Select Page

2xMore Challenge

Surface wood

  • Creator
    Submission
  • #3474

    AADHITHYA
    Participant
    @saadithya

    My concept proposes to use the wood dust, wood chips converted to wood dust by combining with suitable binding agent to coat materials made with cement and non-wood materials to give a feel, texture and appearance of wood.The wood dust with binding agent will fill the texture of cemented surface and will look and feel like wood. It will infact reduce the number of trees used in construction and simultaneously utilize wasted wood.

    In the attached images you can see architectural decorations made with ferro cement and coated with wood dust,varnish and binding agents. Even concrete pillars can be coated with wood powder to give a rich wooden finish.It also reduces cost of construction significantly.

    After coating it with wood varnish can be applied to make it look hyper real.

    Attachments:
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #3478

    Mathieu VERDET
    Member
    @mathieu

    I not totally agee with you about “look and feel wood” because it is not solid wood. Consequently you lose the draws of wood with these diversities following its orientation/geometry. For me it’s the principal visual asset of wood!! So it is not here, it’s not wood.

    But on the other aspect, I find that it is a interesant technology which can product complex structure very more efficiently than with solid wood.

     

    #3488

    AADHITHYA
    Participant
    @saadithya

    I think wood chips or wood dust is very good material for filling into small crevices of the concrete structures or other materials and after varnish it looks like wood and feels like wood unless u dig into it.

    I also agree with you over the fact that interesting and complex shapes can also be built and mass produced with this kind of technology with least effort. Can you think of any other materials which can be coated with it apart from concrete structures.

    #3538

    Karen Storry
    Member
    @karen

    In general, I am not a fan biological (wood dust) and technical nutrients (concrete) being mixed together if they cannot be easily separated after. While that practice may save money for the contractor and create interesting technical applications, the long term value of the concrete and wood materials is lost because they are now married together for life and it is no longer economically viable to recycle either material. Concrete is typically recyclable as concrete or road base if it doesn’t have deleterious materials such as wood in it.

    #3545

    AADHITHYA
    Participant
    @saadithya

    Please note that hear we are not mixing concrete and wood. Once concrete structures is made we are just coating with a small tiny layer of wood dust. The concrete structure can be separated from wood layer by removing the wooden layer by sanding or other processes.

    #3549

    Karen Storry
    Member
    @karen

    I think this discussion is great, because now we are talking about end-of-use. I wasn’t thinking that they were going to be fully mixed. To explain better, I am more concerned about the fact that the material will have to be bonded to the concrete in order to achieve a certain level of performance of the wood-looking product over the life time of the building. Subsequently, as you mention above, it will have to be sanded off or use another [mysterious] process to remove such a bonded coating from the concrete. At this point is comes down to cost not technical know how. From my days as an estimator in construction, I recall it is about $50 per hour for a labourer to painstakingly remove the wood from the concrete at the end-of-use of the material. Using sanding as an example, the cost of removing the wood would be higher than the value of the concrete at end-of-use (to quantify the maximum value you could assign to the concrete at end-of-use is the difference in disposal and recycling so $80/tonne for disposal vs. $0-30/tonne to drop it at a recycler (so $50/tonne to  $80/tonne this sounds really high). I don’t see it being feasible that you could remove such a coating for that price point. For a column that is 12 inches by 8 feet (~0.5 tonnes) the labourer would have to work at a rate of greater than one columns sanded per hour for the contractor not to lose money on the process. And that is just a strict labour cost, it doesn’t factor in the, clean up cost and the worker health and safety associated with fine wood particles (hopefully bonded with non-toxic glue) and the and cost of time (lost revenue to the developer) if there is a delay to the demo of the building.

    #3550

    AADHITHYA
    Participant
    @saadithya

    Thanks for your insightful feedback based on ur experience. I agree that it will be difficult to remove the wood coating by sanding. That is were “Mysterious” process comes in, I am an inventor and innovator and my job is coming up with out of box solutions to problems. I think there can be better way to remove the wood dust from concrete if that is required.

    Just keep a flame torch on the wood coated concrete for a few seconds and it is all gone magically!

    No sanding,labor cost and even dust but actually if we make beautiful concrete structures coated with wood dust there won’t be any need to destroy it or recycle it anytime soon.

    #3554

    Mathieu VERDET
    Member
    @mathieu

    For a long life, you must suppose that there are no degradations. Have you an idea on the behavior and resistance again splits and delamination? It’s often the main problem.

