I know Lex Terry has put up 2 papercrete buildings and a papercrete addition to his house. I think they were all structural, although I'm not 100% sure. So PC can be accepted on an individual basis. I know that on the premit you have the option of using an "experimental" material. Whether they let you use it on not is up to the discretion of the Construction Industries Division.
Sincerely, Judith
Check out my new Squidoo Lens at http://www.squidoo.com/papercretebyjudith
 EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOODJoin me |
To: papercreters@yahoogroups.com
From: Spaceman@starship-enterprises.net
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:58:17 -0600
Subject: Re: [papercreters] Data base info on PC mix
Way back in the dawn of my pc making I weighed out 65 pounds of newspaper, then measured the stack. I don't keep a scale near the mixer, but do know how high of a stack to use for each type of mix. That can be translated back into weight by extrapolation.
Cylinder break tests are for concrete. Pc isn't concrete, it is more like a wood product.
http://starship-enterprises.net/files/papercrete%20strength%20tests.jpg shows strength tests done at NMSU.
http://starship-enterprises.net/files/papercrete%20formulas.jpg gives formulas from back in the dark ages, party like it's 1999.
The code acceptance committee did a lot of research a couple of years ago to see exactly what would be needed to have pc accepted into the IBC. The most important thing was consistent mixes and results. You can say "mix in paper until it looks like oatmeal and throw in a bucket of portland" or you can say "pulp 65 pounds of paper, add 96 pounds of portland". Guess which one the code writers will accept?
At that time we had a choice of shooting for pc as infill, which would not need much strength, or as structural walls. We decided to go with structural because pc has plenty of strength. The test I referenced above showed in excess of 200psi compressive strength. With that minimal strength each foot of wall could theoretically support 14 tons of roof.
If you just want to make a building or two from pc then exact measurements don't matter. If you want to see papercrete accepted as a code approved building method, then we have to have hard data. There is room for both. What Evelyn and Bob are doing by putting recipes in the group files for newbies to look at is very useful and definitely a good thing. I'm looking for a few good men/women who are willing to put in some mental sweat and do the legwork to have code acceptance. Maybe we could get through it this time without someone getting bent feelings and leaving with all the research. We'll miss the 2010 code but might make the 2013 version.
spaceman
Robert Morger wrote:
Cylinder break tests are for concrete. Pc isn't concrete, it is more like a wood product.
http://starship-
http://starship-
The code acceptance committee did a lot of research a couple of years ago to see exactly what would be needed to have pc accepted into the IBC. The most important thing was consistent mixes and results. You can say "mix in paper until it looks like oatmeal and throw in a bucket of portland" or you can say "pulp 65 pounds of paper, add 96 pounds of portland". Guess which one the code writers will accept?
At that time we had a choice of shooting for pc as infill, which would not need much strength, or as structural walls. We decided to go with structural because pc has plenty of strength. The test I referenced above showed in excess of 200psi compressive strength. With that minimal strength each foot of wall could theoretically support 14 tons of roof.
If you just want to make a building or two from pc then exact measurements don't matter. If you want to see papercrete accepted as a code approved building method, then we have to have hard data. There is room for both. What Evelyn and Bob are doing by putting recipes in the group files for newbies to look at is very useful and definitely a good thing. I'm looking for a few good men/women who are willing to put in some mental sweat and do the legwork to have code acceptance. Maybe we could get through it this time without someone getting bent feelings and leaving with all the research. We'll miss the 2010 code but might make the 2013 version.
spaceman
Robert Morger wrote:
The problem with this is that most people do not weigh their
ingredients to make a mix. So it will be hard to get a consistent
result that a code official is going to be willing to look at. Small
changes can make big differences in test results.
Cylinder break tests (compressive strength testing) might work for
this but there may be a better test in ASTM. I work the Public Works
end of it so I am not sure exactly what testing would be correct from
a building code standpoint.
On 10/20/09, doris <dorisburton03@gmail.com> wrote:
When it comes to testing we need a graph that shows strength vs cement
perchantage.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.23/2448 - Release Date: 10/20/09 10:43:00
__._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
