ie) ae a i? ris ia + By * BiVUwTTU ee eee ees ™ EAL com mets - m4 ea eee | Rm RE mM 955 es E88 THESIS THESIS cop. \ a The Practicability of Cenetructing One Story Conorete Houses in Vertical Portable Sectionwececccose By Oscar R. Beal. Technical Problem for Spring Term 1921. Civil Engineering Division of M. A. C. THESIS wo. l. Be Se 4. De 6. Ve 8. 9. Order of Books. General Description of Proposed Type. Detailed Drawings of Proposed Sections. Teste of Concrete Walle Variously Reinforced. Estimated Cost of Construction of Sections. Eatimated Cost of Model House by Present Method. ® e ® « " in Sections. " ,_ 8 * Garage by Present Method. e # a ° e in Sections. Summary: General Disoussion of the Proposition. 93884 General Description of the Proposed Type. About a year ago the idea was first conceived of building one story concrete houses and garages in vertical portable sections. At that time the idea id not seem practical. Now, however, after having given the subjact considerable thot, it is believed that, with alterations, the idea may be all right. The opjeot of thie problem is to determine whether or not it would be practiaal to construct the proposed buildings in verti- coal portable sections. Believing that the idea is practical, and attempt shall be made to prove three things; first, that 4% ie possible to build the house in sections, second, that the cost of material will be lees if the house be bullt in sections, third, that the house ( inoluding gost of labor) will cost less if built in sections. To prove the above, a model house and a model garage will first be designed. The house will be a emall one story etructure sugh as might be used for cote tages at lakeside reeorts or for workingwen's homes in the factéry districts of our larger oifies, or wherever a four to six room houses ie desirable. The garage will be a two oar garage. : le 18°-0 —+| x === oF Se + 2 © & | , riéeay 8-07 miele oe — ae NN x ye : ~~ wr ¥ ; ba wv er Floor Flan. | | O IF SYHVD \svolh Lee W-%- ® >%,; ABFA sOO\N Model Garage. Front Elevation. SVODD \swoih | MOVIBNSVA AAO —/6"-4- 19-0 ————— Oe ‘ Ff gh fy FP EEGs Side Llevation. SyHprx0d \snoh\ NG eg Ce pola. sar “gy ae ee ey PE SEE SO ES SR SR RS [SORENE AOR SENS eo, Soe eens ee ee Se eee Oe ee ere — —— ———_— — oo _— —_—_ ee AW DNsa spre Mode/ Garage: fear Llevarion. VQWHWD \sw0i AQVANAVA SNST\ oy [FiO Dt fi eis fCdarvcr. Lf tH « ’ a 7 =a Je e az t” Cw ~ f * 22) % “ o se at rN i ‘ r WORE Sere L Ss ae 4 Sectional View: From Front SYSipd \spohh ee gre HW —ofe — “3+ a—-_----—4 3 Sa eee ER _—T AAS WoT Hawa \aascrsee Wode! Corrage. 20 = 10 /0: 2 | Ff —{- amet ol z S Floor Flan. AYWASY \Sawh pao rg oS -+—————“av AN 7 - me “noone HAATOR eee ! x singel. oe \ | : | snes bekk GER ETA Se ee: [$a - = ge eee woe, | I AMA SOOT’ » Model Cortage. qc Mon: ee i a t6¢F¢ Cee , { y 4 Front Llevarion. SYVVAGS \spod\ zee ee | Bie ——aa | i MOVVANsvA *Aord\ Model Cottage. = ~ eee | PP ORSME YL Ph Os Waa UE i va T | . | . : Side Elevation, (Fright) ANTI — \sacth ——— = LAG) AGENANA od Model Cottage. u im | [| Side Elevation (Legt) 9) SYVV{9d — \shath ol | Lae d) warned one Mode/ t SAVVY \srot\ as i heal heres ARVVANSVA wOSTA Model Cor rage Nef, » f a . Kb/s fy ie f Gi "7, yea NN te a i ry 1 i i ei ] ' | > ; i ‘ | | | | J a o aa 4 : Detail of Solid Section virete re F id, ARE YHVASS \anad\ nh gle Bee es ee ————-— “te HWVIIG WAS A eo\sQ A? , y j . of gam & me SHOUE, [rd PAG fe. Model Garage : a 2 vt ee ’ “el ob , a : ; INE . Fe | Y : = = + c a — 9-9 - tH — 4p andl — 49" > a A} — - roa Reet 10 —>+-— 10 — 18% Sct Lf. O-€0 ft. é - i aa ay e e? ee e yy) St OS gy ee fs 7° 2 LE SF ete ge PEEL ECHR SOL IGS. Detail o¢ Solid Section. AYN Yann oe £6 ae Spink got ee Bs ti L * @\ —ete— @\ —1e— " Q\ — ie 7 mE / | 3 AE emia 7 HGAINT WT ro Woe Model Garage w . = 4 3 _— % ES ¢ js T Y % L . i . 