# Alternative Construction Methods.



## tiogacounty (Oct 27, 2005)

Regrettably, I recently got way too involved with a disagreement here with somebody who was vigorously defending a kit house that IMHO, has serious issues. It got me thinking about the last thirty years of swinging a hammer for a living and how the "alternative" construction industry, has changed yet so many of the same issues remain. 

I was an odd kid who read Mother Earth, cover to cover and BELIEVED that I could build my own home for $50, and that the homesteading act was still an option. Heck it was in print, it's got to be true. Once it was time to head off to college, I went to a small school that offered an alternative energy degree. We spent out days building solar batch water heaters, touring "envelope" homes, underground homes, passive solar homes, filling solar mass water tubes with colored water, and listening to expert guests from companies like G.E. who was doing experimental, residential solar hot water systems that were complex, ridiculously expensive, and were about as ornery and unreliable as it gets. 

Since those days I have seen hundreds of ideas, some great, some silly, some flat out frauds! All came with a great sales pitch and a legion of devotees. If you look back at some of the leading authors of the day, and what they were passionately advocating for, it is a real eye opener. Earth sheltered homes that lacked basic waterproofing and moisture control details. Envelope homes that waste massive amounts of material, space and can burn to the ground in minutes while creating a violent firestorm in the interior. Trombe walls and other space hogging ways to store passive heat energy. Cooling tubes that collect everything from rodents to legionaires disease in the wrong application. A total disregard for super-insulation techniques or indoor air quality remediation. I'm sure that there are others here that can add to this list. 

My point is that I have no angle to promote and no desire to steer anybody toward any product or idea. I just would like to encourage all of the potential alternative builders here to really step back before taking a leap they may regret and ask a few questions. Starting with.

Why am I doing this? Is it clearly faster, better, cheaper, longer lasting, more environmentally responsible, or whatever my goals are? Now detach yourself from your emotions and faith based thinking on your choice and take the time to learn if you are right or wrong about your choices. Talk to everybody you can about the idea, seek those who have done it, and are no longer cheerleaders. Ask professionals, research the true cost in terms of your time and money. 


Many times I have seen everybody from sales reps. to owner builders who were as sure as God himself, that they were heading down a better path. In many cases that same advocate for ICFs, log homes, precast foundations, kit homes, pressure treated foundations, cordwood, straw bale, domes, gunite, ACC block, etc had a different tale to tell after the fact. Often their blind faith was tempered by reality and they learned the shortcomings that the advocates had previously downplayed or failed to mention. Sometimes the opinion had changed to "no way in ----- would I ever go through that again".


There are countless ways to put a roof over your head. Learn as much as you can about your intended path and take it slow. If somebody wants to sell you a $45,000 kit, break it down, What is the value of each component? Can I buy these parts locally? Am I paying a lot and getting a lot less than I should. Can I build this in an area that enforces national codes?

I have seen a local guy build a $16,000 log home that was an exact duplicate of the $90,000 Log home kit that he wanted. He bought the fully machined logs by the foot from a wholesaler for a tiny fraction of what the kit manufacturer charged. I even know a local wingnut that got his panties in a bunch while shopping for a new single wide mobile home. He went home, put up a block basement about 70' long by 14' wide and then stick built his own "mobile home". About as smart as teaching a pig to sing, in my opinion, but he was proud of his smarts, and saved a bundle. 

I've been down this road a time or two, and hate to see you make the same mistakes I already have. If you are doing it yourself, keep an open mind, research several options, know the value of what you are buying into, and protect yourself. Good luck.


----------



## Freeholder (Jun 19, 2004)

Good advice, Tioga. Thanks.

Kathleen


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

I find its just better to ask a third party what they think of my great ideas. Construction or otherwise.


----------



## countryboy84 (Dec 8, 2010)

I agree that people should do there due dilagence before building with any methode. I think that to many people look at the alt. building methods just to save a few bucks and end up with their backside in a sling. I am using them not because they are cheaper because some of the methods that I am using would cost more if I was buying all the materials at lowes or the like. But I am doing it because I want a stronger longer lived home then the standard of today. Lots of good alt. ideas out there but you are right need to look at the whole picture.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Thanks for the post.

