# I or H bricks or tiles with dowels for stronger, lighter assembled structures



## Peter Dow (Jan 16, 2013)

_INTRODUCTION FOR THEBUILDINGCODEFORUM.COMI am posting in the Building Designers forum because I am presenting my idea for building with my design of reusable bricks and tiles, without mortar, to make structures which can be dismantled as easily as they are erected.These new reusable bricks and tiles will be require to be made from tougher materials than the usual fired-clay or ceramic used to make traditional building bricks and tiles. Instead, the bricks and tiles would be made from materials such as _


_metal,_

_reinforced concrete with rebar inside the brick,_

_ceramic-metal composites ("cermets") and_

_fibre-reinforced plastics._

_Although my idea is available now for building materials manufacturers to develop and put into production, it will require investment of time and money by innovators in the industry before these new kinds of bricks and dowels can be available from builders' merchants for building designers to use. So this is for the future but I hope you will find my idea an interesting read anyway.OK, well if you are ready, I'll begin._

From the engineering consideration that regular tiles and bricks are far from optimal in terms of adding strength to structures, I've been considering that better would be this very particular 2D pattern of tiles and bricks illustrated in this image which I call _"Tessellated I in Steel"._




View larger version of Tessellated I in Steel 1800 x 800_Representing a surface of "I"-shaped (rotated by 90 degrees, "H"-shaped) steel tiles. The shape is of square proportions, the column of the I being one third of the width of the square and the top and the base one quarter of the height of the square._Here is an I-tessellation in paving stones -
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




But my pattern of I or H tiles or bricks is very specifically designed so that it can be developed into a more detailed 3-D design which introduces further efficient tile-to-tile / brick-to-brick interlocking or making-rigid features which solve some of the limitations and issues arising with structures made from conventional bricks and tiles.Conventional brickwork structures need a weaker mortar layer to hold a brick wall together - http://nancymorris.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Brick_Wall.jpgConventional tiled structures need to stick tiles onto a mounting surface - http://www.granitetransformations.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/steel-tile.jpgThese limitations of those brick-to-brick or tile-to-tile bonding methods make for weaker and heavier brick and tile structures than is ideal in some engineering applications.In particular for temporary brick or tile structures, a high strength to weight ratio is desirable so that the parts of the structure can be moved easily to where they need to be erected.In addition, temporary structures need the ability to disassemble the structure as easily as it was assembled.We see examples of ease of disassembling a structure with kids building toys such as Lego and Meccano and in many manufactured products which use such typical features as nuts and bolts and bolt-holes but many other variations to secure one part to another strongly but in a reversible and flexible way. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




So with those requirements in mind, my 2D I / H tessellation pattern was designed with a view to a 3D design of structures which I will now specify and show you a model to help me explain my 3D design more clearly.*3-Dimensional model video*



http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3097/dowihbricks2.jpghttp://img831.imageshack.us/img831/7498/dowihbricks3.jpghttp://img708.imageshack.us/img708/5558/dowihbricks4.jpghttp://img801.imageshack.us/img801/6369/dowihbricks5.jpg[video=youtube;BtFN4Ir4T_s]





 This video shows my model of the 3-dimensional shape of a simple structure composed of 6 bricks or tiles, each of which, when viewed from one-direction anyway, is a 2-dimensional "I"-shape (equally when rotated by 90 degrees "H"-shaped).This model has been made from aluminium tubing and in order to distinguish one brick from another they have been coloured using marker pens - so there are two bricks coloured blue, two coloured green and two coloured red. This colouring was necessary for clarity because otherwise the permanent joints within bricks (which are only an artifact of the method to make a brick from square tubing) might be confused with the simple touching surface where two neighbouring bricks abut, abutting securely but without being in any way stuck by glue etc.This 3-Dimensional model reveals a further design feature of the I or H brick and tile structures, which secures the bricks and tiles together in 2 further dimensions, some such feature being necessary because the 2-D I or H shape in of itself only secures the bricks together in 1 dimension.This feature is revealed here to be nothing more complicated than dowels or fixing rods which run in the vertical direction of the Is (or the horizontal direction of the Hs) through shafts in the Is' bases and tops and which serve to lock the tops and bases of neighbouring Is together, preventing movement radially from the dowels.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 1750


View attachment 1751


View attachment 1752


View attachment 1750


View attachment 1751


View attachment 1752


/monthly_2013_01/tessellated_I_steel_800.jpg.1de2ddf01735a867cdb060e2e49a817f.jpg

/monthly_2013_01/Dow-I-H-bricks_1.jpg.b465055f7a98aa5ccccf4407afcf4d2b.jpg

/monthly_2013_01/Dow-I-H-bricks_2.jpg.6bd79010cf94e43518ff2b39db1a1bca.jpg


----------



## north star (Jan 17, 2013)

*= = = =*

Peter Dow,



Welcome to The Building Codes Forum!  