0 Rigen Derail of Window Section. | 4e SYOVyd = \snd\h * > rt ae Cd e & isi al t % o a" Q— 1 — , ; =Qy—ele = Q\— — “>i yl mgt — eae AWAWT WRG r© sia Tests for Conorete Waals Variously Reinforced. The first tests conducted were with test slabs. The purpose of this series of experiments was to determine relatively, the comparative strength of different mixes, water ratios, reinforcements, and thicknesses. It was also desir able to determine the most probable point of failure in the slabs, along with a better general knowledge of the subject, whioh would help to remedy any unforeseen difficulties. To obtain this data, thirty test slabs were poured, each one being on a standard frame. This standard frame was rectangular in shape, and was made from two four-foot stripe of pine 12" square, and two, tue-foot strips of the same dimensions. These were nailed together in such a manner as to make a reotangle of wood whose inside measpremente were 20}* by 48", in the clear. After spreading paper over the floor for the purpose of preventing the green sconorete from ad= her ing to the floor, the frames were laid on the paper and the sonorete poured in, and leveled off to the proper depth. When wire was used, it was nailed to the upper side when the frame was laying in the pouring position, oare being taken to let the wire hang loose enough so as to nearly touch the floor half way between the supports. Portiand cement wae used with good gravel, which showed practically no organio matter under the sodium hydroxide test. The gravel was not soreened, and as a result, a little trouble was enoountered due to the presence of stones which were too large to be covered in so thin a slab. However, this did not slow up the pouring to any great extent, and in ppecticalily every case, the concrete was poured within 40 minutes after it was mixed. The conorete was mixed by shovele ing over the gravel and cement four times before the water was added, and two times after the water was supplied. The slabe were tested comparatively, by plac- ing the actual weight on a two by four, eight inohes jong, which was placed on the center of each slab. fhe two by four was really only 14" thiok, and as it was 8* long, there were 13 square inohes of bearing surface. This bearing strip was placed with ite long sdge parallel to the long sides of the slab. Unless otherwise stated, the mix was just wet enough so that there was a slight slump, and no more. In other words, the conorete, when poured, wae just wet enough so that when it was slightly tamped, @ very little water would be noticeable at the surface. The slabe were sprinkled every few days while they were hardening, but such better care could be given wery easily. The temperature of the garage in whioh the slabs set, was rather high, and a good drying atmosphere resulted. If the slab’ had been ale lowed to dry more slowly, they would have been much stronger and better resulte would have been obtained in the tests. Dats on Test Slade. To Test Mixes. 1. Standard frame with 3" wire mesh, 1 : 44 mix, poured 14" deep. Weight when tested 128 lbs. Tested at 20 days. The el&b failed by breaking in center. The failure was very slow and gradual, and was due to tension failure. The bond between the concrete and the wire wae very strong, the wire actually break- ing in several places. The fact that the concrete Glung tightly to the frame was particularly noticeable. The slab failed under a 900 lb. load. Be Same slab and same failure as No. 1, failing under a 800 lb. load. Se Standard frame with 3° wire mesh, 1: 6 mix, poured 13" deep. Weight when tested 130 lbs. Tested at 18 days. The slab failed by breaking in the center, very gradually. The failure was due to inability to resist tension stresses. The conorete olung tightly to the frame. The breaking load was 650 lbs. 4, Same elab and same failure as No. 3, break- ing under a 550 lb. load. 5. Standard frame with 3" wire mesh, 1: 74 mix, poured 13" deep. Weight when tested 125 ibe. Tested at 18 days. The slab failed in the center due to ten- sional stresses, breaking very gradually. The oon- orete clung well to the frame. The breaking load was 450 lbs. 6. Same sla b and same failure as No. 5, break- ing under a 450 lb. load. 7. Same sla b and same failure as No. 5, break- ing under a 500 lb. load. 8. Standard frame with nails at eight inoh ine tervals, no wire, 1: 9 mix, poured 2" deep. Weight when tested, 71 libs. Slad féiled in the center from inadility to resist tensional stresses. The conorete clung very well to the frama. It failed under a 100 lb. load. Tested at 15 days. Teets With Nails Only. 9. Standard frame with nails at eight insh ine tervals, 1: 43° mix, poured 1° deep, tested at 17 Gays. Weight when tested 85 lbs. The slab failed first in one oorner where a nail was covered with only 1/8 inoh of conorete, and then it broke around the other nails and across the center. After craking slightly, 1% failed suddenly thru shear. It wae tested bottom side up which might account for its failure to withstand a larger weight. It broke under a 3225 ib. load. 10. Game slab ae No. 9, but weighed 101 ibs. The slab failed by oracking thru the cen- ter. As the nails were spaced comparatively deeply, the concrete was seeure to the frame. Slab broke un- der a load of 375 lbs. ii. Standard frame with nails at eight inoh in- tervals, 1: 4} mix, poured 1)" deep, tested at 17 days. Weight when tested 126 lbs. The slab failed to crack or to show any signs of failure under a 800 lb. load. An accident ocourred at this point tho, and the weights fell onto the slab. Upon replacing the weights, the slab broke under a 700 1b. load. The sonorete failed first to cracking, and then to general failure. The sconorete etuck to the frame very well. 132. Same slab and same failure as No. 11, slab weighing 133 lbs. and failing under a 600 lb. load. 13. Standard frame with nails at eight inoh ine tervals, 1: 4} mix, poured 2° deep, tested at 17 days. Weight when tested 161 lbs. The slab hnald up 950 lbe. without showing any signe of failure. At this point tho weights tipped off the beam and fell onto the slab. The el&b wae set aside for twenty four hours until some more weights oould be seoured. It was then reloaded failing under 1050 los. The conorete stuok very Clos ely to the frame and failed in the center only. Teste With Wire Mesh Only. 14. Standard frame w ith 2" wire mesh, 1 : 4} mix, poured 1° deep, tested at 17 days. Weight when tested 90 lbs. The slab cracked under 335 lbs. and broke gradually under 400 lbs. It seemed to fail firet near the wood thru shearing. The presence of nails would probably have strengthened it considerably. It was tested with the under side up. In thie case the wire was nailed to the under side, instead of to the upper side, as the slab was to be only 1° thick. 15. Same slab as No. 14, weighing when teeted 89 lbs. Failure is very gradual. It does not real-e iy break, dut fails rather from dending, as it seems to bend and still not break. The conorete stioke to the frame very well but the presence ef naile would probably increase the strength. It was tested with the under side up and failed under a 360 lb. load. 16. Standard frame with 2° wire mesh, 13: 44 mix, poured 14" deep, tested at 20 days. Weight when tested 131 lbde, The slab failed in the center very gradual- iy. The conorete stuok to the frane very well. The breaking load was 750 lbs. 1.7. Same siab and same failure as No. 16, x= cept that the breaking ioad was600 lbs, 18. Standard frame with 2" wire mesh, 1: 44 mix, poured 3° deep, tested at 18 days. Weight when tested 166 lbs. Slab breaks under a 1035 lb. load. It faile ed very slowly and gradually, and in the center only. The conorete stuck firmly to the frame, 19. Same slad ae No. 18, weighing 168 lbe. Slab breaks at 1350 lbs., failing ASlong the edge where the wire was covered with only 1/32 inch of conorete,. a0. Same slab as No. 18, weighing 165 lds. Slabd fails very gradually under 1300 lb. lead. It seemed to faild in the center first. Yor the Effect of Water Ratio. 1. Standard frame with 2° wire mesh, 1 : 43 mix, poured li*dcop, teated at 18 days, 2" slump when poured. Veight when tested 225 lbs. Slab breaks gradually under 650 lbs., faile ing thru the center. Ee Same slab and same failure exactly as No. 31 except weight of slab when tested wae 135 lve. O36 Standard frame with 3° wire mesh, 1: 43 mix, poured 1i" deep, tested at 18 days, 5" slump when poured. Weight when tested 130 lbs. Slab breaks under 550 lb. load, gradually failing in the center from inabiaity to withstand ten= sional stresees. Wire ané Nails. RS. Standard frame with 2* wire mesh, and nails spaced at eight inoh intervals, 1 344 wix, poured 1}* deep, tested at 19 days. Weight when tested 130 lbs. Slab breakea in the center under a 850 ib. doad. It failed very gradually, and the conorete stuok very firmly to the frame. 