I have been spending maybe 8 hours per week the past 6 months researching different building techniques....particularly all those that are considered "alternative".

They all have issues and pitfalls to watch out for...and they all have benefits. Some related to cost, some to livability, some to residual value.

I have on the order of 4 or 5 years to educate myself in this regard. If the next years go like the past 6 months, I will get dizzy from going in circles!

That is an exaggeration....but my point is that more study has a way of making me realize my first impressions are not always nearly correct! 

Thanks again for keeping it real.

Tim


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

countryboy84 said:


> But I am doing it because I want a stronger longer lived home then the standard of today.



After looking at pics of Tuscaloosa and Joplin, my wife is less critical of my surface bonded block and earth berming ideas!


Tim


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

_Excellent_ point, Tim. lol

Maybe I just have too much faith in people. 
But it's been my observation that most people who are planning to build something that differs from standard construction tend to be VERY informed about what they're doing and usually have been researching for _years_. :shrug:


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

tiogacounty said:


> Many times I have seen everybody from sales reps. to owner builders who were as sure as God himself, that they were heading down a better path. In many cases that same advocate for ICFs, log homes, precast foundations, kit homes, pressure treated foundations, cordwood, straw bale, domes, gunite, ACC block, etc had a different tale to tell after the fact. Often their blind faith was tempered by reality and they learned the shortcomings that the advocates had previously downplayed or failed to mention. Sometimes the opinion had changed to "no way in ----- would I ever go through that again"..



What is wrong with precast? It greatly improves the quality. Cast in place with ready mix is garbage. 3000 PSI in the whole 28 days with the cylinders in the moisture bath or curing room. We get that in 8 hours. 4500 in 24 hours. 6500 @ 7 days just left outside in the winter. Pushing 7000 @ 28 just left outside as well. 


If you want quality concrete work you must hire a quality producer. Precast or otherwise. Precast and prestressed buildings can be fantastic. If we ever build our underground home>>>>$$$. I will use cast in place footers and floor, the walls will be precast with cables for poststressing. The ceiling will be prestressed. It will cost less than a standard timber framed structure of the same size build on the surface.




What's snake oil for concrete. Fiber reinforcing... It does nothing but make the mix hard to finish.


----------



## gobug (Dec 10, 2003)

Stanb999
I agree regarding fiber, with the single exception being that it does prevent initial setup cracking. Otherwise it is useless. It does not strengthen the cement at all. There is a fiber which does strengthen the concrete, PVA. It does bind with the cement molecules and does strengthen the cement.

Your comments regarding setup times and strength show you have a good understanding of cement. You, however, did not reveal your concrete recipes that do play a part in the final strength and setup times.

Now using precast concrete carries with it a problem of delivery. Add to that the issue of junctions between precast concrete sections. Neither problem is unsolvable. Just something to keep in mind.
Gary


----------



## tiogacounty (Oct 27, 2005)

stanb999 said:


> What is wrong with precast? It greatly improves the quality. Cast in place with ready mix is garbage. 3000 PSI in the whole 28 days with the cylinders in the moisture bath or curing room. We get that in 8 hours. 4500 in 24 hours. 6500 @ 7 days just left outside in the winter. Pushing 7000 @ 28 just left outside as well.
> 
> 
> If you want quality concrete work you must hire a quality producer. Precast or otherwise. Precast and prestressed buildings can be fantastic. If we ever build our underground home>>>>$$$. I will use cast in place footers and floor, the walls will be precast with cables for poststressing. The ceiling will be prestressed. It will cost less than a standard timber framed structure of the same size build on the surface.
> ...


Like any construction method, there can be A LOT wrong with precast foundations. I live in an area where a specific brand of precast is marketed heavily and used frequently. To talk to their salespeople or satisfied customers, it is the best and only choice. Talking to builders and customers who have dealt with failures, some catastrophic, you will hear a whole other tale. 