    #3555

    Jaime Millan
    Member
    @mrjmr

    Following up Mathieu’s idea of the degradation of the finish over time, if these fibers detach from the surface, say, with wear and friction from people and objects making contact on surface, over time , the bond of the fibers wouldn’t be as strong, and fibers would eventually detach from the main surface of the concrete. This fibers can now become airborne and be inhaled by the building’s occupants. Just some thoughts

    #3557

    Mathieu VERDET
    Member
    @mathieu

    In addition, it seems to be difficult to repair because if you add new mixture you will have a problem of color like with venner. We must be sure that it is very stable if we can’t recycle easily.

    #3563

    AADHITHYA
    Participant
    @saadithya

    The bond between the wood dust coating and concrete is strong enough to hold it in place even and it can hold itself against normal wear and tear. There is no chance of it flying it around the house as u think @Jaime Millan

    @mathieu verdet it is easy to repair as well, users just have to re coat it with the wood dust coating in the long run to restore its charm, the bond itself will be stable between the wood dust coating and concrete.

    Also splits and delamination won’t take place in it because the base is concrete not wood. The top layer is a very fine layer of wood dust coating and here also not splits or delamination can occur.

    Also as shown in the images it is already implemented in several houses in my area and it is becoming a trend in construction with high demand due to lower construction cost and its long life compared to only wood. There is no problem as of now.It works well in moisture as well,compared to a structure made with complete wood.

    #3571

    Mathieu VERDET
    Member
    @mathieu

    Ok , thanks for these informations. Very good technical improvements

    When I said “splits”, I thought in concrete like we can easily find in walls or grounds but if you haven’t this problem, it’s a very good point.

     

     

    #3590

    Karen Storry
    Member
    @karen

    Again. Great that we are talking about design at end-of-use and durability. At this stage, the end-of-life solution still sounds problematic. I would be interested to get a perspective from WCB on your torch idea. Not sure this burning idea is very practical. Doubtful you could do it on-site in an urban area. Now you are paying for the cost to truck it somewhere, burn it safely, and then send it to a recycler. Yikes.

    In terms of durability and lifespan, the other question I have is the LCA of concrete vs. Wood. The idea is to save trees, but concrete has a much higher footprint than a tree so how long would the concrete have to last to make it lower carbon than a tree? Is that the right call from a systems-thinking perspective?

    Suggested Reading: Products that Last
    http://productsthatlast.nl/site/app/index2.html?#/home

     

    #3591

    AADHITHYA
    Participant
    @saadithya

    According to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD http://www.WBCSD.org),Concrete is the most widely used material on earth apart from water, with nearly three tons used annually for each man, woman, and child.’ ”
    “Carbon dioxide emissions from a cement plant are divided into two source categories: combustion and calcination. Cobustion accounts for approximately 40% and calcination 60% of the total CO2 emissions from a cement manufacturing facility. ”

    “The manufacture of cement produces about 0.9 pounds of CO2 for every pound of cement.Since cement is only a fraction of the constituents in concrete, manufacturing a cubic yard of concrete (about 3900 lbs) is responsible for emitting about 400 lbs of CO2.
    Now I will explain why using concrete is better, if we use concrete, then as carbon footprint a certain amount of carbondioxide is produced during manufacture but if we destroy a tree and make materials from wood it leads to bigger losses because if that tree was alive then throughout its life cycle it can convert carbondioxide back to oxygen.
    Over a 50-year a tree generates almost $32,000 worth of oxygen. Regarding fire torch, if something like welding can be carried out then this too can be done in Urban area with necessary precautions.

    #3592

    Mathieu VERDET
    Member
    @mathieu

    For me, your response about wood is right and false.

    If you speak about deforestation like the equatorial forest, I agree with you because the surface of the forest reduces.

    But for other forest I disagree because we can’t reason just on one tree. We must consider the totality of the population and the regeneration of forest.

    To Explain :
    * –    In ratio, a young tree consumes more CO2 than an old tree.
    * –    Under a old tree, noting can grow because there are few light
    * –    So, when a big tree is dead, there is a big gap with noting.
    * –    If the dead wood rest in forest lots of emissions are produced, CO2, methane…

    That’s why to perform and to be a good trap of CO2, a forest can be cut and manage with durability. Wood construction is the best due to the quantity which can be stocked.

    In France for example, today it is a big problem. We use wood but not enough. So there is a growth of available wood. Consequently, our forest grows old and withers (Notably for hardwood).

    #3595

    AADHITHYA
    Participant
    @saadithya

    I think based on our discussion there needs to be a perfect balance between natural and man made goods here in this case natural wood and concrete, excess use of any one of this would create problems. Primarily this concept is aimed for regions where it is difficult to get wood for construction or where wood is very expensive. In these cases it will be a good alternative.

Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)

The forum ‘The 2xMore Challenge’ is closed to new topics and replies.