You have an interesting concept!......Has it been applied anywhere else, ...has it been

"successfully" applied anywhere else?



*= = = =*


----------



## lunatick (Jan 17, 2013)

Depending upon the depth of the block and its weight.

If simply a thin brick, could be quite a product.

But if full depth, it may be an installers night mare.

This may be a shape begging autoclave concrete.

Why fully enclosing the form? T or + might due.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 17, 2013)

_Thanks north star and lunatick for your replies. I hope to respond soon but first I need to complete my original post, which I had to break into 2 parts because of the forum posting limitations imposed, such as a maximum number of images per post, and the fact that as a newbie here, my first post was queued for moderated before appearing and so it was not until just now when I was notified of your replies did I finally notice that my topic had been approved to appear and not until now am I able to reply to this topic and add my 2nd post of my OP._[video=youtube;CRV9iuX8vSs]





Transcript of the video
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Hi everybody and welcome to my "H" / "I" Bricks or HI-BRICKS & DOWELS demonstration video.This is Peter Dow from Aberdeen, Scotland.There are two components to a HI-BRICKS & DOWELS construction -
the BRICKS, which you can either describe as "H"-shaped or "I"-shaped, depending on which way you turn them around
and the DOWELS






The shape of the "H" or "I" bricks is designed so that they fit together to form a layer or a wall of bricks and importantly, the bricks, just by their very shape, immobilise each other from moving, in one dimension only.Let's have a look at that.Let's consider this green brick here as the fixed point.We can see that it immobilises its neighbouring bricks in one dimension. They can't move with respect to the green brick in this dimension. So that's locked. Even though there is no bricks here or here, the very shape stops it moving in that dimension.Now the shape doesn't stop the bricks moving with respect to each other in that direction, or in that direction but they are fixed in that one dimension.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Now if we want to make a rigid structure of bricks in all three dimensions but without using mortar or glue so that we can assemble and disassemble the structure whenever we like, what we need next are the DOWELS.As you can see, the "I" or "H" bricks have shafts running through the corners so that you can run a dowel through the corners - two shafts, four holes per "I" or "H" brick.And when you assemble the bricks you can slide the dowel in ... and this forms a structure which is rigid in all three dimensions, which is what we need to form structures.

View attachment 647


View attachment 648


View attachment 649


View attachment 647


View attachment 648


View attachment 649


/monthly_2013_01/HI-BRICKS-n-DOWELS.jpg.6dcdfc3df3a57ad19f1d405e30b596fd.jpg

/monthly_2013_01/Shape-fixes-1D.jpg.319c69bef28646c5c8cd969e33e3611a.jpg

/monthly_2013_01/Need-dowels-fix-3D.jpg.2d1c6da86f67dae410bea69f1656f391.jpg


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 18, 2013)

Brick floors!



			
				north star said:
			
		

> Peter Dow,Welcome to The Building Codes Forum!


Thanks north star!



			
				north star said:
			
		

> You have an interesting concept!


Thank you!  



			
				north star said:
			
		

> ......Has it been applied anywhere else, ...has it been"successfully" applied anywhere else?


I don't know of any previous applications of H / I shaped bricks with the dowels.

Without the dowels there are examples of simple I / H tessellations like that paving stone photograph I posted.

Maybe, maybe not - but not that I have come across as yet.



			
				lunatick said:
			
		

> Depending upon the depth of the block and its weight.If simply a thin brick, could be quite a product.
> 
> But if full depth, it may be an installers night mare.


Well if the designer wants a dream brick-laying solution then the bricks will need to be light enough to be assembled manually. Goes without saying really.



			
				lunatick said:
			
		

> This may be a shape begging autoclave concrete.


Well not unless it's reinforced autoclave concrete. You really need some rebar in concrete HI-bricks to give them good tensile strength properties so you can use HI-bricks & dowels as a lightweight and strong structural component for more demanding jobs. Otherwise it's just another pretty wall and it's probably not going to be worth the bother.



			
				lunatick said:
			
		

> Why fully enclosing the form? T or + might due.


You just don't get it huh? These HI-bricks & dowels need the H / I shape to hang together in tension along the line of the dowels.

The dowels don't carry tensile loads any great distance, just between neighbouring bricks but that's OK because the HI-bricks carry the tensile load in that direction.

With these H / I shape bricks and dowels you can use them to build walls at any angle to the vertical - roofs, even load-bearing *floors*! That's right, a HI-brick floor!  

If you are unwise enough to try building a brick floor with T or + shaped bricks then beware because you will fall through your brick floor my friend. That's if it doesn't fall down before you set foot on it! :inspctr


----------



## Architect1281 (Jan 18, 2013)

THEY USE A SIMILAR SYSTEM IN THE CARRIBEAN the results of unrienforced masony construction are that they infact do very very well as long as you can suspend the physics law that Newton found - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (see this for the results 2010 Haiti earthquake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 18, 2013)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> THEY USE A SIMILAR SYSTEM IN THE CARRIBEAN the results of unrienforced masony construction are that they infact do very very well as long as you can suspend the physics law that Newton found - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (see this for the results 2010 Haiti earthquake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )


Not similar at all. My HI-bricks are reinforced or made of a high-tensile strength material 100%. So are the dowels. Therefore the HI-bricks & dowels structures have reinforcement built in automatically.

I actually have quoted the example of the San Francisco 1906 earthquake which level most of the city's brickwork buildings. Listen bud, I know, OK?


----------



## brudgers (Jan 19, 2013)

Peter Dow said:
			
		

> Not similar at all. My HI-bricks are reinforced or made of a high-tensile strength material 100%. So are the dowels. Therefore the HI-bricks & dowels structures have reinforcement built in automatically.  I actually have quoted the example of the San Francisco 1906 earthquake which level most of the city's brickwork buildings. Listen bud, I know, OK?


  Peter, do you have an ICC-ES evaluation for your proposed application?


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 19, 2013)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Peter, do you have an ICC-ES evaluation for your proposed application?


I don't know what "an ICC-ES evaluation" is. So no, I don't. Not unless that is something you can ever get without asking for it.

Let me put it this way - when 6000 years ago, someone presented the idea of a wheel, or 20000 years ago someone presented the idea of a cuboid building brick (actually I have no idea when the first one of those was used), were those great inventors of their time asked if they had _"an ICC-ES evaluation for your proposed application?"_

No, they didn't have one of those. They didn't need one. And neither do I to present my idea to you for your independent consideration using your own powers of scrutiny. We should not need to feel we ever need permission from anyone else to think outside of the box.


----------



## ICE (Jan 19, 2013)

Go after the fence market.

With no mortar, how is a wall kept plumb as it is built?


----------



## brudgers (Jan 19, 2013)

Peter Dow said:
			
		

> I don't know what "an ICC-ES evaluation" is. So no, I don't. Not unless that is something you can ever get without asking for it.  Let me put it this way - when 6000 years ago, someone presented the idea of a wheel, or 20000 years ago someone presented the idea of a cuboid building brick (actually I have no idea when the first one of those was used), were those great inventors of their time asked if they had _"an ICC-ES evaluation for your proposed application?"_  No, they didn't have one of those. They didn't need one. And neither do I to present my idea to you for your independent consideration using your own powers of scrutiny. We should not need to feel we ever need permission from anyone else to think outside of the box.


  I see some renderings. I see some models. If I am responsible for a rendering or a model, then these look bollocks.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 19, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> Go after the fence market.


Yes a commercial company could make fences from HI-bricks & dowels. For the lightest applications, the "bricks" would be flat and large and look more like tiles or panels. The HI-tiles could be made from a single thickness of corrugated metal sheet with shafts for the dowels welded on the corners of the panel. Aluminium would do well I think.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 19, 2013)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I see some renderings. I see some models. If I am responsible for a rendering or a model, then these look bollocks.


Actually this






was drawn by a graphical editing program Paint.NET not unlike Photoshop. I used a photo-fill function - a kind of array copy-and-paste - to create an array of lines superimposed on a photograph of a sheet of steel.

So there was no computer model and no "rendering" from a model per se.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 19, 2013)

Plumb walls.



			
				ICE said:
			
		

> With no mortar, how is a wall kept plumb as it is built?


A HI-bricks and dowels structure is a *rigid shape* which can form true right angles between its walls and its foundations and so if one layer is level - the bottom, so will all the other layers be.

In a way, it is kind of like a trucking / shipping container sitting on the road. The walls of the container are plumb because the container is cuboid and the road the container sits on is level.











_"But, but, but - there's __*no mortar*__ in those container walls!!!!"_


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 19, 2013)

Peter Dow said:
			
		

> Not similar at all. My HI-bricks are reinforced or made of a high-tensile strength material 100%. So are the dowels. Therefore the HI-bricks & dowels structures have reinforcement built in automatically.I actually have quoted the example of the San Francisco 1906 earthquake which level most of the city's brickwork buildings. Listen bud, I know, OK?


I'm not going to be too critical of presenting a concept as long as it is clear that it is not sponsored or currently supported in the codes. In this day and age, any idea to be allowed or permitted must be tested (material wise in the application) by a scientific lab studies under every condition to get properties that can then be cross examined through engineering calculations.

My critique from a cursory look at your example and looking at past examples of URM is as below:

In the past, it isn't the masonry unit that is the problem. What happens in earthquakes is that when the mortar fails before the bricks crack (if the mortar is weaker and softer or more crumbles easier than the masonry that it binds) as it should, the bricks simply slide out and fall. Sometimes that in clunks of a group of bricks still held together by mortar except where the cracks occurred... usually in diagonal zig zag fashion but not always. The reason for rebar is for pinning through several rows of masonry. Unless the unreinforced masonry is interlocking like used in Incan civilization, even solid iron or steel bricks will fail and be a life hazard. The material property of the masonry itself, alone will not make it resist seismic forces.

Incan came up with a strategy to keep the bricks or blocks so to speak from dislodging as well as a tight masonry joint with no rebar or even mortar in many cases. It works and then it is because of several strategies used to make the walls statically stable and the blocks interlock in such a way that they don't dislodge and keep the center of gravity of each block at the bottom when placed as gravity still is in play even before we use the term. That basic mystic force of gravity is an always constant.

A strategy of keeping your H-form blocks interlocking and keeping walls stable would be important in order for your system to work effectively. Otherwise, you need rebar to lock the units together. The early form of reinforced brick masonry used dowel rods and a variety of other reinforcing techniques including various clips and such. You need to keep the units together, a weaker masonry joint to break down when the large stresses are applied in order to act as an 'cussion' and think back to a strategy that Ransome used in some of his early reinforced concrete buildings for planned joints that will fail to relieve stress in the material.

Bottom line, the soft clay brick's material isn't the issue in reality.

They can survive the forces of a magnitude 9.5 to maybe a 10.0 earthquake. It is other factors in play. Usually the brick doesn't crack or bust up under the earthquake until it falls to the ground or if an idiot used a cement joint in their repointing of clay bricks and therefore causes the stress to crack along the brick and not the planned joints.

These are just some thoughts.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 19, 2013)

Peter Dow said:
			
		

> A HI-bricks and dowels structure is a *rigid shape* which can form true right angles between its walls and its foundations and so if one layer is level - the bottom, so will all the other layers be.In a way, it is kind of like a trucking / shipping container sitting on the road. The walls of the container are plumb because the container is cuboid and the road the container sits on is level.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But they have bolts or other methods that creates resistance to sliding. You don't see it. There maybe even welding done. You don't know that until you see it. Even then, I'm not sure they are seismically safe.

Yes, you don't need rebar to resist seismic forces. A 500+ year old civilization proved that when their structures were put to the test in the 1960s. The trick involves a few strategies. which I mentioned in another thread. It isn't the material that will make a structure seismically sound. It is how it is applied that matters with consideration of material properties. You can have a URM building made of solid steel bricks and if it was laid like a typical brick building is from European tradition as also seen in the U.S., it will fail and the bricks will just be heavier and harder when it falls on your head when you walk below it. A part of the failure of the buildings and how the bricks dislodge is by something called surface friction. You have to think about this in all 3 dimensional planes of surface and movement of two adjoining surfaces. Basic Physics 101.


----------



## lunatick (Jan 20, 2013)

Brudgers brought up a testing report, and so have others.

There are different types of issues. there.

ICC  Reports. Materials like EIFS, are at times, only allowed where an ICC  ES report is available for the product for the installation.

Also,  there are instances where we need to be concerned with fire resistance  rating, and others we don't. So if your product doesn't address this at  some appropriate time, it will limit its use. UL assemblies cost a bit  to mock up and get approved, but once approved is questions are reduced.

Furthermore,  we are concerned with healthy buildings. So take a look at what is  happening with other materials. Air Barriers, Drainage Screen, etc..  EIFS, Masonry each have means and methods to achieve this and learn  from. Stucco and EIFS both had issues with openings and flashing. Don't  make light of that.

Energy, much is made of parking lots affect  on the environment. But imo, what has more impact to heat up the  environment about our cities area all of the heat sinks we have built.  Look at LED bulbs or the cpu heat sinks in a computer than look at  downtown NYC or LA, etc. These building do not do a good enough job of  containing heat and a real good job of emitting heat.

Structural issues is perhaps the just the tip of things to be thinking about.

You  say these blocks are to be masonry. How do you avoid cracking at the  weakest joint. That being through the unit between the inside corners?


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 20, 2013)

lunatick said:
			
		

> You  say these blocks are to be masonry.


Are you talking to me?

I think it is best if we agree that I am the one with the prerogative to state the content of what it is that I say.

I rather think it is more polite of you not simply to assume that you have liberty to paraphrase in your own words what you think it is I mean to say. This is the route to misunderstanding, not clarity.

I suggest that if you wish to reference my statements then quoting me directly is the most accurate way to proceed.

So for example, you might have quoted from my original post in this topic, thus -



			
				Peter Dow said:
			
		

> These new reusable bricks and tiles will be require to be made from tougher materials than the usual fired-clay or ceramic used to make traditional building bricks and tiles. Instead, the bricks and tiles would be made from materials such as
> metal,
> 
> reinforced concrete with rebar inside the brick,
> ...


and then perhaps your question



			
				lunatick said:
			
		

> How do you avoid cracking at the  weakest joint. That being through the unit between the inside corners?


would have at least part of its answer?