I'm short on time, but I'll get into some of the structural and geological issues that excavators and other builders have discussed with me, if you would like, when I have more time.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

gobug said:


> Stanb999
> I agree regarding fiber, with the single exception being that it does prevent initial setup cracking. Otherwise it is useless. It does not strengthen the cement at all. There is a fiber which does strengthen the concrete, PVA. It does bind with the cement molecules and does strengthen the cement.


Believe me.. Their is no "molecular" or other bonding. Fact is the tinsel strength of the fibers is less then the aggregate. The most fiber can do is give a bit of strength when the strength is less than 3000 psi. If one uses good clean stone in the first place you would do better without such additives. Crimped Steel brads can do more but they are very hard to work with. 



gobug said:


> Your comments regarding setup times and strength show you have a good understanding of cement. You, however, did not reveal your concrete recipes that do play a part in the final strength and setup times.


For a good mix I would suggest most people get their concrete from a reputable supplier that is state certified from your DOT. Then buy their mid grade dot mix 5000PSI. Don't accept it if it's runny or too stiff. Don't add water to the mix or anything else on site. Make sure you have enough help. A slow pour is a bad pour. Placement, consolidation and initial floating should be done in less than half an hour. Even on a 1000 yard pour you are finishing while fresh concrete is still being placed. 

There is no "simple" concrete mix. I'll tell you this. Keep the W/C ratio to less than .45 have at least 700 pounds of cementitious material about 60% of it should be cement. Use high range water reducers to bring the apparent slup to around 7". Add an acceptable amount of air entrainment for your climate. That's it... but not really. There is a ton more. Like what stone are you using? Is is hard enough? Is it well fractured. Is it well graded? What sand... Is it natural, is it well graded? What is the fineness modulus? What is the quality of your mix water? Really there are too many variables. Of course in the end it comes to testing.


When we want strength as in prestressed. 8000psi is the minimum required for stripping we get it in 24 hrs. 28Day is 10,000+ psi. But this type of strength is really more than regular folks need or want. Imagine trying to break up a concrete stoop with twice the strength as the average stone bolder. 



gobug said:


> Now using precast concrete carries with it a problem of delivery. Add to that the issue of junctions between precast concrete sections. Neither problem is unsolvable. Just something to keep in mind.
> Gary


Precast is no more expensive for trucking than fresh concrete, steel deliveries, form work deliveries, the multiple trips to the work site by the concrete workmen. Generally all things being equal precast is cheaper. Not unlike a prefab house v/s a stick built. Joints are only an issue if the pieces are made poorly. With proper building technique pieces should line up and be true so no leaks would be likely. But any concrete structure that needs to be water proof needs to be treated on the side of infiltration to prevent leaks. Concrete isn't "water proof".


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

tiogacounty said:


> Like any construction method, there can be A LOT wrong with precast foundations. I live in an area where a specific brand of precast is marketed heavily and used frequently. To talk to their salespeople or satisfied customers, it is the best and only choice. Talking to builders and customers who have dealt with failures, some catastrophic, you will hear a whole other tale.
> 
> I'm short on time, but I'll get into some of the structural and geological issues that excavators and other builders have discussed with me, if you would like, when I have more time.


I do believe I said quality workmanship... The precast home foundations companies are mickey mouse outfits at best. I don't mean them. I'm talking real precasters. Suggesting precast isn't used in building is silly. Of course I said I would be using prestressed, precast, and cast in place. Prestressed for the roof. Post tensioned walls, cast in place floor and footings... Tho the one fella will try to get me to precast the floor too I'm sure. If he can give me form finish for the top surface, Maybe. I know how his guys finish. The companies I deal with build huge structures... Not a few poor fitting panels. 

If you would like to know who I'd use. Just PM me. One is building this right now. With prestressed panels... It has cast in full size brick. The panels looked great!


