trees like the USA or Canada do. So they created a 
> solution using smaller trees.

We have them here too.  We call them "laminated beams".
When we re-modeled our house to open it up internally
we replaced a load-bearing wall with a 16-inch laminated
beam (plus appropriate footings).

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91382

On 2026-09-13 18:30, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-09-13, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> But wood beams, not single beams, but made from multiple horizontal
>> beams tied together with bolts and girdles (see the photo), is new. It
>> must be superior to metal beams somehow.
>>
>> We don't have huge trees like the USA or Canada do. So they created a
>> solution using smaller trees.
> 
> We have them here too.  We call them "laminated beams".
> When we re-modeled our house to open it up internally
> we replaced a load-bearing wall with a 16-inch laminated
> beam (plus appropriate footings).
> 

Ah, so laminated beams. It has a name. I can google for it now, thanks.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glued_laminated_timber>

Glued laminated timber (often shortened to glulam) is a structural 
engineered wood product made by bonding layers of dimensional lumber 
with moisture-resistant structural adhesives so the wood grain in each 
layer runs parallel to the member’s length. The resulting elements can 
be manufactured in a range of sizes and shapes, including straight 
members and curved components such as arches and frames used in building 
structures.

In North America, the lumber used for the laminations is commonly called 
laminating stock (or lamstock). Glulam is produced by preparing and 
grading lumber, joining boards to create longer laminations, applying 
adhesive and pressing the layers under controlled conditions, and then 
finishing the cured members to meet structural and appearance 
specifications.

Glulam is used in applications that benefit from long spans and 
prefabricated structural members, including roof systems, public 
buildings, and bridges, and is manufactured to meet established building 
and product standards.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91389

On 13/09/2026 17:30, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-09-13, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> But wood beams, not single beams, but made from multiple horizontal
>> beams tied together with bolts and girdles (see the photo), is new. It
>> must be superior to metal beams somehow.
>>
>> We don't have huge trees like the USA or Canada do. So they created a
>> solution using smaller trees.
> 
> We have them here too.  We call them "laminated beams".
> When we re-modeled our house to open it up internally
> we replaced a load-bearing wall with a 16-inch laminated
> beam (plus appropriate footings).
> 
These are not glued though.
Strapped and bolted.

Will act more like a car leaf spring than a solid angle iron.
Inherently more flexible than a solid or laminated beam


-- 
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that 
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

    - Bertrand Russell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91392

On 2026-09-13 22:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 13/09/2026 17:30, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2026-09-13, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> But wood beams, not single beams, but made from multiple horizontal
>>> beams tied together with bolts and girdles (see the photo), is new. It
>>> must be superior to metal beams somehow.
>>>
>>> We don't have huge trees like the USA or Canada do. So they created a
>>> solution using smaller trees.
>>
>> We have them here too.  We call them "laminated beams".
>> When we re-modeled our house to open it up internally
>> we replaced a load-bearing wall with a 16-inch laminated
>> beam (plus appropriate footings).
>>
> These are not glued though.
> Strapped and bolted.
> 
> Will act more like a car leaf spring than a solid angle iron.
> Inherently more flexible than a solid or laminated beam

I looked tonight carefully at those in the supermarket here, and indeed 
they seem glued.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91388

On 13/09/2026 12:51, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> Flat roofs we have in the millions, they are normal here. Commercial 
> buildings with flat concrete or metal roof, very normal. Typically 
> concrete pillars and metal horizontal support beams.
> 
> But wood beams, not single beams, but made from multiple horizontal 
> beams tied together with bolts and girdles (see the photo), is new. It 
> must be superior to metal beams somehow.

Its cheap and shitty, but probably works

Superior only in cost.


-- 
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91393

On 2026-09-13 22:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 13/09/2026 12:51, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Flat roofs we have in the millions, they are normal here. Commercial 
>> buildings with flat concrete or metal roof, very normal. Typically 
>> concrete pillars and metal horizontal support beams.
>>
>> But wood beams, not single beams, but made from multiple horizontal 
>> beams tied together with bolts and girdles (see the photo), is new. It 
>> must be superior to metal beams somehow.
> 
> Its cheap and shitty, but probably works
> 
> Superior only in cost.

 From the wikipedia article, it is superior in more things.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91403

On 9/13/26 16:18, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-09-13 22:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 13/09/2026 12:51, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Flat roofs we have in the millions, they are normal here. Commercial 
>>> buildings with flat concrete or metal roof, very normal. Typically 
>>> concrete pillars and metal horizontal support beams.
>>>
>>> But wood beams, not single beams, but made from multiple horizontal 
>>> beams tied together with bolts and girdles (see the photo), is new. 
>>> It must be superior to metal beams somehow.
>>
>> Its cheap and shitty, but probably works
>>
>> Superior only in cost.
> 
>  From the wikipedia article, it is superior in more things.

   Ummm ... depends ... pretty much "not really".
   WOOD is just TOO vulnerable - rot and bugs,
   plus it expands and shrinks constantly.

   Metal/concrete ... there's your 100 plus year roof.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web