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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#91443 — Glulam

On 2026-09-14 03:55, c186282 wrote:
> 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.
> 


It is way more complex than that.


Advantages

Advantages to using glulam in construction:

    * Size and shape - By laminating a number of smaller pieces of 
lumber into a single large structural member, the dimensions of glulam 
members are only limited by transport and handling rather than the size 
of a tree like sawn lumber. This also enables the use of smaller trees 
harvested from second-growth forests and plantations rather than relying 
on old-growth forests.[12] Glulam can also be manufactured in a variety 
of shapes, so it offers architects artistic freedom without sacrificing 
structural requirements.[13]

    * Versatility - Because the size and shape of glulam members can be 
so variable, they are able to be used as both beams and columns.[13]

    * Strength and stiffness - Glulam has a higher strength to weight 
ratio compared to both concrete and steel. Glulam also reduces the 
impact defects in the wood have on the strength of the member making it 
stronger than sawn lumber as well.[14] Glulam has also been proven to 
have a higher resistance to lateral-torsional buckling than steel.[15]

    * Environmentally friendly - Glulam has much lower embodied energy 
than reinforced concrete and steel because the laminating process allows 
the timber to be used for much longer spans, heavier loads, and more 
complex shapes than reinforced concrete or steel. The embodied energy to 
produce it is one sixth of that of a comparable strength of steel.[16] 
Also, as glulam is a wood product, it naturally sequesters carbon, 
keeping it from being released into the atmosphere.[17] As long as the 
wood used to manufacture the glulam members comes from a sustainably 
managed forest, glulam is a renewable resource.[18]

    * Fire safety - While glulam is inherently flammable because it is 
made of wood, if it catches on fire a char layer forms that protects the 
interior of the member and thus maintains the strength of the member for 
some time.[19]


Disadvantages

    * Material cost - Glulam may be more costly than concrete at high 
axial loads, though this depends on location and availability/ abundance 
of either material.[17] While glulam beams may be cheaper than HEA steel 
beams in some cases, it is not a significant difference.[15]

    * Moisture - Glulam, especially when used for bridge projects, is 
susceptible to changes in moisture which can impact its strength. The 
bending strength of glulam exposed to a number of wet/dry cycles can 
decrease dramatically (by 43.5% in one study).[20]

    * Dimensions - Compared to steel, glulam generally requires larger 
members to support the same load, although glulam member sizes may be 
similar to reinforced concrete. The cross-sectional area and height of 
glulam members are significantly greater than those of steel to perform 
the same function.[15] Compared to reinforced concrete, the relative 
size of glulam members depends on the loading applied.[17]

    * Biodegradation - As a wood product, glulam is subject to concern 
regarding biodegradation. In regions with higher risk, measures to 
protect the glulam need to be taken.[21]

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#91391

On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 13:51:54 +0200, Carlos E.R. 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.

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

Once upon a time the US had huge trees. We cut most of them down. In this 
area it takes 80 to 100 years for a Ponderosa pine to become marketable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_ponderosa

Many of the privately owned tracts were clear cut. The timber companies 
don't want to wait 100 years for the next crop so they've gone into the 
real estate business instead. 

That has been typical of the timber industry since colonial times. Cut 
down the trees and move west. Sometimes technology finds uses for 
previously overlooked species and they are cut down in turn. In the area 
where I grew up hemlocks were cut and the bark spudded off for the 
tanneries. The wood wasn't suitable for construction so it was left to 
rot. Later they found a way to use it for pulp in the paper mills.

Canada is still chewing away at its forests. Canadian softwood exports to 
the US have been a friction point for decades before Trump. The Canadian 
government subsidizes its timber industry and is accused of dumping by the 
US. 

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

#91270

On 11/09/2026 06:43, c186282 wrote:
> 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.
> 
Oh. OK.
>    Steel-reinforced ... steel is the strength, and DOOM, of
>    concrete. Gotta use stainless rebar.
> 
No need.  Just use proper cement that fills all the gaps between the 
sand so the beams are waterproof.

>    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 ?
> 
No, they don't. And its not THAT expensive. The point of pilings is that 
they are cheaper to get through unstable surfaces to reasonably stable 
bedrock than going the whole way with concrete. footings

To create a floor, you make a few pilings in the house center if its 
large so that no span is more than about 3meters and buy precast 
reinforced concrete T beams.  You heave these on the supports upside 
down and drop precast blocks between them., Its called 'block and beam' 
. Gaps are sealed with sand and cement brushed into the cracks


>    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.
> 
My point here is that you pay a heavy price for that crawlspace., 
Rodents and termites can use it. And eat the cables, whilst frost 
destroys any plumbing. Against European practice, its cheap substandard 
and lazy.

You don't even route soil pies under a floor if you can help it. 
Straight to the outside, rodding access and on yer way.

As far as rainwater clearance goes, that is simply part of the build., 
Again Regulations here dictate that you must be able to clear water away 
from the house footings and dump it somewhere other than the sewage system.

Since its ordinary water, it can be routed to a catch pond, local ditch 
or stream or into a 'soak-away' which is some sort of container filled 
with porous material .

If you cant organise a guttering system round the eaves you put in a 
below ground level drain of perforated pipe, embedded in shingle.


>    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.
> 
Roman concrete is not well served by modern construction methods

You can buy concrete blocs, and use steel ties in the mortar to give the 
structure tensile strength.

>    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.

Wooden *rafters* are pretty much de rigeur. Its hard to build steel 
trusses, and expensive. But you can clad with whatever you want,. 
Thatch, slates, tiles.

>    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.
> 
Well arches are not much used for that reason. We tie the rafter ends 
together with the ceiling joists and that takes the lateral loads. Wood 
is OK in tension


>    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  :-)
> 
Most eco/green ideas are utter crap.

I spent a long time studying the building regulations when I built my house.

So IU could get the look and feel I wanted, and still be compliant.


-- 
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

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

#91287

On 9/11/26 05:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/09/2026 06:43, c186282 wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Oh. OK.
>>    Steel-reinforced ... steel is the strength, and DOOM, of
>>    concrete. Gotta use stainless rebar.
>>
> No need.  Just use proper cement that fills all the gaps between the 
> sand so the beams are waterproof.

   Umm ... somewhere there are documentaries about that
   big Miami condo that imploded. Beams with plain steel
   rebar all shattered. They just put plaster and paint
   over it - "See ! All FIXED !".

   Sorry, but at least the first couple floors, always
   use SS rebar if you want it all to last.


>>    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 ?
>>
> No, they don't. And its not THAT expensive. The point of pilings is that 
> they are cheaper to get through unstable surfaces to reasonably stable 
> bedrock than going the whole way with concrete. footings

   Friction pilings are 'crude', but USUALLY work OK, even
   in kinda soft sandy soil. Not sure about putting 20 floors
   on top of them, they'd have to be a lot deeper/expensive,
   but for yer typical one or two floor abode .....

   However from a tech-geek point of view, it WOULD be
   interesting to monitor the load on each piling. NOT
   entirely sure what material/sensor could both take
   the weight AND maintain a reliable zero for like
   a hundred years. The subsidence fix ... like a 4"
   SS threaded 'bolt' thing in the piling with a big
   nut underneath. In case of subsidence, give the bolt
   a tiny turn.

> To create a floor, you make a few pilings in the house center if its 
> large so that no span is more than about 3meters and buy precast 
> reinforced concrete T beams.  You heave these on the supports upside 
> down and drop precast blocks between them., Its called 'block and 
> beam' . Gaps are sealed with sand and cement brushed into the cracks

   Sounds good. Sealing the cracks CAN be done with
   cement-like compounds but note that concrete
   SHRINKS over time. The slabs will separate a bit
   at a time for 25 years. Maybe some kind of rubber
   goo or gasket ???

   Commercial structures, they seem to hold up LARGE
   areas with a frame and then pour cement into it.

>>    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.
>>
> My point here is that you pay a heavy price for that crawlspace., 
> Rodents and termites can use it. And eat the cables, whilst frost 
> destroys any plumbing. Against European practice, its cheap substandard 
> and lazy.

   Well, from experience, 'access' seems the #1 issue.
   MAYBE something can live in the crawlspace but that
   might not be very important - just use metal or
   armored piping and such.

   Also, running plumbing and such INSIDE walls - a
   disaster waiting to happen. There are aesthetic
   solutions for OVER-wall routing, looks like
   intentional decoration but you CAN easily get
   to everything.

   USA especially now, houses are made as CHEAP as
   possible, then sold for as MUCH as possible. The
   idea of 'quality' or being 'maint friendly' seem
   to be long gone. All plasterboard or worse.

> You don't even route soil pies under a floor if you can help it. 
> Straight to the outside, rodding access and on yer way.

   Externalized pipes, esp for poop and such, are not
   a bad idea. Of course depends on yer floor design
   ideas. Again the pipes can be 'disguised' to help
   maintain the aesthetics.

> As far as rainwater clearance goes, that is simply part of the build., 
> Again Regulations here dictate that you must be able to clear water away 
> from the house footings and dump it somewhere other than the sewage system.

   An acceptable overhang can do that. As to how vulnerable
   the foundation might be, depends on the kind of soil in
   the area. "Clay-like" can be eaten away while "sandy"
   just absorbs the water.

> Since its ordinary water, it can be routed to a catch pond, local ditch 
> or stream or into a 'soak-away' which is some sort of container filled 
> with porous material .

   You DO kinda of need at least a "low spot" in the
   lawn somewhere.

> If you cant organise a guttering system round the eaves you put in a 
> below ground level drain of perforated pipe, embedded in shingle.

   Can work ... but check local regs.

>>    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.
>>
> Roman concrete is not well served by modern construction methods

   But CAN be used, esp for more vulnerable structures.
   HAVE seen corps supplying equivalent in the USA.

> You can buy concrete blocs, and use steel ties in the mortar to give the 
> structure tensile strength.

   "Blockwork" is TIME INTENSIVE - best to avoid as much
   as possible. Hence my suggestion to use pre-cast sections
   that can just be hoisted into place and tied together.
   Plenty of places that make such sections to order.

>>    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.
> 
> Wooden *rafters* are pretty much de rigeur. Its hard to build steel 
> trusses, and expensive. But you can clad with whatever you want,. 
> Thatch, slates, tiles.

   Where I am is 'tropical' enough where rot, termites, ants,
   are a problem. No wood IS better long term. I do understand
   the issues with non-flat concrete roofs though. MOST homes
   don't have flat concrete roofs, but CAN. Just gotta make
   it look good via a few aesthetic tricks.

>>    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.
>>
> Well arches are not much used for that reason. We tie the rafter ends 
> together with the ceiling joists and that takes the lateral loads. Wood 
> is OK in tension

   "Arches" have to be kind of TALL ... the 'chancery curve' ...
   to distribute side-load effectively. For a HOUSE, really,
   a flat concrete roof really IS the easiest solution. All
   the commercial buildings use them, so why not YOURS ?

>>    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  :-)
>>
> Most eco/green ideas are utter crap.

   Well, 'domes' were very Buckminster and 'futuristic' :-)

   But never seen a long curving roof or window that didn't
   LEAK like mad.

   Back when I used to go to burger joints, one place did
   a renovation that included long curved plastic windows
   down both sides. LOOKED good, but anything more than
   a drizzle of rain and the sections would be roped-off :-)

   MODERN 'dome' or near ... a good thick spray of polyurethane
   "rubber" or equiv probably WOULD seal things nicely. They
   didn't have that in the 60s. Still have to add some kind
   of UV/weather-resistant stuff OVER it however.

   Hmmm ... one thing that DOES kinda "last forever" -
   polystyrene foam. Can't get RID of it. Can be very
   strong if a higher-density version is employed.
   Underframe, plastic wrap, splooge the foam, paint.
   Have a little pile of it from packaging, the waste
   service doesn't want it. Only 'cure' is to like
   pour gasoline on it - that'll melt it - but then
   you have a big sheet of flammable plastic goo.


> I spent a long time studying the building regulations when I built my 
> house.
> 
> So IU could get the look and feel I wanted, and still be compliant.

   'Regulations', almost a mystic art. People who
   know NOTHING write them up - and MAY get big
   kickbacks from the contractors. Alas the issues
   are so far and wide I'm not sure anything useful
   can be DONE about it unless you find a very special
   political/legal leverage point. A very Libertarian
   'govt' would be a help, but that introduces new
   problems.