----------



## tiogacounty (Oct 27, 2005)

Stan, there are a few issues with where you are coming from here. I am real familiar with genuine precast construction, having worked on more than a few parking decks and tilt-up distribution and warehouse projects. This type of construction has almost nothing to do with affordable residential construction, unless, like yourself, you have access to the means and material to reduce the costs to a point where they would be comparable. So, in my original post, I am specifically referring to the precast foundation companies that we both agree are real "Mickey Mouse" outfits. Unfortunately, as you know, in NE and Central PA. they have a significant market share, and really talk a good game. The point of my original post is that as an "alternative technique", when viewed by a potential owner/builder they can be pretty appealing, especially if you only hear the sales pitch and talk to a few selected, very satisfied customers they will point you to. Don't get me wrong. They can be used successfully, and chances are, the majority of their installs are relatively trouble free. But..... when it goes bad, it really gets ugly, and some of the " corrective work" would make you puke. 

I would also tend to be less concerned with concrete strength than you are. Occasionally I will set a modular, and run some bearing load calculations based on actual shipping weights of the units and how much load a finished home actually applies to a foundation. In a simple bearing situation, without point loads, on an outside wall of a ranch home, a load of #130/ sq. in. on the plate is pretty typical. That roughly translate to 1/20th the strength of a really poor batch of concrete. Obviously stronger is better, but also serious overkill in most residential situations.

BTW, as a industrial/institutional electrician I really got to know what brand of hammer drill and bits were worth the money. Particularly when you needed a few hundred holes a week to install lighting, security and fire alarms in 10,000 lb concrete, while wiring a precast parking garage. I don't miss those days at all.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

tiogacounty said:


> Stan, there are a few issues with where you are coming from here. I am real familiar with genuine precast construction, having worked on more than a few parking decks and tilt-up distribution and warehouse projects. This type of construction has almost nothing to do with affordable residential construction, unless, like yourself, you have access to the means and material to reduce the costs to a point where they would be comparable. So, in my original post, I am specifically referring to the precast foundation companies that we both agree are real "Mickey Mouse" outfits. Unfortunately, as you know, in NE and Central PA. they have a significant market share, and really talk a good game. The point of my original post is that as an "alternative technique", when viewed by a potential owner/builder they can be pretty appealing, especially if you only hear the sales pitch and talk to a few selected, very satisfied customers they will point you to. Don't get me wrong. They can be used successfully, and chances are, the majority of their installs are relatively trouble free. But..... when it goes bad, it really gets ugly, and some of the " corrective work" would make you puke.
> 
> I would also tend to be less concerned with concrete strength than you are. Occasionally I will set a modular, and run some bearing load calculations based on actual shipping weights of the units and how much load a finished home actually applies to a foundation. In a simple bearing situation, without point loads, on an outside wall of a ranch home, a load of #130/ sq. in. on the plate is pretty typical. That roughly translate to 1/20th the strength of a really poor batch of concrete. Obviously stronger is better, but also serious overkill in most residential situations.
> 
> BTW, as a industrial/institutional electrician I really got to know what brand of hammer drill and bits were worth the money. Particularly when you needed a few hundred holes a week to install lighting, security and fire alarms in 10,000 lb concrete, while wiring a precast parking garage. I don't miss those days at all.



I disagree in that the true precasters are overly expensive. It should cost about 400 a yard installed. So a foundation for a 1500 sf ranch style would be about 12000 or so. Dig and place.

I do prestressed and precast work that is the reason I like concrete. 
I agree with you on the weight bearing calculations. The strength requirements have to do with the fact that concrete flexural strength is 1/10th to 1/5 of it's compressive strength. This is what resists the earth filling in the foundation hole. 

The reason I want a prestressed ceiling is I want a 3' dirt roof.. So I need it to be strong. I can span 30ft with concrete 6" thick. Tell me that wont be cool. I figure I need about 120 yards so the structure will be about 48 thousand. But I don't plan on much interior finishes so that will likely be it except tile and cabinets. For instance. I'm just planning on parging the walls and paint. No wood to mold.


----------



## gobug (Dec 10, 2003)

Stanb999


> Believe me.. Their is no "molecular" or other bonding


I don't believe you. Google PVA fibers. You will see Kuraray. Here is one quote. I have used the product.