The other part of the answer is that the inside corners can be rounded in the full size HI-bricks, to reduce the concentration of tensile stress, though this would mean that one could not use the same HI-brick to form a 90 degree edge as is used for a flat join, but that a special-purpose corner-brick would be required.


----------



## ICE (Jan 20, 2013)

Forget about fences and go after driveways....oh wait a minute, that's where this idea came from.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 20, 2013)

Peter Dow said:
			
		

> Actually this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


      There's nothing better for supporting a photograph of a building than a photograph of steel.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 20, 2013)

I think it's time this thread was moved to the proper forum:

  Palaearctic–African Bird Migration


----------



## brudgers (Jan 20, 2013)

lunatick said:
			
		

> Brudgers brought up a testing report, and so have others.  There are different types of issues. there. ICC  Reports. Materials like EIFS, are at times, only allowed where an ICC  ES report is available for the product for the installation.  Also,  there are instances where we need to be concerned with fire resistance  rating, and others we don't. So if your product doesn't address this at  some appropriate time, it will limit its use. UL assemblies cost a bit  to mock up and get approved, but once approved is questions are reduced.  Furthermore,  we are concerned with healthy buildings. So take a look at what is  happening with other materials. Air Barriers, Drainage Screen, etc..  EIFS, Masonry each have means and methods to achieve this and learn  from. Stucco and EIFS both had issues with openings and flashing. Don't  make light of that.  Energy, much is made of parking lots affect  on the environment. But imo, what has more impact to heat up the  environment about our cities area all of the heat sinks we have built.  Look at LED bulbs or the cpu heat sinks in a computer than look at  downtown NYC or LA, etc. These building do not do a good enough job of  containing heat and a real good job of emitting heat.  Structural issues is perhaps the just the tip of things to be thinking about.  You  say these blocks are to be masonry. How do you avoid cracking at the  weakest joint. That being through the unit between the inside corners?


  I guess they don't have building codes in England where Peter lives.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 21, 2013)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I guess they don't have building codes in England where Peter lives.


Brudgers,

ICC does not produce the codes that is used in England. I believe they are using the Eurocode or something like that. This would imply that they don't have anything really to do with ICC and the equivalent forms (if any) would be through a different entity.

ICC ES report is only a moot thing anyway other than getting ICC to adopt something in their model code. In practice with real building officials, it would be through processes and procedures accepted by the local building official and the state's department/agency in charge of adopting the codes on the state-wide level. This can be a total different procedure if you think about it. Often, this would fall into alternate methods procedures in a local level adoption. For state-wide adoption, then you have the state's accepted methods.

All in all, it needs to demonstrate and meet engineering standards and that in itself needs clear and comprehensive scientific testing for material properties in all levels from structural, fire, etc. to meet all standards of the entire code set including the engineered application of this design also needs to be demonstrated to meet the applicable codes, regulations, laws, etc. of a given building type/occupancy use(s) and so forth. In order to determine the latter, complete understanding the properties of the material in such form must be understood, determined in a manner that can be properly engineered to meet specific conditions. In part, one needs to know the material's properties before knowing how to apply it properly in consideration of its strengths and weaknesses.

Peter, Are you paying attention. We live by a standard and I believe so is the Eurocode (or whatever the uniform codes in Europe or that is used in UK), in which we know the properties of a material to scientific standards and how it would perform under structural load testings configurations, combustability, toxic emissions, etc. as well as how the material in a unit such as a brick will function. To an extent, we can extrapolate from precepts and other important elements which may apply to this design of yours. We need to know everything about your masonry unit to the same degree as we would any CMU, masonry unit of any other material, wood, engineered members, steel sections of any shape or form. We need to understand how it would behave in various assemblages, adhesion, surface friction, etc. I presented to you some of the kinds of considerations that needs to be determined and documented. We need to eliminate every unknown that can have serious impact on HSW. After all, we who design the buildings that use it are legally held responsible not to mention the builders. We don't want to mess with things with lots of unknowns. Adoption begins with knowing not with unknowns. It has serious financial ramifications not to mention potential HSW ramifications. You need to have professional standard documentations that will be peer reviewed for issues, flaws, omissions, errors, etc. This stuff takes decades to develop and adopt.

Right now, this is a code based forum and probably this thread might not be the correct thread but before I decide to move it or close it, I will have to see where it might be appropriately located. This has little to do with building design because no one is building with Peter's H or I bricks and it might be otherwise off-topic.

Moderator Note: I decided to move this thread to Off-Topic Posts as this may seem to be a better location for topics of this type.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 21, 2013)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I guess they don't have building codes in England where Peter lives.


I'm from Scotland, which is not in England.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 21, 2013)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> Peter, Are you paying attention.


Yes. I am paying attention.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 21, 2013)

Peter Dow said:
			
		

> I'm from Scotland, which is not in England.


