This is fascinating. I’ve just sent this article to a couple of structural engineers that I work. Thanks for shining a light on this innovative approach. Everything has an environmental impact, and frankly I’ve been concerned about mass timber ever since it became the next big thing. I’m eager to think about how a stone structure might be enclosed using modern building science. Maybe it’s just the same as for concrete.
How can you pretension stone? I know how they do that with concrete, but not stone.
Also what kind of stone can be used? Obviously not sandstone, but what is ideal? And, do we have enough in North America. You may think this is a dumb question, but I know a year stone has started leaving the ground there will be people squawking about how it's harming the environment.
And speaking of the environment, what kind a footprint is this going to leave. Perhaps not as large as concrete, but, there is still the mining, the transportation, etc. Not to mention the pre-stressing, which I assume uses steel cables as in concrete...
Limestone is dangerous for people who work with it, even when applying the best health and safety practices. Because of the well established cancer risks, Australia is phasing out all use.
It's funny - I came back here to share what one of the structural engineers I work with has to say, then I realized you posted this on April Fool's Day, so now I'm wondering . . . hmmmmm. Is this for real? 😂 Here are Justin's thoughts:
As always when I read about a new material being pushed, I try and read between the lines and find out what is being deemphasized for the purposes of selling the product. And stone certainly has a lot going for it for the right use case! It’s always tricky being in the industry where the expertise around stone construction isn’t readily available for input (for instance, I’d love to see the detail that uses stone in combination with pretensioned steel cables to make a floor). I feel like if I suggested using structural stone for just about anything I’d be laughed out the door, but that’s probably because I’m working in an area where concrete is king.
I’m glad someone is championing the material, it’s thankless work. Even mass timber, which we’re now sporadically using, often requires a lot of work from the design team to make viable. We’d need clients with a lot of ambition, and a really good partner stone manufacturer. I get bogged down in the practicalities of: how well does it respond to seismic activity? If you use it for a floor system, what spans and occupancies are you limited to? How deep does that stone+pretension system get, and how can it compete with 7” concrete post-tensioned slabs in the height restricted DC region? What’s the rating process for stone, does it have processes like wood for verifying the grade, adequate preparation, etc? Given stone is primarily a compression member, are we returning to the days of arch-based construction, and why did we leave that in the first place?
Thanks for taking me down a little structural rabbit hole!
Another huge advantage of using stone for structure is the lifespan of the building - hundreds of years instead of 55-60.
Planned obsolescence in building - not carbon-friendly!
This is fascinating. I’ve just sent this article to a couple of structural engineers that I work. Thanks for shining a light on this innovative approach. Everything has an environmental impact, and frankly I’ve been concerned about mass timber ever since it became the next big thing. I’m eager to think about how a stone structure might be enclosed using modern building science. Maybe it’s just the same as for concrete.
How can you pretension stone? I know how they do that with concrete, but not stone.
Also what kind of stone can be used? Obviously not sandstone, but what is ideal? And, do we have enough in North America. You may think this is a dumb question, but I know a year stone has started leaving the ground there will be people squawking about how it's harming the environment.
And speaking of the environment, what kind a footprint is this going to leave. Perhaps not as large as concrete, but, there is still the mining, the transportation, etc. Not to mention the pre-stressing, which I assume uses steel cables as in concrete...
Enquiring minds want to know.
Limestone is dangerous for people who work with it, even when applying the best health and safety practices. Because of the well established cancer risks, Australia is phasing out all use.
It's funny - I came back here to share what one of the structural engineers I work with has to say, then I realized you posted this on April Fool's Day, so now I'm wondering . . . hmmmmm. Is this for real? 😂 Here are Justin's thoughts:
As always when I read about a new material being pushed, I try and read between the lines and find out what is being deemphasized for the purposes of selling the product. And stone certainly has a lot going for it for the right use case! It’s always tricky being in the industry where the expertise around stone construction isn’t readily available for input (for instance, I’d love to see the detail that uses stone in combination with pretensioned steel cables to make a floor). I feel like if I suggested using structural stone for just about anything I’d be laughed out the door, but that’s probably because I’m working in an area where concrete is king.
I’m glad someone is championing the material, it’s thankless work. Even mass timber, which we’re now sporadically using, often requires a lot of work from the design team to make viable. We’d need clients with a lot of ambition, and a really good partner stone manufacturer. I get bogged down in the practicalities of: how well does it respond to seismic activity? If you use it for a floor system, what spans and occupancies are you limited to? How deep does that stone+pretension system get, and how can it compete with 7” concrete post-tensioned slabs in the height restricted DC region? What’s the rating process for stone, does it have processes like wood for verifying the grade, adequate preparation, etc? Given stone is primarily a compression member, are we returning to the days of arch-based construction, and why did we leave that in the first place?
Thanks for taking me down a little structural rabbit hole!