> PVA fibers are a new, high performance fiber for concrete and mortar from Kuraray. Like steel, these PVA fibers have high tensile strength and a greater modulus of elasticity than regular concrete. Unlike steel, PVA fibers develop a molecular and chemical bond with the cement during hydration and curing.


You did give good advice for those unfamiliar with cement. However, my approach is totally different. I learned about thin shell cement from people who have built battle ships, houses, and many other things. I helped a 75 year old man build a 400 sq ft roof without rafters and without using electricity. It was 1/4 inch thick cement. The old man has shown thousands around the world in areas of crisis how to do this without big equipment.

Your technique certainly conforms with standard construction. I am not trying to sell the idea of using either precast concrete or an alternative like thin shell. As this thread advocates, it is good to thoroughly check out alternatives prior to investing in them.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

gobug said:


> Stanb999
> 
> I don't believe you. Google PVA fibers. You will see Kuraray. Here is one quote. I have used the product.
> 
> ...


I googled. 
"Steel fibers,like rebar, are passive reinforcement, meaning they have no reinforcing effect until the concrete cracks."


Ha, that is not even close to the truth. Steel reinforced concrete is a two part system. One without the other is useless. They claim it increases the flexural strength.. It doubles it. Well as listed above it's about 10-20% of the compressive strength. So it will be 20-40%. With steel you can support many hundreds of times the compressive strength.

Snake oil!

However if your adding it to a thin coating system it will help the concrete. But not what a bit of steel mesh would do.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

tiogacounty said:


> Like I have said repeatedly, "researching" is a whole lot different that DOING.



Of course it is. But that does not make it useless.

Also consider...much of the research consists of studying what other folks have done...the good, the bad and the ugly.

I love learning from other folk's mistakes!


----------



## tiogacounty (Oct 27, 2005)

tarbe said:


> Of course it is. But that does not make it useless.
> 
> Also consider...much of the research consists of studying what other folks have done...the good, the bad and the ugly.
> 
> I love learning from other folk's mistakes!


 I wholeheartedly agree. My post was directed to those that think that research is a substitute for knowledge and experience. Certainly not directed to you, but, there are those here that will make critical comments that are pretty much verbatim wordage of the stuff they read on their favorite websites. When somebody claims that that all of western civilization is doing it wrong, and they know better, and will prove it "when they build their own house some day", it's time to giggle and move on.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

tarbe said:


> Of course it is. But that does not make it useless.
> 
> Also consider...much of the research consists of studying what other folks have done...the good, the bad and the ugly.
> 
> I love learning from other folk's mistakes!


Too true. 
And really, when you think about it, how on earth should one learn about alternative methods anyway if not via research? If it were mainstream enough that you could easily get experience, then it wouldn't be "alternative" now would it? 

Throw that together with the experience most DIY-ers will already have with basics like stud-frame, rebar-reinforced concrete, concrete block, etc, etc. and it seems like a pretty logical way to learn, IMO.


----------



## boiledfrog (Jun 2, 2011)

Your premise works just as good for conventional construction. I've been involved in the trade for a few decades and many times I've found myself thinking we have wasted a lot of time and material. Insulating stick built houses to the point that we need electric fans to keep the crawl space mold free. Concrete counter tops, 12' tall 3' wide hallways, two sink master baths, 40,000 in cabinets for someone who can hardly use a microwave. We treated them as glorified piggy banks, then watched someone steel all our pennies. 
I've seen many homeowners overwhelmed just from acting as generals. Many a time I've heard that phrase "never again". I feel that in general we have fantasy base feelings about homes. The seven day miracle homes we see from Habitat for Humanity, or that horrible TV show, leave us unprepared for the total amount of time and skill that goes into a structure. We over complicate shelter. It doesn't need to be that hard, or that perfect.
When I built my home It was a purely aesthetic choice. Maybe a spiritual choice. Part of the deal was doing all the trades just for the experience. I ended up building a straw bale. I'd encourage that, if you wanted that. I'm a little confused by the straw bales built to look just like any other stick built house. Why not just build a stick house? 
Yes I'd do somethings different, but the bottom line is I love this little mud hut.