True but it is part of the United Kingdom like northern Ireland. Not unless a descendant of William Wallace finally freed Scotland from United Kingdom. Granted Brudgers might know the difference between the parts but Scotland is currently a tad bit more closely tied to England than even Canada politically. That may change in the future but that is a different topic than at hand.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 21, 2013)

Peter Dow said:
			
		

> I'm from Scotland, which is not in England.


    Does that explain the lack of building codes?


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 21, 2013)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Does that explain the lack of building codes?


No, they are subjected to the laws and rules (yes building codes) set forth by the UK but only in really recent terms has Scotland had been granted some authority to pass laws within the area of Scotland. Scotland is not as of yet a complete and independent country in the same sense as Canada or Australia is. They just aren't using the ICC model code platform.

Building Standards

This is more the substantiated comment on there code by me than my prior post(s) on this and is their "building codes" system. Again, it is its own sort of thing and therefore has little to no application in U.S. and if he follows procedures in Scotland for his plan than maybe it might gives some degree of credence and garner more attention by ICC which is a private corporation (be it profit or non-profit... don't care) and the States in the U.S. determines the codes as they are adopted and amended to fit into the state's needs and so forth.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 21, 2013)

Peter, How is erection accomplished? Since the "bricks" are all interconnecting they would not be able to be laid in courses.


----------



## ICE (Jan 21, 2013)

tmurray said:
			
		

> Peter, How is erection accomplished?


Shirley that's going to pop up in some strange web searches.

Oh my, you have your last name up there too.  Well you can expect some strange e-mail offers for a while.

But no wait, nobody would do that. I mean really...who would use their real name on the Internet.

So the real Peter Dow out there is getting your strange e-mail.  You're a diabolical person Peter Dow.  And check you out Peter Dow, you've cribbed a picture as well.

http://scot.tk/


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 21, 2013)

tmurray said:
			
		

> Peter, How is erection accomplished? Since the "bricks" are all interconnecting they would not be able to be laid in courses.


The first point to note is that there are broadly two possible orientations for the HI-bricks when building a wall - the bricks in the "I" orientation or in the "H" orientation.

I orientation

If adding another row or course or layer of "I" bricks onto an existing row then one inserts the new "I" bricks from the side, either front or back, in a horizontal swinging motion similar to putting in golf, only one is swinging an "I" brick not swinging a putter. A short dowel section can be added inserted downwards after every brick is swung in place, or it would be possible to leave the insertion of dowel sections until perhaps every 2 or 3 rows of "I" bricks have been placed in which case the dowel sections can be longer.

H orientation

With the bricks being laid in the "H" orientation, the laying of bricks can be done from above or the side or some combination.

The bricks go in easier as Hs than they do as Is but unfortunately, the dowel sections are not so easy to insert in the H orientation when the previous row of bricks can obstruct sliding long dowel sections in.

The dowel sections may have to be no longer than a half-brick's length and inserted vertically into the appropriate dowel shaft of a neighbouring brick and slid along - and you need to do that 3 times - 3 1/2 brick dowel sections (they would slot inside each other to be sure to have maximum strength) to secure one H brick.







Now in the construction of some short structures, you might have or be able make convenient access to slide longer dowel sections in from the side (as I did when demonstrating my model), perhaps you can leave off the corners of walls till last and get clearance to slide longer dowel sections in. There maybe construction methodologies yet to be developed to enable convenient dowel insertion in the H orientation. Or it may be such a pain that way that the I orientation is almost always preferred. I don't know this being very early days and very theoretical before the first full size HI-brick has ever been made.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 22, 2013)

Peter Dow said:
			
		

> The first point to note is that there are broadly two possible orientations for the HI-bricks when building a wall - the bricks in the "I" orientation or in the "H" orientation.I orientation
> 
> If adding another row or course or layer of "I" bricks onto an existing row then one inserts the new "I" bricks from the side, either front or back, in a horizontal swinging motion similar to putting in golf, only one is swinging an "I" brick not swinging a putter. A short dowel section can be added inserted downwards after every brick is swung in place, or it would be possible to leave the insertion of dowel sections until perhaps every 2 or 3 rows of "I" bricks have been placed in which case the dowel sections can be longer.
> 
> ...


How do you handle corners when two intersecting walls comes together. How do you may a strong corner connection?

Peter, have you design or constructed buildings before? Your description seems like you might lack experience in that in.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 22, 2013)

Peter, the orifice could lubricate the rod as it is inserted during the mating process.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 22, 2013)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Peter, the orifice could lubricate the rod as it is inserted during the mating process.


Sit Ubu sit. Good dog. Remember to behave.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 23, 2013)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> How do you handle corners when two intersecting walls comes together. How do you may a strong corner connection?


You may remember I posted this.





			
				Peter Dow said:
			
		

> one could not use the same HI-brick to form a 90 degree edge as is used for a flat join, but that a special-purpose corner-brick would be required.


