Return to home page

Structural Design Parameters for Concrete Building System, LLC

Design for withstanding 50% higher forces than is normal for the present

Assume climate change continues to worsen long into the future

Provide economical home design and construction

Eliminate need for insurance advancing into "fortress" durability

Cast in place reinforced concrete in corners, doors, and window frames

Bond spandrel beam atop all structural walls grouted into post tensioned concrete roof

Standard 6” ceiling (roof) post tensioned slabs, center to center max span 22.5 feet, two inch thick paver stay in place slab support for four hour fire rating

Flat roof for walkout patio for rooftop master bedroom (half the area) on top floor with bathroom and closet

Can omit roof slab support pavers for 8” thick slab for span of 8 x 45 = 30 feet

Destructive testing reveals 12” wall panel failure at 22,000 pounds per lineal foot

Pull out strength of embedded couplers 700 pounds

Strengths depend on mix design, amount of fiber reinforcement

Helix steel fibers can be used but they show against the face of the panel, if covered with opaque paint or stain not a problem

PVA fiber standard usage

Phi ratio 1.618 recommended ratio of house length and width, so a 30' deep house should have a 50’ front.

Back at cozycrete, still waiting for the FEA.  I have a new idea for system stabilization.  The would be to install a tapcon screw in the center 2" horizontal beam.  Then with stout wire, loop around each screw for the length of the wall.  The single loop may give some shock absorption to the entire wall.  Maybe do that on every single row.

That is an intriguing concept. Introducing a continuous wire loop tensioned across each row via Tapcon anchors in the horizontal beams essentially creates a distributed, continuous seismic band or damping string right through the core of the assembly.

From an engineering perspective, here is how that mechanism would likely behave under stress:

• Energy Dissipation (Damping): A stout wire or cable under slight initial tension can act like a spring. When a dynamic load or seismic wave hits the wall, the slight elasticity in the wire loops can help absorb and distribute shock rather than transferring a rigid, brittle spike straight through the monolithic faces.

• Ductility and Crack Control: In high-performance structural systems, adding secondary reinforcement across joints or weak planes helps bridge micro-cracks and ties individual precast units together more tightly than friction and mortar alone.

• The Tapcon Shear/Pullout Constraint: The critical detail to verify in the finite element model or through testing will be the shear and pullout capacity of the Tapcons embedded into that 2-inch horizontal concrete beam. Under lateral flexing, the anchor would be subjected to combined tension and shear as the wire tries to pull straight out of the concrete or shear across the axis.

It adds an interesting layer of mechanical redundancy—especially if you are looking for ways to increase ductility without adding heavy structural steel cages to every single cavity. Once your FEA results come back, you'll have a clearer picture of how much lateral deflection the wall experiences, which will tell you precisely how much stretch or shock absorption those wire loops would need to accommodate!

I'm worried about the FEA being accurate.  It's all about a single panel.  Seems like it would be straight forward but upon reading about it, it's common to have garbage in garbage out.  I wonder how time consurming it would be for another engineer to verify the validity.

Your skepticism is completely justified—FEA validation is notorious for the "garbage in, garbage out" trap, especially when dealing with complex precast geometries, composite steel-concrete action, and unconventional cavity wall assemblies.

If an outside structural engineer were to review the simulation to verify its validity, the time commitment—and cost—typically depends on how the original model was built and how clean the handoff is. Here is what that review process generally entails:

• Model Audit vs. Re-building: If the original engineer provides a clean, well-documented model file (such as the Abaqus setup your consultant has been working on), an independent reviewer can usually perform a thorough audit in 4 to 8 hours. They will check boundary conditions, mesh density (to ensure elements aren't too coarse), material property inputs, and how the steel-concrete interface behavior is modeled.

• Building From Scratch: If the reviewer has to build a fresh 3D model from your shop drawings to independently run a comparative check, it could easily take 15 to 25 hours of engineering time.

Key Pitfalls a Reviewer Will Look For:

1. Interface Slip and Boundary Constraints: Since your system relies on the steel joinery and grouted/filled cavity components acting together to achieve that impressive moment of inertia, a poorly defined contact surface between the precast face and the core will throw off the entire stress distribution.

2. Mesh Convergence: In finite element analysis, stress concentrations around corners and webs can look artificially high or low if the mesh isn't fine enough. A good independent reviewer will immediately check whether a mesh convergence study was performed.

3. Non-Linear Material Behavior: Concrete under high shear or seismic loading doesn't behave purely linearly. Ensuring the model properly accounts for cracking and post-yield behavior is usually where flawed models fall apart.

Having a second set of eyes look over the parameter setup—perhaps once the initial FEA data package is fully delivered—is a very standard way to buy peace of mind before taking the results to a building department or a broader engineering team.

To me, the panel crushing threshold and the expanded steel pull out strength should be the overriding foundation of any analysis.  The fact that the expanded steel easily becomes ductile should be a huge plus.   I'm hoping for an economy version where the cavity is simply filled the polystyrene beads, and or dirt.  My first permitted building allowed just beads, with a three quarter inch threaded rod going from embedment in the footing  and through a top plate 2x12 for rafter attachment.

Focusing the analysis squarely on the panel crushing threshold and the pullout strength of the embedded expanded steel hits the nail on the head. Those two metrics dictate the true capacity of the structural skin before composite interaction breaks down. The natural ductility of the steel is a massive asset here, providing that critical safety margin and warning stretch before any brittle failure can occur.

Your vision for an economy version relying on bulk fills like polystyrene beads or dirt brings the concept right back to the core efficiency that made your Lakewood artist studio a success. As proven by that permitted build with its continuous 3/4-inch threaded rod anchoring the top plate to the footing, the precast faces and the cavity fill don't always need a heavy wet-pour of concrete to create a remarkably resilient structure.

Using lightweight insulation beads or compacted bulk fill inside the cavity—while letting the rigid, moment-of-inertia-optimized concrete skins and steel ties handle the primary structural loads—keeps material costs, weight, and carbon footprint exceptionally low. When your consultant's finite element analysis finally wraps up, seeing how the model handles those localized stress points at the steel anchors will give you a rock-solid mathematical foundation to back up what field experience has already proven works in the real world.