----------



## tiogacounty (Oct 27, 2005)

I spent fifteen years doing the blitz builds and Jimmy Carter Work Projects for Habitat. Wow, If folks only saw the whole story on that. A week long project that ends up with everything from a few to a few hundred completed homes on Friday night. Well it takes years of planning, months of pre-building, subcontractors working through the night, hundreds, to thousands, of volunteers, an extremely competent management that works well under horrific pressure, good weather and God's grace to make it happen. Sometimes there seem to be hours and days where the whole thing is riding a knife's edge of failure. Other times it goes so smoothly you amaze yourself, and wonder why?

As for the clowns on that horrendous "Driver move that bus!" circus, don't get me started.... That is a disgrace that has left a trail of ugly stories in it's wake. 

Boiledfrog, Glad your place worked out so well..... pictures????


----------



## boiledfrog (Jun 2, 2011)

Here is my bathroom. I scrounged the sink, paid $100.00 for the bathtub, and bought a $200.00+ golf ball flushing toilet. So far it's been worth the money. The cabinets are my specialty. There is a matching wall behind the tub with carving and twig work. I don't have many new pictures of the outside, go figure. Maybe someday I'll get a post together.


----------



## tiogacounty (Oct 27, 2005)

boiledfrog said:


> Here is my bathroom. I scrounged the sink, paid $100.00 for the bathtub, and bought a $200.00+ golf ball flushing toilet. So far it's been worth the money. The cabinets are my specialty. There is a matching wall behind the tub with carving and twig work. I don't have many new pictures of the outside, go figure. Maybe someday I'll get a post together.


Absolutely stunning! I hope you find the time to post pics. of the whole house.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

boiledfrog - I love your bathroom. 

That is really great work in my eyes.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

boiledfrog said:


> Your premise works just as good for conventional construction. I've been involved in the trade for a few decades and many times I've found myself thinking we have wasted a lot of time and material. Insulating stick built houses to the point that we need electric fans to keep the crawl space mold free. Concrete counter tops, 12' tall 3' wide hallways, two sink master baths, 40,000 in cabinets for someone who can hardly use a microwave. We treated them as glorified piggy banks, then watched someone steel all our pennies.
> I've seen many homeowners overwhelmed just from acting as generals. Many a time I've heard that phrase "never again". I feel that in general we have fantasy base feelings about homes. The seven day miracle homes we see from Habitat for Humanity, or that horrible TV show, leave us unprepared for the total amount of time and skill that goes into a structure.


I think you're right to an extent. 
But I also think that most people, by the time they've gotten to the point of breaking ground and spending money, have done enough leg work they realize this isn't going to be a six-month project. 
But like I've said, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. 



> We over complicate shelter. It doesn't need to be that hard, or that perfect.
> When I built my home It was a purely aesthetic choice. Maybe a spiritual choice. Part of the deal was doing all the trades just for the experience. I ended up building a straw bale. I'd encourage that, if you wanted that. I'm a little confused by the straw bales built to look just like any other stick built house. Why not just build a stick house?
> Yes I'd do somethings different, but the bottom line is I love this little mud hut.


I think you're right, here, too. People have been building their own homes for centuries. But of course, the more complicated it gets, the harder that is to do. 
Or maybe it's just where I'm from. 


I've been pondering on this thread... 
When I was younger, I never understood why people thought it was so neat that the Amish would build their own barns (houses, shops, etc., etc.) Afterall, wasn't that just something farmers in general do??
It wasn't until I was older, and had seen more of the world, that I realize even farmers hire work sometimes. lol 

But generally speaking, in my part of the world (the northern high Plains), people are just as likely to do for themselves as they are to hire something out. 
Consequently, you learn to pour concrete when you're 9 and Hochsteins are putting in pads for their new grain bins and you have to help run the screed. You learn to stack concrete blocks when you need a new storm cellar. You learn to frame when you're redoing the chicken coop or new shop. You learn to roof when the barn's needs redone. You wire up the feedlot you're working for and have Pastor inspect (because he's an electrician by trade) 

I don't know if it's lack of available services due to remoteness. Or lack of funds. Or the stereotypical descendant-of-pioneers independence. Or lack of patience with someone else doing something you know you can do yourself... But the people I've known in my life tend to be "do-ers." 