So for intersecting walls, then there would be 3 types of corner bricks for walls which meet at right angles depending on how many walls leave the corner2 walls - L3 walls - T4 walls - +This diagram is a rough sketch of a 4-way corner HI-brick. I have not tried to draw any rounded corners to save lots of time.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



for a 4-wall corner the HI brick has a + shape top and bottom,
for a 3-wall corner then it's a T shape top and bottom
for a simple 2-wall corner it's L shapes top and bottom.
There would be a further selection of HI-bricks to implement various architectural features - curved bricks, angled bricks, bricks to make beams etc. There's a fair bit of detailed design work yet to do.



			
				RickAstoria said:
			
		

> Peter, have you design or constructed buildings before?


Not much really.I've sketched out a design for perimeter defences for a military base. (Link to the For Freedom Forums)I've super-sized  a design for a pumped-storage hydro-electric dam. (Link to the For Freedom Forums)I've published some design ideas for armoured vehicles (Link to the For Freedom Forums)So these are my published concepts and designs but I've never actually had a budget actually to build anything, no.The only actual "building" I have done are a few minor DIY tasks around the house and some motor-cycle and car maintenance - that kind of thing.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 660


View attachment 660


/monthly_2013_01/four_way_corner.jpg.54e70225a9817a85f28e3d19fead44f1.jpg


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 23, 2013)

I've tried to represent the dowel shafts in this improved diagram.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




View attachment 661


View attachment 661


/monthly_2013_01/four_way_corner.jpg.0175cbcfaf02a5e36a65325177006d90.jpg


----------



## tmurray (Jan 24, 2013)

Peter Dow said:
			
		

> The first point to note is that there are broadly two possible orientations for the HI-bricks when building a wall - the bricks in the "I" orientation or in the "H" orientation.I orientation
> 
> If adding another row or course or layer of "I" bricks onto an existing row then one inserts the new "I" bricks from the side, either front or back, in a horizontal swinging motion similar to putting in golf, only one is swinging an "I" brick not swinging a putter. A short dowel section can be added inserted downwards after every brick is swung in place, or it would be possible to leave the insertion of dowel sections until perhaps every 2 or 3 rows of "I" bricks have been placed in which case the dowel sections can be longer.
> 
> ...


Ok, that makes more sense now.

Now, typically for new construction materials to succeed they need to solve a problem. From what I can tell your product would be able to be quickly dis-assembled and re-assembled with little waste compared to existing building envelopes. Since we generally design buildings for a 50 year life span there is likely a small market that may profit from being able to disassemble the structural frame. I just don't see the potential market for this product.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 24, 2013)

tmurray said:
			
		

> Ok, that makes more sense now.Now, typically for new construction materials to succeed they need to solve a problem. From what I can tell your product would be able to be quickly dis-assembled and re-assembled with little waste compared to existing building envelopes. Since we generally design buildings for a 50 year life span there is likely a small market that may profit from being able to disassemble the structural frame. I just don't see the potential market for this product.


The main advantage of being able to disassemble a structure or a building is for *temporary buildings* which you need to relocate every so often, or need to make major changes, to move a wall, add an extension, whatever.

So the potential markets for using this more expensive HI-bricks & Dowels technology will be when building big, strong or light-weight temporary structures.


the stage for a music festival on a green field site

a stadium which needs to reconfigure for different types of events

vehicle storage and repair garage for oil drilling sites in Alaska / Canada / Siberia / Artic / Antarctic

underground structures in mining

flood or earthquake disaster or refugees from war zones or other homeless needing emergency shelters

Note that in each example application there would be a need to use different sizes, strengths and materials to make suitable I / H bricks & dowels for the different applications.

Where the loads are small and the need is for lightness then the I / H brick would be more like a big tile, a panel or an open tubular frame and as the loads get heavier so the brick size gets more compact, stocky and thicker.


----------



## north star (Jan 24, 2013)

*& & &*



Peter Dow,

Thanks for continuing to post information on this Forum regarding

your design concept......Please do not be intimidated or discouraged

by the Forum members and other contributors......For the most part,

there are a lot of [ traditional ] construction types on here, and

there is an amount of skepticism as well........Sometimes we have a

difficult time in seeing the use & application of new designs that

haven't been tested & used in real world applications.

I will encourage you to keep developing your design......Have you

worked up some pricing structures for the various applications

that you mentioned, [ i.e - temp. stages, ...shelters, ...storage

facilities, etc., etc. ] to see how your various design models

will compare to the existing designs in existence ?



*% % %*


----------



## kilitact (Jan 24, 2013)

Peter, I would agree with what north star posted. Sounds/looks like your on the path to a great design.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 24, 2013)

north star said:
			
		

> *& & &*
> 
> Peter Dow,
> 
> ...


Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of innovation and idea but that ideas need to be worked through and I am only critiquing based on what is presented and this is intended to be food for thought. That is in part of why I moved the thread instead of closing it. At this time, I feel that it is currently early in its infancy and needs to be analyzed and critiqued through intense scientific and engineering standards and documents necessary for engineers, architects and building designers would need and all the information required to demonstrate that it meets the codes and all HSW requirements to both the satisfaction of professional standard of care required by the judicial system, the licensing boards, and state & local building departments. When applied to actual buildings, people's lives are at stake and we need to address these issues thoroughly.

Peter,

Thanks for presenting the idea and feel free to continue to flush out your idea, get it tested through professional methods of testing and keep work on it. In the same regards as to the Tor-eg fellow with the "continuous strap" idea. keep working on the ideas and flush it out. Lets keep asking the hard questions and keep the critique going in a positive constructive manner.

Since I am only a moderator, I just simply explain my perspective on a few aspects. It is not to discourage but to give you things to think about and make sure it has been thought out.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 24, 2013)

tmurray said:
			
		

> Ok, that makes more sense now.Now, typically for new construction materials to succeed they need to solve a problem. From what I can tell your product would be able to be quickly dis-assembled and re-assembled with little waste compared to existing building envelopes. Since we generally design buildings for a 50 year life span there is likely a small market that may profit from being able to disassemble the structural frame. I just don't see the potential market for this product.


Not quite true. Well... it depends on the building and use. We design buildings with various life-cycle factors but in general the structural should have an overall life-cycle of over 100 years. However, certain overhauls needs to be done at different intervals. However, if you are building a temporary or utility structure which can be replaced in the not to distant future then fine but when we design things like educational buildings, or other "primary structures" on a campus, we build them with endurance in mind. However, secondary or tertiary buildings aren't looked to have high endurance.

There are several life cycles and to be honest, it is not sustainable to build buildings in a "throw away society mentality". There is no such thing as "throw it away and its gone" it is just relocating and there is no such thing as a "free lunch". As design professionals (architects, engineers, building designers, interior architects or designers, landscape architects or designers, etc.), we are called and compelled to think about long term consequences of our decisions and sustainable and environmental prudence in the course of our practice in addition to immediate, short-term, and intermediate terms. We think about the different layers of life-cycles among many other considerations and adaptive reusability is important in our strategy of a design to be usable now and in the future. Designing a building is a public act and one with public consequence for good and for bad and everywhere in between.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 24, 2013)

north star said:
			
		

> Peter Dow,Thanks for continuing to post information on this Forum regarding
> 
> your design concept......Please do not be intimidated or discouraged
> 
> by the Forum members and other contributors


I am not intimidated by members.

The only people that can intimidate me here are the forum moderators because they can move this topic into a less-good forum, already done once, or lock the topic or even ban me.

As for what anyone else posts here, it is like water off a duck's back.



			
				north star said:
			
		

> ......For the most part,there are a lot of [ traditional ] construction types on here, and
> 
> there is an amount of skepticism as well........Sometimes we have a
> 
> ...


Thanks for your encouragement.



			
				north star said:
			
		

> Have youworked up some pricing structures for the various applications
> 
> that you mentioned, [ i.e - temp. stages, ...shelters, ...storage
> 
> ...


I haven't no and I've no plans to cost this any time soon.

I have a number of interests on the go and while I am happy to update this topic when I make some progress, it won't be rapid progress if I am the only one active on the design.


----------



## Peter Dow (Jan 24, 2013)

kilitact said:
			
		

> Peter, I would agree with what north star posted. Sounds/looks like your on the path to a great design.


Thank you very much.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 24, 2013)

Peter Dow said:
			
		

> I am not intimidated by members.The only people that can intimidate me here are the forum moderators because they can move this topic into a less-good forum, already done once, or lock the topic or even ban me.
> 
> As for what anyone else posts here, it is like water off a duck's back.


Hey, I could have moved it to the one Brudgers suggested.


----------



## ICE (Jan 24, 2013)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> Hey, I could have moved it to the one Brudgers suggested.


It's not too late.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 24, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> It's not too late.


True but it all depends on how this thread topic goes.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 25, 2013)

Peter Dow said:
			
		

> The main advantage of being able to disassemble a structure or a building is for *temporary buildings* which you need to relocate every so often, or need to make major changes, to move a wall, add an extension, whatever.So the potential markets for using this more expensive HI-bricks & Dowels technology will be when building big, strong or light-weight temporary structures.
> 
> 
> the stage for a music festival on a green field site
> ...


Peter, I do hope my comments are seen as discouraging, but constructive as I intend them.

While driving home last night I was thinking of your idea and thought that temporary military bases would love this idea.


----------



## kilitact (Jan 25, 2013)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> True but it all depends on how this thread topic goes.


moderate, not dictate.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 26, 2013)

kilitact said:
			
		

> moderate, not dictate.


True... so true.


----------