25. Bliad and failure is identical to No. 2 4. Test for Moving of Siabd. B66 Standard frame with 2° wire mesh, 1: 44 mix, poured 14° deep, tested at 18 days, moved 150 feet after 3 days. Weight when tested 125 lbs. Slab breaks under 750 lbs., failing in ten- sion in the center, It stuck to the frame very well. 37. Slab same as number 36 excepts it was moved after four days. Slab breake in the center, gradually, under @ load of 700 lbs. Special Slabs. 58. A special elab wae made by covering a stan- dard frame with tarepaper, over which was placed the 2" wire mesh; the concrete being poured on top of thas and being held, while setting, by the tar paper. A 1: 45 mix was used, with a dry mixture, poured 14° deep and tested at 17 days. Weight when tested 129 lbs. Slab breake very gradually inder 1075 lb. load. It failed in the center, sticking very tightly to the frame. 29. A sppaisl slab was maids ths seme as No. 28, exoept nails were added at approximately eight ineh intervals. Weight when tested was 130 lbs. Breaks undsr 900 lb. load, failing along the edge wheme the conorste waa only about 1/2 * thick. 306 A speeial slab was made from a standard frame and nails, using a 1: 74 mix, pouring 1" deep, and testing at 15 days. Weight of slab} ‘vhen tested, 78 pounds. ciab oracks andi breaks under 150 lbs. Shears thru at thres nails. There was only 4" of conorcte vetween the nails and the upper surface. The oconorete sttok to the frame very well. Results of Tests. Mixes. The slabs, each 14" thiok held approxi-+ mately the following loads; 1: 43 mix, held 9850 lb. average. 22:6 mix, * 600 *® ® 1:74 mix, * 450 ® e From this it would seem that the 13 43 mix ia the proper one to use, altho it ise poesible that the 1: 6 mix might be rractionl. Naile Only. From these slabs we find that the nails help considerably to tie the oconorete to the wood frame. However, we also notice that the slabs without the wire hold up only about 3/3 of the load that the slabs with the wire will hold. This is not all, for it ie readi- iy seen that in every instance, the elabe having naile only, failed instantly, whereas, the slabs with the wire failed very gradually. This shows conclusively that the presence of the wire ise very desirable, and thatZ the slabs with only nails, would, in most oases, be unpractiaal. Wire Only. The slabs with 2" wire Mesh, and ail: 44 mix, held up the following loads; L® thick 350 lb. averase. 5 e 675 * ® 2" * 1200 "8B e This shows that, aes far as actual strength is concerned, the wire does not seem to help to any great extent, altho it does seem to strengthen the slab a little, cay approximately 15%= 208. The most noticeable feature of this test is the fact that the slabs reinforced with the wire mesh pever break ine sténtly. They always bresk vary gradually, and do not fall to pieces, upon breaking, but simply crack into piccee which are held together by the wire mesh. Fure- thermore, tho wires mesh s eoms to bind the concrete more firmly to thse frame, which is also very important. Water Ratio. The 2° slump did not seem to make a large enough difference ta prove much of anything. The test slab’ averaged about 35 lbs. less than those having practioally no elump, which is about what we might ex peot, and therefore we say conclude that the 2° slump will destroy about 7% of the strength of the slab. The slab} with the 5* slump broke under «4 550 lb. load, whioh was 150 lbs. below the slabs with practically no slump, ané we might conolude that a 5* slump will destroy about 22% of the strength of the slab. Wire and Neils. The slabs both broke under 850 lb. loads, end, aa they were each 14" thick, it scenes that they held up more than the slabs with the wire only, by 175 lbs. However, these tests are only comparative, and #0 we will conclude only, that the nails will ine crease the efficiency of the slabs, a small unknown amount. ° Moving of Slibs. These slabs both held up more than the aver= age assumed for their olass of slab, and so we may eauy conclusively thet elabe may be earried about care] fully, after they have set two days, without harming the slab in the least. Special. Slabs with tarpaper and wire held up 1075 lbs. and 900 lbs. which showa that they seem to be much 6zhonger than the plain slabs. Furthermore, as the etronger slab hadd no nails while the weaker slab did have nails, we may conolude that when the soncrete over-laps the studding, the naile are not of mci value. Conclusions From Testa. 1. Usa 1: 4} mix. Be Use just enough water to make the wix work9 6. able, or eo it will shhw a very slight slump. Use 2° mesn wire stretched over tar paper. Do not use nails until it is shown that it is impossibie to do without them. Slabs may be moved two days after being poured without weakening their strength at all. If the gravel were soreened so as to teke out the larger stonedg much time vould be saved in the pouring. The second part of the tests consisted in the construction of several of the proposed sections. Theea were built aocerding to the plan on blueprint No. 11, being made 8'=3)* high and 4! wideg. Five sections were mada sae followe: i. The firet section was a solid section mads of (3 x 4), barbed wire, building paper, and conorete. 2. The second wae a window saction made in the eane manner as number one, 3. The third was a solid section the same as number one, except, 3* wire mesh was used in piace of the barbed wire. 4. The fourth seetion was a door section made like number one. 5. The fifth seotion was a solid section made similar to number three. ‘The barbed wire was placed at six to eight inch intervale and in a horisontal position. The ob= jeot of using the barbed wire was to determine the practioability of using it in place of the two inch mesh which was comparatively expensite. fSuble was encountered in the pouring of. section number one. The firet difficulty was caused by the paper giving way before the conorete had set. This was caused by using a mixture which kad a trifle more water than was needed, and also from the fact that the naile which held the barbed wire, and which a1s80 held the paper, were from six to eight inohes apart. The paper failed by pulling out where the nails fastened it to the frame. This trouble was re- medied by placing (2 x 4) under the paper in such a manner that they held the greater share of the weight of the conorete between the studding. Yeing theese precautions, the eecond section was cast without any similar difficulty. However, some of the barbed wire was not very straight, and af- ter the conorete was in piace, the wire wseemed to come to the surface while the conorete was setting. Owing to the fact thatz the barbs on the wire were, in some Gases, nearly and inoh in diameter, the wire showed quite plainly in the conorete and made an unsightly siab. It seems that thie characteristic of the barbed wire is probable serious enough to prohibit its use/ Next the third section was poured. Here again diffioulty was encountered, due to the stretoh=- ing of the paper. In the test slab, with a 323" clear span, the paper did not seem to stretoh in nearly so noticeable a manner as it did in this seotion, where it stretohed for nearly a half hour, and perhaps lon- ger. The paper did not pull out around any of the nails, but simply stretched, making cracks appear over the studding, due to the settling of partly set con = orete between the studding. The (2 x 4)s were not Placed between the studding in this seetion because in the test slab, the combination of 3c* mesh and paper held the oconorete in a satisfactory manner, over a larger span. The fourth section was poured satisfactorily using the precautions mentioned above. The fifth section was poured, with the above precautions, satisfactorily. The sections were sprinkled thoroughly every day or two, and allowed to set for eight days. They were then seé up and spiked together, using spikes thru the end studding of each section and aleo spiking down one plate across the tops of the seotions. The sections went together in a very satisfactorily manner and showed absolutely no i11 effects due to the pound- ing of the large nails. ‘This was one of the most im- portant teeta, showing that the sections may be fast- ened togethor with spikes, and still have the concrete firmly and solidly attached to the studding. The weight of the sections are such that two men can han- dle them satisfactorily, altho the full sections could be handled easier with three men. The weight of a seo~ tion 18 approgimately, 300 lbs. for door section, 300 lbs. for window section, and nearly 400 lbs. for the solid section. The sections when finished with stucco appear to be one solid wall, and have a very good appearance. The seotions were strong enough to resist the pressure of a ladddr leaning against the wall and supporting one man, and as the conorete was only eight days old, it will certainly inorease in etrength several hundred percent, making the walls much stronger. Any failure caused by a ladder leaning against the walls, or some other exterior pressure, would be very slow and gradual, due to the wire reine foroing in the conorete. The sections have held up admirably and fule ly as well as was hoped for. "S enara now investigate the cost of construction and the advisability of the Cost of Materials. The following caloulations are based on this price list, obtained in Lansing, Michigan, Mar. 26, 1921. From the Oove Lumber Co., Bell 30. Citz 2439. 8x4 (fir) 38.00 3x8 8 38.00 2x4 ° 65.00 Roof boards 35.00 1 x 6 siding drop 50.00 bevel clear 55.00 3h® matched pine flooring #1.- 60.00, $3= 45.00 maple flooring #1- 135.00 2x 10 45.00 2x13 47.00 Building paper 3.90 Threeeply roof paper 3,00 Cedar shingles clear 7.00 Lathe 332° 35¢, 465" 60¢ Beaver board 50.00 Window frames and sashes 3.50 frames 3.00 with 7/8* case Approx. 2° x 5° sash approx. 1.50 per window Door frames and doors 2s" x 6h 4.00 no sill, 3.50 - 7/8" casings s* mesh fencing 4* wide costs l¢¢ per eq.ft. at hardware store in Bast Lansing, but in-ase-muoh as I am sure that it can be purohased, by the roll for l¢ per sq.ft., or less, I shall consider it as costing 1¢ per eq.ft. in these oalsulattéens. Ebdd 1 Cement is sold for 80¢ per sack, or 3.15 per arrel. Gravel cost 3.75 per load. There is approx- imately 14 ou.yds. to the load. Cost of Sections. Garage. Cost of a 4" seotion with studding spaced 8° center to edge. (2 x 4)s 332 x (8/12) x 3.8¢ § .81 paper oi0 wire 038 nails .06 Gonorete ( 3 2/3 ou.ft.) 292. Cost of one four-foot section $1.91 Cost of a &* section with studding spaced a* center to edge. (2x4)s 44 x (8/13) x 3.8 $ 1,12 paper °i5 wire 48 nails 08 Conorete @ $6.20 per ou. yd. ___289__ Cost of one sit-foot section $ 3.738 House. The house sections will be the same as the 4* garage sections exoept, there will be an additional etudding, due to the fact that th » studding in the house sections are placed 16" center to center. This will make the house sections cost $ 8.14. Eotimated Cost of Model House When (Constructed in Sections Without Porches. In-as-much as the house is the same with the exception of the outer walls, the differancoa in the cost of these walls when built in seotions, and when built by the present method, will equal the dife ferencein the cost of the house when built in sections and when built by the present methods. Walis. 18 = 4* seetions required. @ $3.14 $ 38.53 Plates. (180/1000) x (8/12) x $38.00 4.56 Beaver Board (same as by present method) 65.00 Windows. (same) 36.00 Doors. (same) 37.50 Latches and looks etc. 30.00 Total $201.58 This amounts to approximately $300.00 or, in other words, the house material can be purchased for $50.00 less money if the house is built in sections. Thie means a saving of at least 10% of the cost of the material for the building of the house by the p resent methods, without sheathing. The sheathing would cost (580/1000) x $35.00 or $20.30 The conorete sections are wetter than sheathing plus siding (see sumary), and so it might be considered that the houseg, if built by the pre- sent methods, would cost about $70.00 more than it would if it were built in sections. In other words, the house built by the present methods costs about 15% = 20% more than it would if it were built in seo- tions. Eotimated Oost of Model House by Present Methods. Withou% Porches. Wadler Studding. 