I'm always caught by surprise to run into someone who doesn't know "do-ers." :shrug: 
And I certainly don't know what to do with people whose first assumption is that amateurs must be idiots... 
Like I said, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. If they say they can do it, I'll believe them until they prove otherwise.


----------



## boiledfrog (Jun 2, 2011)

"amateurs must be idiots" I'm a professional woodworker and I can say very few professionals can stand next to a dedicated amateur in quality. We are just too driven by economics. Even within the profession we get very narrow areas of expertise. You might be a journeyman cabinet builder and never learned finishing. Or an electrician who has never done residential. My best woodwork has been done without a paycheck, just for the love of the trade! (my work can be seen at www.woodsongsfurniture.com)


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

I live in tornado ally . the reason Im not a fan of precast is quite evident, its also why Im not a fan of surface bond. look at the joplin wal-mart, the Home depot, the unre-enforce block buildings. Walls fall like a house of cards in the face of 200mph winds .
Barth burmed here poses radon dangers . Log homes while beautiful dont have much insulation value and pose major wiring and plumbing issues.
stick build has issues as well.
There is no perfect building


----------



## Cyngbaeld (May 20, 2004)

Not much except a concrete dome would withstand 200mph winds and I for one would not care to live in one JIC a tornado of that strength might hit.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

If I lived in tornado alley I would certainly look for tornado resistant housing, even if that meant being underground.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

PyroDon said:


> I live in tornado ally . the reason Im not a fan of precast is quite evident, its also why Im not a fan of surface bond. look at the joplin wal-mart, the Home depot, the unre-enforce block buildings. Walls fall like a house of cards in the face of 200mph winds .
> Barth burmed here poses radon dangers . Log homes while beautiful dont have much insulation value and pose major wiring and plumbing issues.
> stick build has issues as well.
> There is no perfect building


When the tornado hits... Does it remove the highway bridges? They are precast/prestressed. 


Fact is you can make a precast house look just as a stick built if you wished (why would you want to?). It would withstand any practical wind loading. The structure would be totally intact. tho your furniture and contents might be in the next county.


P.S. What are bomb shelters made out of?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

PyroDon said:


> its also why Im not a fan of surface bond. look at the joplin wal-mart, the Home depot, the unre-enforce block buildings. Walls fall like a house of cards in the face of 200mph winds .


I would be really surprised to learn that _any_ of those building were built with surface bonding...


----------



## francismilker (Jan 12, 2006)

I'd dare to say that most on this topic are interested in how they might be "do-it-yourselfers", not pay-the-contractors! 

While I can't argue for or against pre-cast versus pour in place concrete. I can say that through the years of being a person to do it all myself, I've managed to build forms and put concrete inside them. If I relied upon precast construction methods I'd probably have had to hire some machinery to move and set it in place.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

francismilker said:


> I'd dare to say that most on this topic are interested in how they might be "do-it-yourselfers", not pay-the-contractors!
> 
> While I can't argue for or against pre-cast versus pour in place concrete. I can say that through the years of being a person to do it all myself, I've managed to build forms and put concrete inside them. If I relied upon precast construction methods I'd probably have had to hire some machinery to move and set it in place.


I don't disagree with what your saying at all. I would likely cast all of my underground house in place except the "roof". Simply because the cost of casting it without being prestressed is far in excess of what a prestressed piece would be. Without being prestressed for instance you would have to build formwork or use pan to hold the concrete up prior to casting. Plus you would have to make it nearly twice as think with drastically more rebar for the same spans like 4 pounds per sq foot. v/s about 1.5 .

The reason I say for people building their "own" to not discount precast is the quality v/s cost factors. Truth be told most folks don't want to mess with a large concrete pour. They are nervous about making it wrong and have it get as hard as well concrete before they can fix it.


----------



## roachhill (Jul 8, 2009)

I would disagree with the statement that log construction lacks insulation value. It can be made to have a high R value but that doesn't tell the true story. The thermal mass of the solid wall construction lends itself to maintaining comfortable temps despite having lower R values. The real issue with logs is avoiding drafts and that's delt with  careful construction and modern sealing techniques.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

roachhill said:


> I would disagree with the statement that log construction lacks insulation value. It can be made to have a high R value but that doesn't tell the true story. The thermal mass of the solid wall construction lends itself to maintaining comfortable temps despite having lower R values. The real issue with logs is avoiding drafts and that's delt with  careful construction and modern sealing techniques.



I would agree that log walls do better than might be indicated by their R value. I have read controlled studies that indicate thermal losses from a log structure are less than would otherwise be predicted from the R value. 

If I am not mistaken, for a given material, R value and thermal mass are inversely proportional to one another.

In order to (reasonably) get high R value and high thermal mass (the best of both worlds, I think), one should go "hybrid". In other words, thermal mass on the inside (ideally some sort of masonry) with a true, high R value material like blue Dow on the outside. One can finish off the outside as they see fit for aesthetics, or waterproof appropriately and wrap it all in a giant thermal flywheel like the earth!


----------



## djberg (Mar 14, 2007)

tiogacounty said:


> I've been down this road a time or two, and hate to see you make the same mistakes I already have. If you are doing it yourself, keep an open mind, research several options, know the value of what you are buying into, and protect yourself. Good luck.


Tioga presented his ideas thoughtfully and, I think, very accurately. 

As an architect, I've heard nightmare stories from people who built with straw (mice in the walls), green wood (horribly twisted homes), earth bags (mold everywhere) and such. Of course, I guess that I wouldn't hear from folks who were happy with their homes and didn't have to rebuild. 

But, it seems to me that all of the problems of building with studs, plywood and reinforced concrete have been worked out, for years. Why look so hard for alternatives? 

My family has a small earth-bermed, super-insulated, passive solar home that has served us well for thirty years and should last a few hundred more. It's all store-bought lumber, insulation and siding, and poured, reinforced concrete. It looks a lot like other homes in the area. It didn't cost that much to build. It has never needed any major repairs. And, it has saved us a fortune in utility bills.

You can try your alternative building methods. Experiments are how we all advance. But, I wouldn't experiment with anything as important as a home. I'm for common, common-sense construction. I'll put the alternative thinking into the design.

Just an old codger's opinions.

Don

TodaysPlans.net


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Actually, earth-bermed could be considered "alternative." 
Maybe "alternative" should be defined. 

BTW, I used to live down the road from a couple who lived in the strawbale house her grandpa built when he homesteaded back in the early 20th century. At over 100 years of age, it seems to have stood the test of time fairly well...

Timber frame, post and beam, strawbale, sod, etc... Call them "alternative" if you want, but when you stop and think about it, stick framing with plywood sheathing is actually a relative _newcomer_. :shrug:

So far as experimenting, I've known one too many people who lived in stick-built houses will mold, mildew or rot problems to think it's some kind of panacea... 

I think the better advice would be that no matter how you choose to build your home, you need to do your homework very carefully.

PS: Because we have the good fortune to live in the internet age, a few spare minutes and Google with yield a boatload of articles, board posts, mailing lists and entire blogs for almost _anything_ one might be considering. People who've been there, done that and are sharing what went right and what went wrong. 
Complete with pictures!


----------



## SCRancher (Jan 11, 2011)

I'm in the process of designing and having built a new house.
When I did my research I wanted ICF
Then when I talked to the builder he doesn't do ICF (or advised against it).
Then I started thinking OK spray foam instead of fiberglass - that was until I got the estimate - over 28k (it's a big house what can I say).
Now I'm back to ICF because of the price of the spray foam I may as well get what I think I want.

Anyway once I get farther along I'll post what I'm going to do in a separate thread.


----------

