Thread 2920092 - /diy/ [Archived: 537 hours ago]

Anonymous
5/27/2025, 8:51:01 PM No.2920092
IMG_0681
IMG_0681
md5: 8947e7e5ea406602c7801d36743873d0🔍
What are your thoughts on stone foundations or zero concrete foundations as opposed to modern concrete foundations?
Replies: >>2920165 >>2920308 >>2922785 >>2922967 >>2923943 >>2924505
Anonymous
5/27/2025, 11:51:45 PM No.2920141
>they both just werk
Those are my thoughts.
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 2:08:55 AM No.2920158
On a long enough timeline everything behaves like liquid, you will have forces similar to the slope of your stones.
Replies: >>2920201
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 2:28:04 AM No.2920165
>>2920092 (OP)
Stone can work fine, depending on your soil conditions, but it will always be more maintenance then concrete. It is also much harder and time consuming to install correctly. That increases cost if you plan to contract the work. Are building codes in your area a factor? Permitting? What about earthquakes, frost heave, or water? All of these can cause serious problems for any foundation and using stone will amplify that. That said, it is easier to fix than concrete when you have issues. So, if you do fuck it up you'll likely have the ability to fix it.
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 2:39:18 AM No.2920168
ever tried digging next to one?
or fixing it when it has moved around after a few decades?
Replies: >>2920174
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 3:01:58 AM No.2920174
>>2920168
And concrete is any better in those regards?
Replies: >>2920198
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 7:02:37 AM No.2920198
>>2920174
yeah, it's a solid square / rectangle and not a group of irregular shaped rocks
Replies: >>2920221 >>2920271 >>2920288 >>2923949
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 7:30:40 AM No.2920201
>>2920158
>On a long enough timeline
completely ignorant retard here, but this would be years at most in an earthquake-prone area, right?
Replies: >>2923374
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 9:33:35 AM No.2920221
>>2920198
But it is a group of irregular shaped rocks, anon. Concrete fractures over time, too.
Replies: >>2923022
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 3:41:57 PM No.2920262
If done correctly, with proper rebar & mesh, a concrete foundation will last longer than you will, or the rest of the building will. There is no situation where a stone foundation is superior to a concrete one. Concrete foundations are easier to install, takes less labor, and will last longer especially in adverse conditions.

Also it's preferable to not use irregular shaped stones as a foundation, as you don't know how the forces will interact with each stone in relation to its neighbors. I've seen the weight of buildings literally push stones out of foundations over time because a stone was slightly wedge-shaped in one direction or another. Ive seen entire walls bulging due to off-angle load transfers through the irregular faces. At least with something like bricks or concrete blocks their behavior is predictable since they have flat and parallel sides.

Stone foundations were a thing a hundred years ago because that's what we had access to. Other methods were either worse (like wood foundations) or weren't fairly accessible to the common person. There's a reason the civilized world went away from stone foundations to concrete foundations, and it's because they're better in literally every way.
Replies: >>2920267 >>2922707
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 4:53:20 PM No.2920267
>>2920262
The pillar to stone style foundations found in Japan are a pretty good argument for stone foundations, anon. They're cheap, low tech and effective, especially for handling earthquakes. Also, there are a lot of stone built structures built ages ago that are still perfectly fine. Just look at those structures in the Americas and the pyramids like those found in Egypt. Of course there are plenty of concrete structures from ancient times, too, but I think it's a bit silly to say concrete is the end-all be-all foundation material. The whole point of concrete is man-made, flowable, shapeable rock. There's no doubt that using giant slabs of bedrock would be the ideal foundation, yet that's generally not feasible, so concrete is the next best thing for most situations simply because it generally nails the availability meets price point part while being an effective and versatile foundational material.
Replies: >>2920321
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 5:05:33 PM No.2920271
>>2920198
never put all your eggs in one basket
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 6:26:09 PM No.2920288
>>2920198
It's only gonna be square and flat above ground. Do you think people are building forms for buried concrete footings?
I would like to see it if this is happening anywhere outside of maybe sonotubes, but even then there's often an elephants foot at the bottom on purpose.
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 8:08:18 PM No.2920308
>>2920092 (OP)
>What are your thoughts on stone foundations
My thoughts on the foundation you've posted is that those stones sill create forces that point sideways
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 9:25:38 PM No.2920321
>>2920267
Sure, but we're not talking about huge ancient stone structures here. We're talking about someone using rocks to make a foundation for their house, like in OP's pic. And concrete is far, far better for that.
Replies: >>2920522
Anonymous
5/29/2025, 5:44:35 PM No.2920522
>>2920321
>And concrete is far, far better for that.
Yeah, probably.
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 11:28:02 PM No.2922707
>>2920262
>There is no situation where a stone foundation is superior to a concrete one
New concrete emits a ton of moisture. If you are doing foundation work under an existing building, that added moisture can cause warping of wood, throwing the floors out of whack. You can run dehumidifiers but it will be a hundred per month in electricity for a while.