85 x 8 x (2 x 4f13) 10 454 bd.ft. Use 460. (460/1000) x $38.00 19 $18.24 $18.24 Plates. 163 x (2 x 4/13) is 108 bd. ft. (108/1000)x $38.00 is $4.11 4.12 Siding, 6"; 43" to weather. (850/1000)x $50.00 isa $43.50 43.50 Other Exterior Lumber. (80/1000) x $65.00 ie $5.20 5.20 Building Paper. 6 rolls at $3.00 is $13.00 13.00 Beaver Board. (1300/1000)x $50.00 is $65.00 65.00 Windows, sash and frame, 6 @ $6.00 is $36.00 36.00 Doore with door framee. 5 @ $7.50 is $3250 37.50 Latohes and looks for doors and windows including withdow weights eto. $20.00, a asa ee- Allowing for nails makes walle amount to approximately $ 250.00 without sheathing, which means that with sheathing, the material would oost approximately $3270.00 . Floor. Joists. 26 x 10 x (3 x 8/12) ie 347 ba. ft. Use 350. (350/1000)x $45.00 is $1575 $15.75 Sub-flooring. 320/1000 x §35.00 is 11.20 Pine fleoring. haa $acco tor wastes “$100 Finishing lumber. (175/1000) x $70.00 is $1253 gii-53- Allowing for nails makes total of $65.00 Roof. Rafters. 18 x 12 x(2 x 4/13) is 144 bd.ft. Use 150. (150/1000) x $38.00 ie $5.70 $ 5.70 Roof boards. 24 x 17 is 408 bd. ft. Used 425. (4265/1000) x $35.00 is $14.88 14.88 Roofing paper, S=ply. 8S rolle @ $3.00 is $125.00 95-28 Allowing for naile makes total of $37.00 Ceiling. Joists. 18 x 10 x (2 x 4/13) is 120 bd. ft. (120/1000) x $38.00 is $4.56 $4.56 Beaver board (400/1000)x $50.00 is $20.00 x33-92- Allowing for naile makes approx. $36.00 Paints. Total inside and out approx. $40.00 $40.00 The total cost of the house comes to $413.81 without sheathing, or §433.00 with sheathing. Cost of Fromt Poroh as Designed. Studd (30/1009) }x_ $38.00 $1.16 Siding 38072000} g50- ~00 12.50 Soiste 140/1000 45.00 6.30 Flooring (180/1000) x 445, 00 8.10 Roof rafters (38/1003 $38.00 1.28 Roof boards (200/1000 35.00 7.00 Post and beam 3.00 Roofing paper, 2 rolls @ $3.90 6.00 Paint | anes Allowing for nails makes total of $53.00 Cost of rear porch $ 2.00 CostZ# of steps for front anf rear a-$93 o's a eleisia ee g* thick $13.06 Total cost# of house without foundation $473.61 , sheathing yot included. Total cost with foundation $486.65. Allow $500.00 for material, Allow $520.00 if shaathing is te bo used. Estimated Cost of Model Garage Built in Seotions. In-as-much as only the walled are to be built in seations, the cost of the other parte of the garage will be the same as tho built by the present methods. Therefore, the difference in cost between the wall built in sections and the wall built by the present methods, will also be the difference between the cost of building the garage ba sections, and the cost of building the garage by the present methods. Henoe, we need oniyy coneider the oost of the wall, when built in seotions. Wall. 3 - 6 sections $ 8.16 9 - 4! ® 17.19 Plate on top 72 x (8/13) x #38.00/1000 1.83 Haile eta. eh Total cost of wall $29.00 Thie is $26.00 less than the wkbls would cost if built by the present methods. In other words, the garage can be built for $26.00 less, if it be built in sections. The total estimate would be $124.00 but it would be advisable to allow $12000 for the total estimated cost of materials for the garage built in sections. This estimates the cost of conorete inoluded. Estimated Cost of Model Garage by Present Method. Reof. Roof boards. 3 x 10 x 19 or 380 bd.ft. Use 400. (400/1000) x $35.00 is $14.00 $14.00 Joists 30 x (3 x 4/12) x 10 is 133 bd. ft. (140/1000) x $38.00 is $5.32 5.32 Roofing paper(3eply) 4 rolls at $3.00 Total es Wallis. St 44 x8 (2 x 4/13) is 335 bd.ft. Plates 9 x 18 (2 x 4/12) is 108 bd. ft. Use 130/ (3585/1000) x $38.90 1s $ 13.49 $13.49 Siding for exterior walls(6" siding, 4}* out) 8350/1000 x $50.00 is $42.50 ° Total ® Windews. 