brilliant

Great read Tony and very fast progress!

Couple of questions:

1. Why not an insulated slab instead?
2. Why timber frame as I know you've recommended block as the preferred construction method of your choice previously?

Thanks

That is amazing! Makes all the difference being knowledgable and knowing the right people. Well documented.

Brilliant tony - esp great pics - it's so difficult to photo this stuff to be legible. On site, understanding it all depends upon scanning the vision around to see much simultaneously incl looking behind things - can't do that in a single-frame pic. A pic almost has to be scene-set to make sense. Yours are very good.

The extg rear elevation is a fine example of brickwork where the perps aren't vertically aligned - quite queezy-looking! Makes you realise the precision and pride of workmanship of the average brickie, when actually such alignment isn't technically necessary.

Can I ask - founds - why 225w below dpc, 150 above? Obviously in this case the wider below dpc will support the brickwork. My question is more general - are you (or anyone) aware of a rule that says found walls (masonry or conc) must be 225w? Unlike for upper walls, BRegs deemed-to-satisfy masonry thickness rules don't seem to specify this, whatever way you try to read it. For instance, in this case if your weather cladding was fixed directly to the stud structure, you wouldn't need any more that a 100w found wall, just to support the stud frame. A considerable economy, in overall footprint, potentially narrower trench, disposal of spoil, manhandling as well as direct cost of heavy materials. What rule of thumb or practical wisdom makes 225w found walls the unquestioned norm?

So the finish is to be facing brick?

Yeah I can see why you wanted it that way, but my question is - where does it say that says found walls (masonry or conc) must be 225w? Engineers, BldgInsps enforce that they must be - but why?

Why did you, or the builder, find shuttered conc was cheaper/easier than blockwork?

Good idea - greener to use less cement too. Don't think it'd be allowed here. Anyone?

A bit sorry that tony used trenchfill not strip founds with built-up found walls. Yes I know trenchfill saves lots of work, but much more cement - unless using PiH's formula.

Still mystified why laborious expensive shuttered conc was then used on top of it, rather than blockwork. And if doing it that way, why the emphasis on perfectly smooth perfectly levelled trenchfill. Am I missing something?

I knew about compacted-rubble-filled pits, for frame point loads, but never thought of similar strip foundations, still less with "loose stones". Anti-bursting constraint (the rubble fill being extruded outward into softer surrounding ground) much more difficult. Needs looking into - interesting.

Posted By: fostertomAnti-bursting constraint (the rubble fill being extruded outward into softer surrounding ground) much more difficult. Needs looking into - interesting.

Car tyres.

Passive slabs are a completlely different beast. And they still have a large upfont carbon cost due to all the concrete and unnatural insulation. Rubble trenches are just a hole in the ground filled with compacted aggregate.

The modern version would be made with foamed (recycled) glass aggregate to provide combined insulation and load bearing. I have used this under my ground bearing slab in my extension, but no reason not to build a passive slab or knee walls off the same material.

In the case of the strawbale house they built a drystone wall upto dpc height, so there was no conrete used anywhere in the foundations. Unfortunately I only got there after the roof was on so I didn't see the build process.

We were adding ground mount solar to power his secret underground bunker...(!)