Browse Forums Eco Living 1 Oct 08, 2008 9:47 am Another question! Is it more efficient to build your home out of coloured concrete blocks than your standard brick? Re: Is masonry better than clay bricks? 2Oct 08, 2008 11:43 am When you say effecient, do yoou mean thermaly effecient, construction time effecient or somethign else.
If talking about thermal effeciency, a double brick wall is better than a single concret block for two reasons. Firstly, there is an air cavity which increases the insualton value. Secondly, there is a high thermal mass on the inside, which is a good thing. Demolition August 2009, Construction Started September 2009, Completed December 2010 Re: Is masonry better than clay bricks? 3Oct 08, 2008 12:25 pm The house would just be a brick veneer, so it could be either concrete masonry or clay brick. I like both looks - so deciding which would be all round better long term environmentally. Re: Is masonry better than clay bricks? 5Oct 08, 2008 3:24 pm Quote: The house would just be a brick veneer, so it could be either concrete masonry or clay brick. I like both looks - so deciding which would be all round better long term environmentally. Elzbeth, if you want an enviro house, you should consider reverse brick veneer (or RBV in short). In the standard brick veneer construction it matters little for the house comfort if the masonry is brick or concrete blocks, because the insulation is on its inside, so it can't act as the thermal mass. Using cored clay bricks or hollow concrete blocks makes little difference, brick could have just a tad better thermal performance. Concrete blocks have on the other hand less embedded energy (less emissions were created making them) than bricks. I don't know about Victoria, but here in the West they're also cheaper (though but not much) than bricks. I'm just about to start construction of an eco house and I'll be doing all North and West walls in RBV, using solid concrete blocks that have a high thermal mass. I'm an O-B and I can do what I please (as long as I can afford it), but I understand that you're using a builder, and finding one, who's willing to do RBV can be a problem. Chris My father rode a camel, I drive a car, my son flies in a jetliner, his son will ride a camel.Saudi saying Re: Is masonry better than clay bricks? 6Oct 08, 2008 7:41 pm Sorry Chris - so what is RBV exactly ![]() Thanks! Re: Is masonry better than clay bricks? 7Oct 08, 2008 8:52 pm Reverse Brick Veneer's just the reverse of standard brick veneer- the frame wall with a good qaulity insulation on the outside, the non-load-bearing masonry leaf on the inside, providing the thermal mass. So there's double benefit - insulation in just the frame of up to 3 R (using combination of bulk high density batts 2.5R and say, GlareShield or Insulbreak sarking of up to 1.5R) - and the high thermal mass inside, soaking sun's warmth in winter during the day (from those North looking large windows) and coolth from night cross ventilation in summer.
That's how they've designed my house and how I hope to built it. Chris My father rode a camel, I drive a car, my son flies in a jetliner, his son will ride a camel.Saudi saying Re: Is masonry better than clay bricks? 8Nov 01, 2008 5:08 pm ![]() When you say effecient, do yoou mean thermaly effecient, construction time effecient or somethign else. If talking about thermal effeciency, a double brick wall is better than a single concret block for two reasons. Firstly, there is an air cavity which increases the insualton value. Secondly, there is a high thermal mass on the inside, which is a good thing. You don't need double brick to get the thermal mass benefits. Reverse BV is more cost-effective as long as you use a cheap exterior cladding. Timber, colourbond or fibrocement are options. You can do Hebel power panel with render if you want the modern look. The cavity is not that insulative in itself. Adding bulk insulation is the most cost-effective. Another issue is Embodied energy - fired clay brick and solid concrete are very energy intensive products. In a BV home they are not even structural materials - just a facade. However, they do have an extremely long life-cycle unlike timber. I've dug some footings to embed a post anchor into. My holes are around 450mm deep which I'll put a 200mm stirrup into. The bottom of these holes seem firm enough. … 0 3875 Bigger the better for storage for me IMO. But I guess it's harder to tell the cost/benefit in your example - mainly the 'cost'? If you go 700mm, what are you doing extra… 2 3229 ![]() 4 2299 |