That post from TreeHugger annoys me. So suddenly we're not supposed to use concrete just because it has a high embodied energy? Disregarding the fact that you can use recycled fly ash, and it is non-toxic, and doesn't expose those making it to harmful toxins, and it lasts and lasts and lasts, and is the best option for building sustainably in many parts of the country? That is very short-sighted.
if you put glass on the exterior of the concrete, it's the most efficent way to use the thermal mass, and no need for insulation if detailed properly. (a trombe wall?) can do this with rammed earth as well.
i've worked on a few projects that used the thermal mass/lag of concrete and wood in conjunction, with an external layer of glass and polycarbonate. system was coordinated so there was no need for any insulation except in the slab. i'm pretty much sold on it and have been trying to get firms here in the NW to sign on for a few years, but no one's really into sustainability up here except for materials. blah.
mdler - that's exactly what gets me thinking too. Why on earth are we building all these wood structures, when wood definitely is not he prime choice for SoCal.
The only reasons I can come up with is cost and a low priority on construction quality and durability.
How does the concrete measure to wood construction in terms of sustainability over the expected building life time?
people dont want to spend $$$ on housing. They will gladly drop shit tons of cash on their Hummers and Porsches and Gucci bags and shit, but wont pay $$$ for the house and garage that will protect all that shit from fire
I dont know about that, I mean I agree that concrete is awesome. I love the it so much that I would eat it. (My sadistic doctor made me eat it and called it a 'barium test'.) I was shitting bricks for a week.
Have either of you two worked with concrete? I mean have you guys even physically worked with concrete, not just on paper? You know, like those build-your-own-bbq setups? Just ask Homer Simpson, It ain't as easy as it looks!
I mean, once you try mixing just one cubic yard by hand using a wheelbarrel and a shovel, you'll get it. I know this sounds archaic and doesnt fully apply, but the basic premise is that concrete isn't as easy as people make it sound.
I remember doing tilt-up for some large multi-tenant box 3 or 4 years ago. Client changed a few demising walls and doors right around the time the trusses were going in. With a stick framed building... its as easy as checking the enineering drawings for surprises and busting out the sawzall; any guy could cut an opening. With the concrete... well, you know the story.
Another thing is safety. I was visiting southeast asia and noticed that nearly all the houses in the city were made of brick and concrete. If we didn't have OSHA and a more abundant supply of bamboo, we might be using concrete more often. Of course I wouldn't want to be inside of one when an earthquake hits.
But people aren't stupid. Maybe just a bit reluctant to use new technologies and some old ones like the RASTRA system. That seems to work pretty good.
This past summer I noticed that the majority (if not all) of the new construction in Switzerland and Italy was concrete. From single family homes to larger projects.
...emissions to 655 pounds of carbon dioxide for each ton of cement in 2006 emissions from 763 pounds in 1990. Its goal is to get to 610 pounds for each ton by 2010
that is still too much co2. But when looking at lifecycle emissions - concrete's thermal mass and durability pushing it ahead of most other materials.
Cement has no viable recycling potential. this is wrong. old concrete is commonly crushed into aggregate and used as fill material or reused in landscaping. Also crushed concrete has uses in remediation/brown field cleanup situations. There is a site in Milwaukee that used several thousand tons of crushed concrete as part of a water clean up project - the alkalinity of the concrete helps precipitate metals.
I just used about 300 cu.yds of pulverized concrete for fill to build up footings' bearing capacity. The other 500cu.yds went to a road contractor down from the site. He let the contractor us his crusher to get free fill. They do this all the time. Nothing goes to waste because its simple economics.
Mleitner, Concrete is MUCH stronger than wood because the hardening process of concrete is never ending. Meaning, it becomes stronger as months pass, then years, then decades. As you said from before, the only flaw is the cost. But hey, If your going to be living on the coast, where fires, tidal waves, hurricanes, and earth quakes occur, I want an-almost indestructible frame work.
Oct 30, 07 6:44 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Green concrete buildings?
As a big proponent of concrete architecture, I have been eager to work on a concrete building in Southern California.
In today's New York Times though, there is a title page article on the emissions produced by cement plants:
Article
Check out
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/miot-mnc012907.php
new nano-engineered concrete with very low carbon emissions, now being developed at MIT
Fly-ash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Saw this article a while back...