2 sash @ $1,50 is #5,00 enrframes 8 $3.00 is $6.00 Total $ 9.00 Deors. Lumber. (3000/1000) x $50.00 is $18.00 Hinges and ila&sch 3.00 Total $17.00 Masonry, 18 x a (4(28) (27 is 4 1/3 ou.yds. concrete reqd.. 41/3 e © $6.25 is $26.85 Total $26.65 The total eetimated coet of matcrdal is $139.96 and allowing for incidentals brings total to approximately $ 150.00 . Summary . After giving the subject careful thes, tit has seen concluded that the labor required to put the sections in place(and make them), is about equivalent to the labor required to put the etudding in plage in the ordinary manner and to nail the siding thereto. If sheathing were also useé, the segtion method would eave the time required to place the sheathing. This means that in a building where only siding is to be used, ag saving of material only, would be the result. If, however, sheathing wesge to be used also, a saving of both labor and materials, would be the result of building with the oconorete seations . The cost of etucooing just about offsets the cost of painting, and will be considered in thats Monner. It is necessary to consider the labor cost in the above manner becauseg the oost of labor for the bBDuilding of the sectione is very indeterminant. [ff a mixer were used, the labor item would probably be muoh Lower than that estimated in the above paragraph, while On the other hand, if no machine were used, the labor might be a trifle higher than the above estimake. How- ever, taking all things into consideration, the abdove estimate can be considered as being quite fair and ree diabdle. In the garage, ae in the houseg, the compar- ison between the two methods was based on the assump= tion that the house and garage built by the present methods, would not have sheathing. It has been shown that the house oan be built in concrete seotions much oheaper thang the very cheapest of houses can be built. The concrete seetional house is, however, ism reality, much more practiaoal than the common frame house, built with voth sheathing and siding. To prove this we need only to investigate the heat condusctivify, and impere viousnesa oharacterinatios of the conorete. In 'Hool and Johneon’sa® "Concrete Engineers | Handbook®, we find beginning on page 254 an article on "Durability of Gement Mortar and Goncrete*, from which the following statesents wers takin. ‘Oonarete ranks highly as a fire resistant and fire proofing material, principally because it possesses a low rate of heat conductivity and hae a low doefficient of expension, practically equal to that of steel, in addition to bee ing inocembustible. Other masonry materials like some of the natural stonee and terra-cotta are no less ine ocubustible than soncrete, but are inferior to the late ter as a fireproofing material, because they pessees either greater conductivity or a higher coefficient of expansion. All conoretes, stone gravel, and cinder, have a very low thermal conductivity. When a surface of a mans of conorete is exposed to a high heat for hours, the oonorete one inch below the surface will be several hundred degrees below the outeide temperature. * The 1 : 4¢ mix used for these concrete seo- tions, is practically impermeable. In a vertical wail such as these sections would be used in, there w ould be no danger of dempness, with so ricoh & mix. Furth ermore, the air space between the studding, would not onhy aid in preventing heat oondustivity, but would ale 60 prevent any moisture collecting, which would tend to make the houses damp. Then.with the presence of the building paper siso, it ean bs eafe ly gauranteed that ths sectional house of conorete, is not only cheaper, rut that it is aleo more practical. The advantage of the section method over the present method would be most notiogsadle in the smaller buildings, and therefore it would be wise to limit it to eingle story, four or five room houses, and garages for one or twog cara. Of course larzor one-story Buildings sould be built, but the saving gained by this method, over the present mathod, would not be so notice= able, by any means. wtohrio haa Leversgremwte , evsixue &, sedge .vtivivouhe