Sand filled walls

I call 'em cripples.:) Hell, terminology across "State Lines" can be a bitch, let alone continents!

Is the hood on a car in OZ the door?? If so, then what's the hood called???:confused:
Now I'm really confused!

Someone on the BBS from Oz posted a real beauty. Something about a "Ute" and a guy, and some kind of dance....?
While I could read every word in the sentence, I couldn't understand any of it!
It was funny!!!!!
"AusRock" came in and translated it for me.

{edit}
Here it is:
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=70929&highlight=Ute
 
LMAO........

Hood........= Bonnet
Trunk........= Boot
Fender......= Mudguard

Although over the years these "americanisms" are being used more often over here.

Steve, some of us are old enough to be "pre metric"..........I grew up with inches, feet, pints, quarts and gallons.............consequently, I tend to "work" easily in both metric and imperial.

The only bitch back then was that we had imperial gallons, (the real ones) and occasionally US gallons:D .

:cool:
 
I didnt think fire stops were structural- thought they just slowed the spread of fire should it happen in your wall
 
ausrock said:
LMAO........

Hood........= Bonnet
Trunk........= Boot
Fender......= Mudguard

Although over the years these "americanisms" are being used more often over here.

Steve, some of us are old enough to be "pre metric"..........I grew up with inches, feet, pints, quarts and gallons.............consequently, I tend to "work" easily in both metric and imperial.

The only bitch back then was that we had imperial gallons, (the real ones) and occasionally US gallons:D .

:cool:

Well then mate, pop the bonnet on my ute, an' drop in a quart...er..um..liter of oil for me, eh, then we're off to the B&S Ball to get pissed.
Mind you don't scratch up me mudguard an' don't pitch the can in the boot.


How's that?:D
Yeah?
Pretty good huh?:cool:
 
Kremit, that's exactly what fire stops are for. That's why, even though a wall may be 12' tall, there is required to be a fire stop at 10', between each and every stud in the frame.

There is another type of framing, known as balloon framing, that uses full length studs which are NOT interrupted by the second floor, with the second floor held up by "on-edge" horizontals at the second floor level - as opposed to more common "platform" framing, where the studs stop and are capped, joists are placed across the top of the caps, and a second deck built, on top of which you start over with plates, studs and caps - In Balloon framing, fire stops are also doing double duty as "spreaders", which are really "anti-spreaders" .

I don't recall whether balloon type framing is even allowed any more, you never see it on the west coast that I'm aware of - for one thing, it's not as easy to get a sturdy frame with balloon since the second floor doesn't have as definite a place to rest as does the platform variety.

Anybody else know if balloon framing is still recognized by the UBC? My copy is decades old, since I only bought it for personal study... Steve
 
we use noggins at 4' spacing in our standard 8' (2.4m) housing. First thing the chippie, oops there we go again - (carpenter) :) does is cut heaps of them. (a great number of them :) )
up2_2.jpg


It's in our building codes at 4'. I feel it also strengthens the walls AND increases the contact adhesion of the gyprock (plasterboard) (Drywall) :p :p

I'm like ausrock - I grew up with imperial and changed to metric when I was around 20. Tell you what - metric wips imperial's ass when it comes to building...........and everything else for that matter........ want to try pounds, shillings and pence?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

cheers
JOhn
 
"the chippie":p
I like that. It's funny!
The SI or metric system is definately easier to work with, I don't think anyone thats ever used it will refute that. In college, I took an awful lot of chemistry, way more than what was required. In the lab, they lock you in a room with nothing but metric "tools" and tell you to measure out 15ml of water. OK. But you're given a graduated cylinder marked off in mls. It's not like all you have is a teaspoon, and you have to make the conversion. So in that sense, its easy to work with.

The reluctance on our part to change, I think, has to do with a grasp of the quantity.
Some years back, Texas had a mandate for all state departments to convert to the metric system.
The Texas Dept. of Transportation (TxDOT) produced all of their roadway improvement plans using metric measurements. The problems arose in contracting the construction. Most of the contractors had no idea how long a kilometer was, or what the equivilent diameter of a 914mm pipe was. After all, you can't order a 914mm dia. pipe. But you can order a 36" dia pipe!
So you can see wherein the problems lie. Shortly after, they dropped the mandate, and went back to US measurments. Occassionaly, we still run across some of those older plans when doing adjacent projects. They're a pain in the butt to work with because we have to convert everything.

In my own experiences, I can tell you that after 1 and half hours, under flooding conditions, this creek is going to produce a flow of water equivilent to 215 cubic feet per second. From experience, I can also tell you that that flow going to have a velocity of 7 feet per second. To bridge that flow, I can tell you that you're going to need 2 - 42" pipes.
I have a real good grasp on the QUANTITY of all of those units.

Now, tell me that same creek is flowing at 8 cubic meters per second..... and I have no idea whats going on!

Or, if we're driving down the road, and you tell me its 60 miles to the next town, I'll be like: OK. Cool. That's about an hours drive. But if you tell me its 92km to the next town..... Huh? :confused:
How far is that?

Sometimes we try to make these quick, pathetic conversions in our head:
John says a wall is 2.4 meters high. OK 2 meters, thats about 6 feet right? and a little less than half of one of those is a foot and a half... so, ok, about 7 and a half feet??
No stupid. 8 feet.
Oh. pid-deppy-deppy-doh!

Its even worse for us with tempertures.
25 degrees is fricking COLD!!! Or wait.... is it?? :confused:


No grasp on the quantity of the unit.

sorry... off topic
 
Last edited:
Kinghtfly-

Im familiar with baloon framing- my house is balloon framed- its also 120 years old- theres a few inherint problems with balloon framing-
1- firestops as we were discussing-
2- one 16' 2x4 costs MORE than twice the cost of one 8' 2x4- its not really cost effective-
- its all about the money- i dont know how the UBC feels about balloon framing- around here we use the OBBC (Ohio Basic Building Code) i took a quick look and didnt see them forbidding balloon framing- seems like they may prefere it because they do have provisions for tying floors together with steel straps where "the studs do not continue from sill to roof in constrcution greater than one story" Anywho, cost seems to be the big deterent in balloon framed construction.
 
Hey guys,
thanks for taking your time to look into this, very much appreciated. I'm getting a bit confused here, though. The sand filled walls idea sorta went overboard, and I started leaning towards the concrete block idea. It just seemed like a straightforward solution that is easy to build.

But then I checked out the STC ratings of different wall constructions on John's site (thanks man, it's just the best!). I was surprised to find that concrete block didn't do much better than a staggered stud construction with single plasterboard sheets. I wouldn't have guessed that. I'm not sure how thick the concrete blocks on your site are, but the one's we have been looking at are 24 cms thick (about 9 1/2 inch). Not sure how big the voids are.

I wonder, does anyone else think that Kremitmusic's idea of filling the voids of the concrete blocks is a good one? How much added STL could I expect?

From what I gather, the concrete block solution still seems a bit more cost efficient than staggered studs. At least the building material turns out to be less expensive (another thing I wouldn't have guessed).

Your comments? What would you think was the most cost efficient solution? Which one would you think was the quickest to build? (We're hiring a couple of guys to help us out with the construction, so time is money. )

Thanks again!

Cheers
/Henrik
 
Henrik said:
... I'm not sure how thick the concrete blocks on your site are, but the one's we have been looking at are 24 cms thick (about 9 1/2 inch)...


Oh, 8". You wrote it right there, John. How convenient. :D

/Henrik
 
Back
Top