The Concrete House: how green is concrete?
Another issue with concrete is its low R-Value, despite its high thermal mass...
Concrete: Can it be green?
That post from TreeHugger annoys me. So suddenly we're not supposed to use concrete just because it has a high embodied energy? Disregarding the fact that you can use recycled fly ash, and it is non-toxic, and doesn't expose those making it to harmful toxins, and it lasts and lasts and lasts, and is the best option for building sustainably in many parts of the country? That is very short-sighted.
you can always build out of sustainably harvested wood in SoCal....
look at rammed earth
if you put glass on the exterior of the concrete, it's the most efficent way to use the thermal mass, and no need for insulation if detailed properly. (a trombe wall?) can do this with rammed earth as well.
Yes, holz.box, trombe walls are very effective. Direct mass systems in general also work very well with concrete.
i've worked on a few projects that used the thermal mass/lag of concrete and wood in conjunction, with an external layer of glass and polycarbonate. system was coordinated so there was no need for any insulation except in the slab. i'm pretty much sold on it and have been trying to get firms here in the NW to sign on for a few years, but no one's really into sustainability up here except for materials. blah.
mdler - that's exactly what gets me thinking too. Why on earth are we building all these wood structures, when wood definitely is not he prime choice for SoCal.
The only reasons I can come up with is cost and a low priority on construction quality and durability.
How does the concrete measure to wood construction in terms of sustainability over the expected building life time?
concrete = expensive
people dont want to spend $$$ on housing. They will gladly drop shit tons of cash on their Hummers and Porsches and Gucci bags and shit, but wont pay $$$ for the house and garage that will protect all that shit from fire
people are fucking stupid
I dont know about that, I mean I agree that concrete is awesome. I love the it so much that I would eat it. (My sadistic doctor made me eat it and called it a 'barium test'.) I was shitting bricks for a week.
Have either of you two worked with concrete? I mean have you guys even physically worked with concrete, not just on paper? You know, like those build-your-own-bbq setups? Just ask Homer Simpson, It ain't as easy as it looks!
I mean, once you try mixing just one cubic yard by hand using a wheelbarrel and a shovel, you'll get it. I know this sounds archaic and doesnt fully apply, but the basic premise is that concrete isn't as easy as people make it sound.
I remember doing tilt-up for some large multi-tenant box 3 or 4 years ago. Client changed a few demising walls and doors right around the time the trusses were going in. With a stick framed building... its as easy as checking the enineering drawings for surprises and busting out the sawzall; any guy could cut an opening. With the concrete... well, you know the story.
Another thing is safety. I was visiting southeast asia and noticed that nearly all the houses in the city were made of brick and concrete. If we didn't have OSHA and a more abundant supply of bamboo, we might be using concrete more often. Of course I wouldn't want to be inside of one when an earthquake hits.
But people aren't stupid. Maybe just a bit reluctant to use new technologies and some old ones like the RASTRA system. That seems to work pretty good.
ai, hear me now.
)
concrete is roman era techmonogie.
i'd love to do some Opus latericium a la moneo's museo de arte romano in merida...
This past summer I noticed that the majority (if not all) of the new construction in Switzerland and Italy was concrete. From single family homes to larger projects.
that is still too much co2. But when looking at lifecycle emissions - concrete's thermal mass and durability pushing it ahead of most other materials.
Cement has no viable recycling potential. this is wrong. old concrete is commonly crushed into aggregate and used as fill material or reused in landscaping. Also crushed concrete has uses in remediation/brown field cleanup situations. There is a site in Milwaukee that used several thousand tons of crushed concrete as part of a water clean up project - the alkalinity of the concrete helps precipitate metals.
I just used about 300 cu.yds of pulverized concrete for fill to build up footings' bearing capacity. The other 500cu.yds went to a road contractor down from the site. He let the contractor us his crusher to get free fill. They do this all the time. Nothing goes to waste because its simple economics.
Mleitner, Concrete is MUCH stronger than wood because the hardening process of concrete is never ending. Meaning, it becomes stronger as months pass, then years, then decades. As you said from before, the only flaw is the cost. But hey, If your going to be living on the coast, where fires, tidal waves, hurricanes, and earth quakes occur, I want an-almost indestructible frame work.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.