Stone would be superior to concrete in such case, but concrete blocks would be better than both.
Anonymous
6/8/2025, 10:29:52 AM No.2922785
>>2920092 (OP)
The varying hardness of stone and concrete is going to create stress points at which cracks will start. Worse and prematurely relative to simple homogenous concrete. You are saving money on concrete and if you're already partly on bedrock whatever. Large foundation is better too.
Anonymous
6/8/2025, 4:51:40 PM No.2922813
Gabions are the best of both worlds.
Replies: >>2922873
Anonymous
6/8/2025, 7:13:40 PM No.2922842
Depends on the local rules.
Anonymous
6/8/2025, 10:50:05 PM No.2922873
>>2922813
Are those used for building foundations?
How would you anchor the superstructure to it?
How would you seal it to stop mice?
Replies: >>2923030 >>2923213
Anonymous
6/9/2025, 6:29:01 AM No.2922967
>>2920092 (OP)
Pretty awful and won't last as long.
Replies: >>2923025
Anonymous
6/9/2025, 1:47:11 PM No.2923022
>>2920221
If only there was something people could put in the concrete to reinforce it, like some kind of rod....or bar. Hmm. Then you could not only limit the amount the concrete fractures but also prevent it from shifting as much when it does fracture.
Anonymous
6/9/2025, 2:09:04 PM No.2923025
>>2922967
laffs in megaliths
Anonymous
6/9/2025, 3:30:01 PM No.2923030
>>2922873
How do you anchor the super structure to stones?
Replies: >>2923033
Anonymous
6/9/2025, 3:58:42 PM No.2923033
rock_japan
rock_japan
md5: 6ba4e0d113cd81e10848add2de8fbd72🔍
>>2923030
Replies: >>2923215
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 4:16:51 PM No.2923213
>>2922873
Yeah, sometimes. They have to be approved by an engineer because they aren't standard in building code. I don't think there's a standard way to do either. Check out some examples. I don't think mice can squeeze through gabions, but maybe it depends on how much attention you pay while you're filling them.
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 4:25:58 PM No.2923215
>>2923033
Let me guess. They dig a perfect little hole and meticulously fill it with rock jenga and small pebbles. Then they carve out a mortise in their rock for their yakisoba leg. The anchor binding everything together in this situation is unfiltered autism. Amirite?
Replies: >>2923244
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 7:06:31 PM No.2923244
>>2923215
they carve the wood to match the rock
Replies: >>2923255
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 7:39:51 PM No.2923255
>>2923244
So nothing to keep the structure from shifting aside from the slight curvature of the rock? That's fucking terrible.
Replies: >>2924009
Anonymous
6/11/2025, 4:29:21 AM No.2923374
>>2920201
no...when soil gets went and then dries it expands and shrinks
Anonymous
6/11/2025, 10:19:06 PM No.2923510
Cabin
Cabin
md5: 212113ec3ded0b235c6e5cbede230228🔍
Rocks are potentially free, concrete is not. Rocks dont wick moisture from ground so wooden parts on top of them stay dry without any barriers.

Rock foundation work fine with log buildings where little shifts and tilts dont matter much and jacking up is easy to do. Concrete foundation would look off under a traditional log cabin.
Replies: >>2924008 >>2926393
Anonymous
6/13/2025, 9:30:51 PM No.2923943
mike haduck
mike haduck
md5: 48d6385642d9f3f979b22dbdc80c0821🔍
>>2920092 (OP)
Its old school but that is how they used to do it. Just make sure you put plenty of portland cement in there.
Anonymous
6/13/2025, 11:06:05 PM No.2923949
DSC_0382-996675975
DSC_0382-996675975
md5: f24bed514ec9f1873e7a825d5824e39e🔍
>>2920198
>Irregular
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 6:09:55 AM No.2924008
>>2923510
Concrete is potentially free, too. If you can find yourself some good rocks, then you can find yourself some lime or fly ash or something.
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 6:11:09 AM No.2924009
>>2923255
They love on a fault line, mate. They're constantly getting shook. If it didn't work for them, they wouldn't still be doing it after all these centuries.
Anonymous
6/16/2025, 7:31:59 PM No.2924505
>>2920092 (OP)
I currently own a 19th century house on stone footings with lime mortar, also previously owned a 17th century.
I also own a concrete poured modern house.
Stone and lime has a flexibility which is designed around inevitable movement. Reinforced concrete is designed to fight against it.
The stone houses I've owned I trust more, but you must respect the original materials as they are important to the design - no portland cement, only non hydraulic limes touch it. Though some hearth stones are original poured portland cement - the only place deemed appropriate.
Movement and load is localised and can be packed, pinned or rebuilt in small sections.
We pretty much had no problems with this as the houses were on stable well settled ground.
I was told the footings were traditionally left to settle often for a year before continuing building and any movement was repact and left to settle once more.
The house with the solid concrete slab keeps me awake at night as I see where it's starting to tip and will pull itself apart. Like a boat on a slow destructive wave.
This house will not last the test of time as my others had.
Fuck knows how hollow the ground underneith is becoming and how much pressure certain parts are having to put up with.
This newer house is on pile foundations and an earthquake resistant hopneycomb system (I was told)
Big cracks on one solid piece of material that's meant to be watertight is more concerning than more localised movement on a system that is purposely vapour permiable.
The old masony and lime building system and mentality is perfected over 2000 years of tradespeople generations. It was rejected when the workforce and knowlege died at war, and the new style of house building benefits speed and profits only as far as I can see - very jew enshitification centric.
Generations before could have begun making cement foundations, but didnt, because its benefits for a normal house are shortsighted.

Do what you want though
Replies: >>2924558 >>2924690
Anonymous
6/17/2025, 1:28:22 AM No.2924558
>>2924505
>a system that is purposely vapour permiable.
this sucks though because the crawlspace / basement will always be damp and any wood directly adjacent will be rotting.+ home has high humidity / mold risk (unless you have unusually dry ground)

I do like the concept of stones/blocks with some ability to move with the earth. What about a modern twist: using a rubberized asphalt or similar to bond the stones together, then blast the outside with a rubberized coating to keep ground water/moisture out?
Replies: >>2924678
Anonymous
6/17/2025, 5:05:38 PM No.2924678
>>2924558
Nta, but putting some plastic on the ground doesn't change the foundation being "purposefully vapor permeable". Building code requires naturally rot resistant or treated wood so close to the ground anyway.
Anonymous
6/17/2025, 6:10:16 PM No.2924690
>>2924505
>The house with the solid concrete slab keeps me awake at night
Anon. The concrete slab underneath your house is the least of your worries. Quit being so dramatic. You sound like a pussy.
Anonymous
6/24/2025, 5:28:39 PM No.2926393
>>2923510

>step 1:
take mower and mow the lawn
>step 2:
Let cut grass dry
>step 3:
Put it in a barrel and set it on fire
>step 4:
collect ash and put it through a sieve to remove large chunks of impurities
>step 5:
dump it into a bucket of existing water (essential that the ash goes into the existing water and not the water into the ash)
>step 6:
let this do its job for a bit until the ash settles properly on the bottom, remove the impurities on the surface of the water away with something, a ladle does the job fine
>step 7:
remove the ash from the water and dry it.
>step 8:
bake the ash until it turns red, leave this for a few hours, easier to do this with fire than to try and use an oven for obvious reasons. (this step is very dangerous, you are turning calcium carbonate into calcium oxide [quick lime], i cannot stress enough that you should be very very careful handling this stuff, do not breath it in, get it in your eyes, let it touch your skin, and be very careful with water since it will explode on contact if there is sufficient amounts of it).
>step 9:
Mix it with water in small amounts at a time to prevent it exploding, to produce calcium hydroxide. add some form of grog to it; some old pottery, sand, some crusher dust.

congratulations you have produced roman cement give or take. now just scale it up.