Guest, Of course hands on builders are capable of building great buildings without the help of academics, they are also capable of great failures as well. I wonder how many of the precursors to great buildings collapsed before the hands-on types eventually got it right

.

Being a more of a hands on type designer, my next step would be to design a Hockerton ASMET style developement (size & cost), with like minded designer, consultants and engineers, atract a developer/landowner, get design approved by local council/building department (using your certified testing etc) and build them, occupy them and then monitor them! The learning curve will be huge but the end result will be reference point for all further projects.

Living in a caravan whilst we wait to build our house, I'm not sure how useable this material would be for a complete building - though I'm far from being knowledgeable about such matters.

What I've observed is that our caravan has thin walls, impervious to vapour and air and relatively easily moulded to suit the shape of the 'building' (37' x 12'). It has no thermal mass, and provides minimal insulation. The result is that cyclical heating and cooling during the day and night necessitate additional use of heaters right through into the warmer seasons, and continuously during the winter. During the summer we spend most of the day and night will all windows and doors open, and fans running. Condensation is a problem - and reducing humidity in the caravan is not a practical option as it makes the atmosphere quite unpleasantly dry. For all the beneficial qualities of the enormous continuous aluminium sheets used to make the walls, problems occur where doors, windows, service access, ventilation ducts and even cat flaps all break the skin - leaks, air gaps and so on.

This sounds like a very clever material looking for a 'killer application' to me, though flat and green roofing sound like an excellent use.

As a self employed builder doing the academia thing towards becoming an architectural technologist i can agree with steve that we are all too comfortable with what is current accepted practice. I read about independents building homes with little experience or knowledge and generally just getting on and having a go, and to hell if it goes awry cos we can find solutions, it is what we have done for thousands of years.
The mono-skilling of individuals has prevented a diverse vernacular as the masses have been trained into buying bloody persimmon homes!
My thoughts:
1. Lime testing should be carried out by specialists with experience, confidentiality agreed of course.
2. Sections and models - possibly 1:5/ 1:20 should be exhibited for mass exposure.
3. A short specifiers awareness/training course should be produced that contributes to CPD and raises the profile.
4. A case study, lived in building should be designed and constructed then monitored for performance.
5. Shelving, coat hooks, kitchen wall units, etc!! Aaah.. Stuck in the mentality of not changing, progressing, doing as we do now out of habit and a pathetic inability to change, which is what has got us into this enviromess. An independent structure and internal fixings is fine and if you want kitchen units you can specify them for your modular kitchen volume that is constructed in a factory under controlled conditions, reducing waste, time, tea and poor details.
6. Build with basements as a way of definitely keeping the lightweight structure down. It has been proven to be financially efficient and the soil could be dumped back on top of the green roof! Also a demi-basement can still have raised windows at ground level and passive ventilation.

ASMET has the potential to be the future of construction, the only thing that really stands in its way is a functioning occupied home that's monitored to prove or disprove the products viability. All the problems spoken about are merely challenges and opportunities that should be welcomed, there will always be problems but they can be ironed out. Where there is a will there will always be a way.

Posted By: steveleighASMET does not need foundations. All other methods of building need firm foundations including all the eco-homes, straw bale, rammed earth, clay blocks, timber frame, steel frame etc., all need foundations and most need steel reinforced concrete ground floor slabs. The actual quantity of cement and steel is conveniently forgotten in some of these builds because it is below ground level never to be seen again. The fact is that foundations can use more cement than a whole ASMET structure. A typical ASMET house of 120sq m floor area will use only about 4.5 tonne of cement because it does not require foundations. A firm foundation for a traditional house of this size will use at least that amount in foundations alone and a further 1.5 tonne in a floor slab. That is 6 tonne of cement per house before the build is started! Trench fill or piles and ground beams can use over 10 tonne of cement per house foundation depending on ground conditions, and ground conditions will get much worst as more and more difficult brownfield sites are built on. The amount of embodied energy in ground works for other house structures should be discounted from the already meagre amount of cement used in an ASMET structure.