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

#91304

On 12/09/2026 06:03, c186282 wrote:
> Umm ... somewhere there are documentaries about that
>    big Miami condo that imploded. Beams with plain steel
>    rebar all shattered. They just put plaster and paint
>    over it - "See ! All FIXED !".
> 
>    Sorry, but at least the first couple floors, always
>    use SS rebar if you want it all to last.

No. Google 'high alumina cement'

HAC is now banned in the UK for all structural uses.

Proper reinforced concrete lasts many decades. There are 'pillbox' 
defences scattered all over England's defensible points from WWII all 
made with normal concrete and rebar.

What did you think hydroelectric dams were made of?


No one in the UK has ever used stainless steel. The problems came when 
the cement was permeable. Which lime mortar and high alumina cement are.

The Miami condo collapse was shoddy construction, not enough rebar and 
porous cement

Normally concrete is impermeable and the rebar forms a surface layer 
that protects it from corrosion. You can of course create a permeable 
concrete using very low cement content: Enough to bind the sand grains 
together but not enough to fill the gaps. It's a typical way to save 
money, Cement and rebar are expensive bits

If you are going to design and build a house I suggest you actually take 
the time to study the issues. Especially what went WRONG.

So many amateur designed 'eco houses' and 'dream homes' collapse or cant 
actually be built...

-- 
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone 
gets full Marx.

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

#91312

On 2026-09-12 12:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 12/09/2026 06:03, c186282 wrote:

...

> Normally concrete is impermeable and the rebar forms a surface layer 
> that protects it from corrosion. You can of course create a permeable 
> concrete using very low cement content: Enough to bind the sand grains 
> together but not enough to fill the gaps. It's a typical way to save 
> money, Cement and rebar are expensive bits

I know big areas in Spain, near the sea, where all the houses have 
corrosion problems. The concrete explodes pushed by the corroded iron 
inside. Made by many different builders.



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#91323

On 12/09/2026 12:48, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-09-12 12:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 12/09/2026 06:03, c186282 wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>> Normally concrete is impermeable and the rebar forms a surface layer 
>> that protects it from corrosion. You can of course create a permeable 
>> concrete using very low cement content: Enough to bind the sand grains 
>> together but not enough to fill the gaps. It's a typical way to save 
>> money, Cement and rebar are expensive bits
> 
> I know big areas in Spain, near the sea, where all the houses have 
> corrosion problems. The concrete explodes pushed by the corroded iron 
> inside. Made by many different builders.
> 
Ah. Good old Latin style cost cutting and EU corruption.


> 
> 

-- 
"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]

#91311

On 2026-09-12 07:03, c186282 wrote:
>    Also, running plumbing and such INSIDE walls - a
>    disaster waiting to happen. There are aesthetic
>    solutions for OVER-wall routing, looks like
>    intentional decoration but you CAN easily get
>    to everything.

Putting plumbing and electrical ducts inside walls is the standard here. 
Since decades.

On old places, the plumbing is inside the floor, and in new (yr 2000) 
they go, in multi level building, inside the ceilings. So that if there 
is a leak, you get the water inside, not the neighbour beneath you.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#91322

On 12/09/2026 12:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-09-12 07:03, c186282 wrote:
>>    Also, running plumbing and such INSIDE walls - a
>>    disaster waiting to happen. There are aesthetic
>>    solutions for OVER-wall routing, looks like
>>    intentional decoration but you CAN easily get
>>    to everything.
> 
> Putting plumbing and electrical ducts inside walls is the standard here. 
> Since decades.
> 
> On old places, the plumbing is inside the floor, and in new (yr 2000) 
> they go, in multi level building, inside the ceilings. So that if there 
> is a leak, you get the water inside, not the neighbour beneath you.
> 
Or more pertinently, your pipes don't freeze and burst  outside in the 
cold...

-- 
"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]

#91340

On 9/12/26 07:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-09-12 07:03, c186282 wrote:
>>    Also, running plumbing and such INSIDE walls - a
>>    disaster waiting to happen. There are aesthetic
>>    solutions for OVER-wall routing, looks like
>>    intentional decoration but you CAN easily get
>>    to everything.
> 
> Putting plumbing and electrical ducts inside walls is the standard here. 
> Since decades.

   Yep - because it's CHEAP.

   But when that pipe in wall pops or electric
   wire begins to smoke .... MAJOR disassembly
   and repair is required.

> On old places, the plumbing is inside the floor, and in new (yr 2000) 
> they go, in multi level building, inside the ceilings. So that if there 
> is a leak, you get the water inside, not the neighbour beneath you.

   All my 'under-floor' plumbing, copper, ROTTED about
   a decade ago. NO way to get at it. PVC might last a
   little longer, but only a little longer.

   IF you're keen on a 'temporary' house then you can
   build 'modern cheap'. If you're keen on something
   more lasting and practical however ......

   Anyway, being old and have SEEN many things, I'd
   really really rec my "over-wall" solution for most
   plumbing and electric needs. They MAKE fake moulding
   with room for that shit - will LOOK like intended
   "style".

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

#91347

On 2026-09-13, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

> On 9/12/26 07:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Putting plumbing and electrical ducts inside walls is the standard here. 
>> Since decades.
>
>    Yep - because it's CHEAP.
>
>    But when that pipe in wall pops or electric
>    wire begins to smoke .... MAJOR disassembly
>    and repair is required.

Yes, but by then the developers have taken the money
and are off fleecing someone else.  No skin off their
nose.

    I yearn to move, O Builder,
    From this place where I have bled.
    But on the floor my bank book lies,
    Fallen cold and dead.

-- 
/~\  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]

#91348

On 9/13/26 01:09, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-09-13, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/12/26 07:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>>> Putting plumbing and electrical ducts inside walls is the standard here.
>>> Since decades.
>>
>>     Yep - because it's CHEAP.
>>
>>     But when that pipe in wall pops or electric
>>     wire begins to smoke .... MAJOR disassembly
>>     and repair is required.
> 
> Yes, but by then the developers have taken the money
> and are off fleecing someone else.  No skin off their
> nose.

   'Zactly !  :-)

   Cookie-cutter pine and wallboard houses
   are quick and cheap - formula. However
   they'll be ALL fucked up in as little
   as 20 years.

   Pre-fab concrete panels ... the better
   way to go.

   "Blockwork" - too expensive, takes too long.
   Old-world approach. Skip it unless you're
   like 7+ figures.

   Lots of places will make pre-fab panels TO ORDER.
   Basically they just make plywood molds and pour
   concrete into them. Then, truck to site. All
   goes up and together quick and easy and strong.

   If you WANT you can buy some of those half-inch
   faux 'bricks' and stick them on the outside
   here and there For Looks.

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

#91365

On 13/09/2026 07:33, c186282 wrote:
> "Blockwork" - too expensive, takes too long.
>    Old-world approach. Skip it unless you're
>    like 7+ figures.

It is surprisingly cheap actually.
Especially with larger blocks

-- 
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

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

#91399

On 9/13/26 05:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 13/09/2026 07:33, c186282 wrote:
>> "Blockwork" - too expensive, takes too long.
>>    Old-world approach. Skip it unless you're
>>    like 7+ figures.
> 
> It is surprisingly cheap actually.
> Especially with larger blocks

   I've SEEN it take nearly forever. The construction
   firms STRETCH their people. One or two will stop
   by, add maybe one row of blocks, then you don't
   see them for weeks.

   Red bricks, yea, more OF them. Not much recommended
   for structural walls anymore, most are not made to
   accept rebar.

   Recent huge hurricane that went up into Georgia and
   beyond, a lot of the olde-tyme brick walls BLEW DOWN.
   Vertical/compressive strength, but not lateral force.

   Hmm ... saw a doc recently ... a pharaoh wanted some
   projects finished quickly, so his fix was to use "small"
   blocks that one or two men could manage instead of the
   traditional giant slabs :-)

   Anyway, if you want a quick, strong, fairly cheap
   house DO look into pre-fab concrete. Dress it up
   anyway you want afterwards.

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

#91407

On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 19:50:26 -0400, c186282 wrote:

> On 9/13/26 05:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 13/09/2026 07:33, c186282 wrote:
>>> "Blockwork" - too expensive, takes too long.
>>>    Old-world approach. Skip it unless you're like 7+ figures.
>> 
>> It is surprisingly cheap actually. Especially with larger blocks
> 
>    I've SEEN it take nearly forever. The construction firms STRETCH
>    their people. One or two will stop by, add maybe one row of blocks,
>    then you don't see them for weeks.

We discussed that in a completely unrelated IRL group last week. It was 
triggered by the sounds of construction from a building across the river 
that is taking forever. That and several other projects around town seem 
to be on again -- off again schedule. There are often delays as the sheet 
rock people have to wait on the electricians and plumbers and so forth but 
these projects seem to be deserted for weeks.

I don't think unions come into play. We set up a molding operation in the 
'70s where the building was under construction. The masons laid X blocks a 
day, period. It didn't matter what time they had reached their quota.


our guys were putting in 12 or 13 hour days, 2 weeks on, one week off. It 
wasn't that bad. There isn't much to do in rural Minnesota in the winter 
but work and drink. I guess the masons did a lot of drinking.

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

#91409

On 9/13/26 23:32, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 19:50:26 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>> On 9/13/26 05:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 13/09/2026 07:33, c186282 wrote:
>>>> "Blockwork" - too expensive, takes too long.
>>>>     Old-world approach. Skip it unless you're like 7+ figures.
>>>
>>> It is surprisingly cheap actually. Especially with larger blocks
>>
>>     I've SEEN it take nearly forever. The construction firms STRETCH
>>     their people. One or two will stop by, add maybe one row of blocks,
>>     then you don't see them for weeks.
> 
> We discussed that in a completely unrelated IRL group last week. It was
> triggered by the sounds of construction from a building across the river
> that is taking forever. That and several other projects around town seem
> to be on again -- off again schedule. There are often delays as the sheet
> rock people have to wait on the electricians and plumbers and so forth but
> these projects seem to be deserted for weeks.

   Even worse with "road projects" - can stretch on YEARS
   for a relatively short/simple project.

   The construction people don't WANT to hire lots of
   new workers OR put out for the required equipment.
   Ergo "simple" stuff takes FOREVER (IF ever).

> I don't think unions come into play. We set up a molding operation in the
> '70s where the building was under construction. The masons laid X blocks a
> day, period. It didn't matter what time they had reached their quota.

   It's not so much "unions" here ... just cheapo/cautious
   economics from various contractors.

> our guys were putting in 12 or 13 hour days, 2 weeks on, one week off. It
> wasn't that bad. There isn't much to do in rural Minnesota in the winter
> but work and drink. I guess the masons did a lot of drinking.

   If there is a DISASTER everybody can move quickly AND
   get the funding.

   However "normal" projects .......

   Again, as such, I rec pre-fab concrete sections for
   building a new house. Easy/cheap to make, easy to
   get, QUICK to assemble. You can have the basics of
   yer new house theoretically in WEEKS once things
   get going. Outer/inner walls, some kind of water-
   proofing. Lift, apply goo, PLACE.

   Most of the 'commercial' people do this already
   for 2-3 floor high structures. It's the better way.

   Start here :

https://www.americanprecastfences.com/concrete-walls/
https://permacastwalls.com/
https://kingprecast.com/services/homes/

   They just make wood molds to spec, then pour
   concrete into them. Cheap and easy. Then truck
   the sections to site. No little army of skilled
   brick-layers and such required. Two or three
   guys with a mini-crane can place all the bits
   really fast.

   Then decorate any way you want. Cheezy, but I'd
   rec vinyl/aluminum "siding" - but you can add
   "pretty stuff" here and there for not much money
   later. In any case you'll HAVE your livable house
   FAST without having to be a millionaire.

   Anyway, I see this as the best "modern way".

   IF I have to build that extra house I was talking
   about, THIS will be the way. Piers, slabs, pre-fab
   walls.

   ROOFS ... well, this is an ongoing discussion here.
   Cheapest, maybe "best", FLAT concrete roof.

