Concrete foundation without a cement truck

   / Concrete foundation without a cement truck #41  
The ultimate concrete strength is dependant on the strength of the aggregate. Grading of the aggregate will effect the amount of Portland and Water required.

Sounds like the OP has a pretty good local reference point.

Being unfamiliar with the road in would it be possible to bring in materials on a wagon or trailer pulled by large tractor?
 
   / Concrete foundation without a cement truck #42  
The ultimate concrete strength is dependant on the strength of the aggregate. Grading of the aggregate will effect the amount of Portland and Water required.

Sounds like the OP has a pretty good local reference point.

Being unfamiliar with the road in would it be possible to bring in materials on a wagon or trailer pulled by large tractor?

There's always mules and ox teams...!
 
   / Concrete foundation without a cement truck #43  
4: Pre-mix vs raw material: I'm going to let the experts work that one out. I agree with some of the posts here that the pre-mix might be under engineered for holding up a house. Could it be augmented? maybe....like I said I'm going to talk to an engineer about that one.

Not an expert, but I have an opinion.

Bagged Quikrete is rated for 4000 psi. If the whole cabin weighs 25,000 lbs, you could support it on 6.25 square inches. That's a square 2.5 inches on a side. Alternately, assume the cabin is supported by a 2x4 sill on each side, and the entire weight is held by the eave sides. If it's 50 feet long, the bearing surface is 2 sides x 50 feet per side x 12 inches per foot x 3.5 inches wide= 4,200 square inches. With the same 25,000 lbs, that's under six pounds per square inch. That's about what your shoe produces standing on one foot. My point is the strength of the concrete is the least of your worries. With piers the load is going to be more concentrated, but your limiting factor is going to be the wood beams resting on the concrete, wood has a much lower crush rating than concrete.

Problems with concrete are most likely to come from errors in mixing or in placing. I would argue that you're more likely to make a mixing error if you're measuring materials yourself on site than if using pre-bagged.

A downside of bags is you have to have a way of storing them that keeps them dry. You'd have to keep the portland cement dry, but it's a lot less to worry about. I'm intrigued by the idea of bagged aggregate with separate bags of cement, sounds like the best of both worlds.

Cost is a wash, there would be less waste with bags as it's easier to make batches the size you need them and easier to store the surplus.

But the big determinant is materials handling. If you can figure out a way to get that 16,000 lbs of concrete in place without ever touching a shovel, bucket or wheelbarrow, bulk materials are the way to go. But it's much easier to pick up a bag than it is to shovel the same amount into a bucket. Doing 16,000 lbs with the "one shovel portland, two sand, three gravel" would make a man out of you.

When the material was sledded in, was it in the winter over snow, or just over land? Over snow is the traditional New England way of moving heavy objects. Winter was the shipping season.
 
   / Concrete foundation without a cement truck #44  
You guys are stressing too much about concrete. We have a local block company that will produce any type of PSI rating you want. We went for a 6,000 psi mix. They mix up all the aggregate and bag it, but before they seal it they put in another sealed bag with the portland in it. That way you don't have to dry store it. They don't skimp on the Portland either, it was about 4lbs of Portland for every 80lb bag of aggregate.

If you don't have a block company that will do that, just buy these...

images

And that higher strength nabe brand stuff is not the $2.00-$2.50 per pag stuff. More like $5 per bag. times 270 bags....~$1400 vs $400 for mixing by hand from raw materials, and I still maintain that the raw material approach is gonna yield better concrete.

Not an expert, but I have an opinion.

Bagged Quikrete is rated for 4000 psi. If the whole cabin weighs 25,000 lbs, you could support it on 6.25 square inches. That's a square 2.5 inches on a side. Alternately, assume the cabin is supported by a 2x4 sill on each side, and the entire weight is held by the eave sides. If it's 50 feet long, the bearing surface is 2 sides x 50 feet per side x 12 inches per foot x 3.5 inches wide= 4,200 square inches. With the same 25,000 lbs, that's under six pounds per square inch. That's about what your shoe produces standing on one foot. My point is the strength of the concrete is the least of your worries. With piers the load is going to be more concentrated, but your limiting factor is going to be the wood beams resting on the concrete, wood has a much lower crush rating than concrete.

Problems with concrete are most likely to come from errors in mixing or in placing. I would argue that you're more likely to make a mixing error if you're measuring materials yourself on site than if using pre-bagged.