True - "All other methods of building need firm foundations" but despite recent upping of foundation depth and strength rules-of-thumb, more awareness of soils, proximity of trees etc, settlement still happens. "All other" buildings of strong, hard modern type may then crack and require remedial work; or if of traditional softer type they may creak and settle down in a less troublesome way.
In either case, they respond to foundation settlement (which is always uneven) by distorting. It's in attempt to limit this distortion that "All other methods of building need firm foundations". The claim is that "ASMET does not need foundations" because an ASMET monocoque won't so distort, whatever uneven foundation settlement may occur. The picture is the ASMET box sitting on a surface bed of gravel, where it floats (may tilt all-of-a-piece but that's OK?) while the ground underneath rocks'n'rolls as per usual. To me, that's yet another proposition that ASMET has to prove, because there's no room for even partial failure. A monococque is inherently intolerant of distortion - it has to stay rigid, or fail catastrophically. Unless ASMET really can be trusted to float, intact, for a lifetime, regardless of unheavals beneath, then it needs guaranteed immovable foundations, even better than "All other methods of building".
What distortion forces would an ASMET monocoque have to resist, without hint of structural weakness? The shell I saw weighs 14 tonnes. John Manniex jacked it up on diagonal corners and we enjoyed running from side to side, making it rock, without damage. I suspect that's a trivial test, compared to real-life. Add linings, claddings, contents - I'd guess stresses due to dead-load would triple that 14 tonnes. Then wind load, snow load - even in a conventional heavy building these are big in the calcs; in a lightweight, live-loads would dwarf the dead-load stresses. Superimpose long-term creep, and diurnal and seasonal thermal stress and ground-heave cycles on possibly already stressed-to-the-limit elements (there's always a first-fail weak point somewhere), over a lifetime - a test of durability that can't be over-estimated. An ASMET shell actually has fail points all over it - every joint line is obviously far weaker than the fomidable integrity of the moulded panel.
So until convinced, I'd say an ASMET monocoque needs really good, that means deep, foundations. Great! Because at last here's a way to do semi-basements, as Guest and also Guest have enthusiastically pointed out. Greywater tanks, composting toilets, pingpong space - the life-enhancing benefits of such 'free' space are endless, and setting the lowest main floor up half a flight from the garden has interesting effects too. Unlike northern Europe and America, UK has no tradition of semi-basements (except in Georgian/Victorian terraces). The first and last one I designed, the Engineer demanded enough reinforced concrete to encase Chernobyl. Luckily that client had deep pockets and the result is stunning.

It's the bilbocious future, man http://www.lordoftherings.net/legend/gallery/
LOTR Artistic Consultant Alan Lee, illustrator of many Tolkien books, happens to be a close Dartmoor neighbour of mine and John Manniex..........

http://www.cv81pl.freeserve.co.uk/gardens/bilbo-baggins1.jpg

Posted By: steveleighincrease the size of the webs from say 200mm to 300mm or whatever

That's easily done, of course - could be reduced in many places; as John says there's a range of thicknesses to play with too. I'd guess that fail points would be joints - that looked like a very weak process to me. At least, alternate layers of mesh should be interleaved, not just butted with a surface cover strip. Even then, the joints will always be weaker than the moulded panels.

Posted By: steveleighforming a 75mm tee on the end of each web

That would be a great strengthener in certain situtaions, preventing collapse through warping of the free end of the rib, when that part of the rib is in compression (and compression/tension may reverse at different times). The ultimate would be to mould the panel plus ribs plus tee-end integrally.

Posted By: fostertomstrip of asmet will flex about 6mm over about 350mm negate a lot of stress in the structure

ASMET's flexural resilience is impressive - but I'd expect failure to happen by shearing at joints, not fracture in bending.

For factory-prefabricated, optimised ASMET shells, testing to destruction would reveal which bits should be strengthened considerably, and which could be lightened a lot. This would have to include accelerated long-term/fatigue and stress reversal/cycling. There are experts in this.

I'd have confidence in Roofkrete - I think it really has proved itself, including its jointing methods. I still want to know if it's technically conceiveable that it apparently has zero thermal expansion - that puzzles me. ASMET hasn't had the same in-use proving and is much more ambitious in what it sets out to do structurally.

Posted By: steveleighEach joint has 16 layers of mesh overlapped

That's not what John showed me.

The 4x2-built house simply doesn't experience the structural forces that a monocoque does - it yields because it's unstiff at its many joints, whereas a monocoque unforgivingly confronts whatever forces arise, has to resist them completely forever, or fails catastrophically.

No need to argue about this - consider it valuable feedback; if I/we don't say these things, friendly-like, then someone else certainly will. All you and John have to do is whatever it takes to conclusively answer all such points. It's too good not to!

Guest
Asmet has got 14mm x 200mm webs integrated in the 14mm skin at 400mm centres - did you get the info sheets from steveleigh?
I saw a television advertisment about two years ago which did show Roofkrete being trowelled into a mesh matrix.

Tom
Thanks on behalf of all for taking the time to investigate asmet.

.

Steve

If, as you surmise, an ASMET structure might assist in defending against radio waves, will I have to throw out all my transistor radios, wireless setups, mobile phones, cordless phones, etc?

Posted By: steveleigh.. no matter how many intellectual games of tennis are played on this forum.

Hold on, I don't think you should read the comments being made as 'intellectual games of tennis', nor as damning criticism of ASMET. There are people on this forum with a fantastically wide knowledge of the building industry, as well as those will great real world experience of using new and old technologies to make usable living spaces. A successful home is more than the material used to construct it, however wondrous it might be. When you introduce a radically new idea, you have to consider the many questions people will ask, and the practicalities of using it in a way that will make them want to join you. Discussions like these should be useful to you because they're asking questions that many builders would potentially ask.