   Oh, after considerations, DO rec slightly "high"
   floors. At least 12 feet ... leaves 10 feet for
   the living space and two feet for the A/C pipes
   and such. OLD houses used 8 feet ... but that's
   not good/aesthetic enough now. 10-foot ceilings,
   though technically 'wasted space', make things
   LOOK a LOT more spacious. For humans, "looks
   like" can be very important.

   Oh, complications ... some guy informed me that
   the local govs are now protecting various kinds
   of TREES. They WON'T let you remove them and even
   the removable ones require EXPENSIVE permits.
   My spare lot ... dunno WHAT I'd do. A weird
   house built AROUND the trees ? Reminds me of
   the house of Odysseus where he built it AROUND
   a big tree .......

   Still NOT sure about "foam-crete". It's maybe HALF
   the weight of regular solid concrete - plus absorbs
   sound. Maybe ideal for strong-ish internal walls.
   Maybe ....

   Frankly a small "safe room" is NOT a bad idea.

   Saw one (expensive) house where a very strong
   safe room was built in - solid concrete in the
   middle of the house. Maybe just 6x6, but you
   could SURVIVE in there, store a week or two
   of supplies.

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

#91425

On 14/09/2026 04:32, rbowman wrote:
> I don't think unions come into play. We set up a molding operation in the
> '70s where the building was under construction. The masons laid X blocks a
> day, period. It didn't matter what time they had reached their quota.

Used to get paid by the brick., Maybe still are.

-- 
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over 
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that 
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

  Frédéric Bastiat

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

#91427

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> rbowman wrote:
> >> I don't think unions come into play. We set up a molding operation
>> in the '70s where the building was under construction. The masons
>> laid X blocks a day, period. It didn't matter what time they had
>> reached their quota.
> 
> Used to get paid by the brick., Maybe still are.
Roughly the same price to lay a brick as to buy it ...

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

#91438

On 14/09/2026 12:57, Andy Burns wrote:
> 
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> rbowman wrote:
>> >> I don't think unions come into play. We set up a molding operation
>>> in the '70s where the building was under construction. The masons
>>> laid X blocks a day, period. It didn't matter what time they had
>>> reached their quota.
>>
>> Used to get paid by the brick., Maybe still are.
> Roughly the same price to lay a brick as to buy it ...
> 
For many items it costs more to install. A typical electric socket for 
example

For most houses labour costs are 60% of the spend.

-- 
The difference bweteen a psychopath and a saint is that the psychpoath 
takes what he can and gives only what he must, but the saint gives 
everything he can and takes only what he needs.

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

#91376

On 2026-09-13 05:29, c186282 wrote:
> On 9/12/26 07:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-09-12 07:03, c186282 wrote:
>>>    Also, running plumbing and such INSIDE walls - a
>>>    disaster waiting to happen. There are aesthetic
>>>    solutions for OVER-wall routing, looks like
>>>    intentional decoration but you CAN easily get
>>>    to everything.
>>
>> Putting plumbing and electrical ducts inside walls is the standard 
>> here. Since decades.
> 
>    Yep - because it's CHEAP.

Where else would you put them?

> 
>    But when that pipe in wall pops or electric
>    wire begins to smoke .... MAJOR disassembly
>    and repair is required.

Electric repairs are easy enough. The cables are inside ducts, so just 
pull from the cable and insert a new one.

They last decades. My home is a century old, those cables were put sixty 
years ago. No, the problem is that we need now thicker cables to carry 
more current, so the new owner will have to put new ducting (inside the 
walls).

> 
>> On old places, the plumbing is inside the floor, and in new (yr 2000) 
>> they go, in multi level building, inside the ceilings. So that if 
>> there is a leak, you get the water inside, not the neighbour beneath you.
> 
>    All my 'under-floor' plumbing, copper, ROTTED about
>    a decade ago. NO way to get at it. PVC might last a
>    little longer, but only a little longer.
> 
>    IF you're keen on a 'temporary' house then you can
>    build 'modern cheap'. If you're keen on something
>    more lasting and practical however ......
> 
>    Anyway, being old and have SEEN many things, I'd
>    really really rec my "over-wall" solution for most
>    plumbing and electric needs. They MAKE fake moulding
>    with room for that shit - will LOOK like intended
>    "style".
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web