A downside of bags is you have to have a way of storing them that keeps them dry. You'd have to keep the portland cement dry, but it's a lot less to worry about. I'm intrigued by the idea of bagged aggregate with separate bags of cement, sounds like the best of both worlds.

Cost is a wash, there would be less waste with bags as it's easier to make batches the size you need them and easier to store the surplus.

But the big determinant is materials handling. If you can figure out a way to get that 16,000 lbs of concrete in place without ever touching a shovel, bucket or wheelbarrow, bulk materials are the way to go. But it's much easier to pick up a bag than it is to shovel the same amount into a bucket. Doing 16,000 lbs with the "one shovel portland, two sand, three gravel" would make a man out of you.

When the material was sledded in, was it in the winter over snow, or just over land? Over snow is the traditional New England way of moving heavy objects. Winter was the shipping season.

Its 16000# no matter how you roll the dice. A shovel at a time or a 60# bag at a time, you are still handling the same.

The few times I have done it both ways, filling the mixer a shovel at a time was a whole lot less work than a 60# bag at a time.

Regarding the strength issue. Its not the compression strength that is the issue. Rather uneven footing, uneven loading, and uneven stressing. Causing cracking and crumbling foundations. But I be no one here has ever seen a cracking and crumbling foundation.
 
   / Concrete foundation without a cement truck #45  
And that higher strength nabe brand stuff is not the $2.00-$2.50 per pag stuff. More like $5 per bag. times 270 bags....~$1400 vs $400 for mixing by hand from raw materials, and I still maintain that the raw material approach is gonna yield better concrete.



Its 16000# no matter how you roll the dice. A shovel at a time or a 60# bag at a time, you are still handling the same.

The few times I have done it both ways, filling the mixer a shovel at a time was a whole lot less work than a 60# bag at a time.

Regarding the strength issue. Its not the compression strength that is the issue. Rather uneven footing, uneven loading, and uneven stressing. Causing cracking and crumbling foundations. But I be no one here has ever seen a cracking and crumbling foundation.

You really think a consistent product with an engineered rating will garner a worse product than a system of inconsistent shovel scoops.

Right...
 
   / Concrete foundation without a cement truck #46  
What's with the uneven foundation, uneven loading uneven stressing?
 
   / Concrete foundation without a cement truck #47  
Use water that is drinkable for your concrete.
The bag mix will lead to a more uniform concrete than hand mix. There is local concrete producer that makes concrete using scoops of gravel and sand, variable concrete in strength and properties.
Most foundations are not uniformly loaded
Limestone is a type of gravel
 
   / Concrete foundation without a cement truck #48  
I did a 16' X 12' concrete slab using premix. The tiny-cabin site was a half mile from any kind of truck access and the trail was passable with a 4WD UTV and later a 4WD tractor; otherwise it was too narrow and twisty for a mixer truck.

From Craigslist I bought a food grade IBC tote for onsite potable water storage and a Rubbermaid shed full of yellowjackets (cleaned them out before I took it home). After top soil removal, gravel, forms, remesh, I hauled the water up in 20 gallon increments. I used a 12 Vdc pump to fill the IBC tote. The tote was located on a small knoll about 8 feet above the slab level. Next I ordered 100 premix bags and filled the shed; wrapped the shed with a new tarp and ratchet strapped it to the shed to help seal it up. The shed was about 15 feet away.

After some trail modification and much pucker factor I got the tractor up to the site. The mixer was a three point hitch style modified for hydraulic drive to replace the PTO drive. Me and four helpers poured 98 bags in five hours; not straining much in the process. If anything we should have slowed down and finished the surface better. With everything being staged ahead of time the job went well.
 
   / Concrete foundation without a cement truck #49  
For our bridge abutment pour we used 2, 110volt mixers powered by two 2000watt Honda gens. This was on a creek, so we dug a sump hole in it and dropped a 1/2hp rough sump pump into it. With this pump we filled a small barrel for watering the mix from in a controlled fashion. We also had a garden hose attached to the pump for cleaning up afterwards. The generators also powered a vibrator. With the info you've posted, I think you can do this project. I'll post a couple more photo's, last one when our project nearly done.
 

Attachments

  • Honda Gens (DL).jpg
    Honda Gens (DL).jpg
    196.5 KB · Views: 160
  • P1040019.jpg
    P1040019.jpg
    481 KB · Views: 203
   / Concrete foundation without a cement truck #50  
Demonstration of building without a concrete truck.

 
 
Top