slip form masonry

[Greg Carter <greg@zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>]

Hello Tomas,

One reason is the dilemma in building with stone in a modern world.  The
reason I tried out the slip form method is the easy way in which
reinforcing steel and concrete can be integrated with the wall in a
"monolithic" nature.
In the approach you suggest (also the one used in the book The
Stonebuilder's Primer) you end up with two dissimilar walls.  One of
stone and mortar, one of concrete.  Maybe this isn't a problem and the
walls aren't dissimilar at all and the concrete/mortar/stone all cure as
one.  But everything I read about building mortared stone walls says to
use a lime based mortar for it's ability to breath, flex, and bond.
Where as concrete isn't known to breath or flex.  I would like to use
the approach, but I don't want to end up with a cracked efflorescence
mess in 15 years.  It would be great to see some pictures of buildings
built with this approach and how they've weathered, and to talk to those
that have built this way.  Maybe I am worrying about nothing.

Getting back to my "modern world" comment.  Having recently gone through
the building permit process for a "load bearing stone wall" building,
unless you can get an engineer's stamp that an unreinforced stone wall
is adequate, it will be hard to get a permit, at least in any area with
some seismic activity (I'm in zone 4 on a scale from 0-6).  Our building
code only allows unreinforced masonry load bearing walls for zones 0-2.
Even with specifying reinforcement, a stone wall can be a tough sell
without an engineers stamp as it isn't a common occurrence.

I also don't want to have the walls fall down and like the idea of
reinforcement :) so any method that allows me to easily use
reinforcement is a plus.

Greg.

Tomas Lipps wrote: