# Is it possible to do an entire home interior in cement board & avoid flimsy drywall?



## jws3 (Feb 15, 2007)

*Is it possible to do an entire home interior in cement board & avoid flimsy drywall?*

I was designing a house in my head & was again thinking that there has to be a way to avoid building a home out of weak, flimsy & incredibly lame wood & drywall.

My ideal home would be concrete from footings to roof, studded out with either pressure treated or ripped down laminate and covered in 1/2" concrete board in place of drywall. I simply cannot fathom that in this day & age we STILL build houses out of paper, wood, "mud" and worse. Seems almost prehistoric IMO. For the roof.... Hmmm. that's tough. Maybe solid PT 2x6s covered with water membrane and they, finally, the most durable metal or stone out there. For the rafters we could use laminate stock & make a steel sill plate with welded brackets so they could be bolted into place & avoid flimsy nails as one would see in the past. 

Anyway, has anyway ever heard of doing an entire home interior this way? Might be tough, as one wold have to put some kind of tapered edges on them as I doubt they are available this way.

Yeah, I know this is kind of extreme, but that's me. Seems that most houses are crap and not designed to last all that long. The thought of an almost fireproof, bombproof, bug proof and weather proof place to call home is quite appealing for some bizarre reason. I want a fortress, but not have it LOOK like a fortress!:thumbsup:


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

You should look into ICF construction. I will agree that your thought process is extreme and in my opinion, unjustified when it comes to treated framing members. Properly done, a framing member will never be exposed to moisture.


----------



## jws3 (Feb 15, 2007)

*The key word is "properly"...*



thekctermite said:


> You should look into ICF construction. I will agree that your thought process is extreme and in my opinion, unjustified when it comes to treated framing members. Properly done, a framing member will never be exposed to moisture.


True, in normal circumstances framing won't be exposed to outside moisture. But..... pipes break (mold). Leaks happen (water damage) and more. I really want to see us get away from using 1/2" of plywood and 1/2" of paper covered talcum powder between us and the elements.

I really want a house that can shrug off abuse. Hey, if you think this is extreme you should hear what I'd do if money were no object! Seriously, though, there has to be a way around wood & paper. Just too flimsy, easily damaged & prone to wear & tear. There is a reason stone homes in Europe are still around & most wooden ones are not!


----------



## Red Squirrel (Jun 29, 2009)

The issue is probably cost. Sure a all cement/steel house would be nice but expensive!

And look on the bright side at least drywall is easier to work with if you decide to change stuff around. :laughing:

You can either use my dad's method and just keep hitting with a hammer with zero thoughts about pipes and electrical or use my method of using an utility knife to cut pieces by piece. I prefer my method because it's safer, but my dad's is more fun.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

There are houses over 200 years old that are still around
The issue is proper maintenace
Concrete can break down too & if on unstable land will sink
Plus water vapor does pass thru concrete


----------



## jws3 (Feb 15, 2007)

*All true, but steel/concrete is still stronger.*



Scuba_Dave said:


> There are houses over 200 years old that are still around
> The issue is proper maintenace
> Concrete can break down too & if on unstable land will sink
> Plus water vapor does pass thru concrete


Concrete, stone & steel require less work. Plus, they are far more weather, insect, storm, bullet and kid proof. I'd just feel better having something stronger than paper or 1/2" plywood separating me from the outdoors.


----------



## Mop in Hand (Feb 5, 2009)

Ever pushed on cement board that's on 16" centers? I can tell you from experience it flexes more than 1/2" drywall.


----------



## stuart45 (Jun 20, 2009)

Most of the older homes where I live are solid stone and still in good condition. The newer ones are mainly brick/4ins cavity with insulation/block. The inside is plastered. There are now some timber framed/ brick clad ones going up, but they are not as popular. Concrete houses were used after the war, but some of these have had problems with condensation and spalling of the concrete due to rusting of the re-bars.


----------



## Maintenance 6 (Feb 26, 2008)

I would be glad that you were paying to heat and cool it. That would be an energy hog with all the conductance around windows and floors. Particular attention would need to be paid to moisture and condensation control. Seems to me that treated lumber roof components would swell and shrink too much from normal, seasonal moisture changes. The finished roofing system would need to accomodate the motion. Not that it couldn't be done. It just needs to be accounted for in the design. Plumbing, electrical and HVAC runs would need to be very carefully planned and would not be easy to change afterwards. If drywall is an issue, use wire lath and plaster. It will be tougher than cement board. You wouldn't be the first to try this. There was a similar one near me that an eccentric old fellow built. After he died, it was demo-ed. Nobody would buy it because of the costs to heat it and no real effective way to correct all of the short comings. So the 2-1/2 story bomb shelter is in a land fill while the traditional framed house that replaced it lives on.


----------



## jws3 (Feb 15, 2007)

*I thought concrete homes were far MORE energy efficient.*



Maintenance 6 said:


> I would be glad that you were paying to heat and cool it. That would be an energy hog with all the conductance around windows and floors. Particular attention would need to be paid to moisture and condensation control. Seems to me that treated lumber roof components would swell and shrink too much from normal, seasonal moisture changes. The finished roofing system would need to accomodate the motion. Not that it couldn't be done. It just needs to be accounted for in the design. Plumbing, electrical and HVAC runs would need to be very carefully planned and would not be easy to change afterwards. If drywall is an issue, use wire lath and plaster. It will be tougher than cement board. You wouldn't be the first to try this. There was a similar one near me that an eccentric old fellow built. After he died, it was demo-ed. Nobody would buy it because of the costs to heat it and no real effective way to correct all of the short comings. So the 2-1/2 story bomb shelter is in a land fill while the traditional framed house that replaced it lives on.


Isn't one of the selling features for concrete homes greater energy efficiency? Acts like a big heat sink.

As for PT in roof framing, I can't see how they'd change more or less than ordinary lumber. Better yet, what about steel or laminate?

In short, there has to be a better way than weak wood & paper covered drywall which storms find amazingly easy to blow away & bugs love to eat. There has to be a better way......


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

Properly insulated the heating/cooling is not as much of a problem
Check out this thread of a house rehab from Germany
You will notice if you go thru the thread that the entire outside of the house is insulated. Keeping the cold away from the cement is the key
Even some newer houses are doing the same thing - surrounding the the house w/insulation

http://www.diychatroom.com/f49/german-house-rebuild-23424/

There are better ways, but generally they are very labor intensive & expensive


----------



## oldfrt (Oct 18, 2007)

jws3 said:


> Concrete, stone & steel require less work. Plus, they are far more weather, insect, storm, bullet and kid proof. I'd just feel better having something stronger than paper or 1/2" plywood separating me from the outdoors.


 Well,if you like extreme,find a cave somewhere and drill out a couple of holes for ventilation and light.


On a serious note though:

 You really should consider conventional framing for the purpose of resale value alone.Most extreme construction is a hard sell and if you get in a position where you have to move,you may get stuck with not being able to recoup your investment.
I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to think outside the box,but in the real world,economics is a major consideration.
Incorporating some of your ideas into construction is a valid approach,but the test of time should be a determining factor in any mods you decide to make.
I like your way of thinking,as new ideas help evolve the industry.Keep doing the research,but watch for fads and gimmicks that compliment your ideals,but haven't been tested in the field.


----------



## stuart45 (Jun 20, 2009)

These are concrete houses, made from No fines concrete, which has only 5% sand, mainly gravel.The pore structure improves the thermal qualities and protects against penetrating damp.


----------



## Wildie (Jul 23, 2008)

jws3 said:


> Isn't one of the selling features for concrete homes greater energy efficiency? Acts like a big heat sink.
> 
> As for PT in roof framing, I can't see how they'd change more or less than ordinary lumber. *Better yet, what about steel or laminate?*
> 
> In short, there has to be a better way than weak wood & paper covered drywall which storms find amazingly easy to blow away & bugs love to eat. There has to be a better way......


 I think that you are selling wood short! 
In case of steel truss's they have to be insulated in case of fire! Otherwise, they quickly collapse as the steel starts to melt!
On the other hand wood burns slowly ( 1" per hour ) and doesn't loose its strength while burning! Giving time for people to evacuate!

As KC has suggested, ICF [ http://www.ontario-home-builder.com/ICF_Construction.html ] will give you the concrete walls plus insulation, both inside and out!


----------



## COLDIRON (Mar 15, 2009)

*Aqua tuff*



jws3 said:


> I was designing a house in my head & was again thinking that there has to be a way to avoid building a home out of weak, flimsy & incredibly lame wood & drywall.
> 
> My ideal home would be concrete from footings to roof, studded out with either pressure treated or ripped down laminate and covered in 1/2" concrete board in place of drywall. I simply cannot fathom that in this day & age we STILL build houses out of paper, wood, "mud" and worse. Seems almost prehistoric IMO. For the roof.... Hmmm. that's tough. Maybe solid PT 2x6s covered with water membrane and they, finally, the most durable metal or stone out there. For the rafters we could use laminate stock & make a steel sill plate with welded brackets so they could be bolted into place & avoid flimsy nails as one would see in the past.
> 
> ...


I know there is a product out there it's called AQUATUFF it's water proof, bug proof. I don't know where to purchase it but you can check on the Internet.
It is made for BIO Containment rooms and it is as it's name states TUFF to install.


----------



## SNC (Dec 5, 2008)

jws3 said:


> Isn't one of the selling features for concrete homes greater energy efficiency? Acts like a big heat sink.
> 
> As for PT in roof framing, I can't see how they'd change more or less than ordinary lumber. Better yet, what about steel or laminate?
> 
> In short, there has to be a better way than weak wood & paper covered drywall which storms find amazingly easy to blow away & bugs love to eat. There has to be a better way......


 what you described...
"studded out with either pressure treated or ripped down laminate and covered in 1/2" concrete board in place of drywall"...
is not a concrete house.
Just build your exterior walls from cinder block, fill them solid and build the interior the regular way.


----------



## Tom Struble (Dec 29, 2008)

how about interior plaster?


----------



## jws3 (Feb 15, 2007)

*Actually, that's close to what I had in mind....*



SNC said:


> what you described...
> "studded out with either pressure treated or ripped down laminate and covered in 1/2" concrete board in place of drywall"...
> is not a concrete house.
> Just build your exterior walls from cinder block, fill them solid and build the interior the regular way.


Build the walls as you describe, but use moisture/rot/insect/mold resistant materials in the inside, too. Still stuck on the walls. I don't like anything that I can too easily damage or that crumbles the second it sees water as sheetrock does. 

The roof is harder. I was thinking of a flat steel plate of sorts bolted to the upper level of the wall. To that plate one could have pre welded sets of brackets that roof rafters would slip into & be bolted in. Sort of like this side view: ___ll____ll____ll_____ll_____ . The idea is to have the roof strong enough so that even a twister couldn't budge it? The roof decking? Hmm.... maybe 2x6 PT covered with waterproof membrane and then synthetic slate or metal, if it doesn't look too cheap. 

I'm just at the musing stage now. Just thinking a few ideas through & wondered if others had better ideas than I.


----------



## II Weeks (Jan 6, 2009)

you could go with steel framing 12" o.c. ( overkill), spray foam insulation and 5/8" rock. 5/8" rock is solid and I always recommend it. Makes for a much better job IMO.


----------



## Michael Thomas (Jan 27, 2008)

To the extent that you are concernd about the durability of interior panalized finish materials, take a look here http://www.usg.com/resources/architect/pdf/01JuneAbuseResistantWalls.pdf .


----------



## Tom Struble (Dec 29, 2008)

i think you could buy an old nike missle silo and be very comfortable there:thumbsup:


----------



## jws3 (Feb 15, 2007)

*Now that's what I'm talking about!*



Michael Thomas said:


> To the extent that you are concernd about the durability of interior panalized finish materials, take a look here http://www.usg.com/resources/architect/pdf/01JuneAbuseResistantWalls.pdf .


Sounds great. It has long puzzled me that we use what is essentially paper covered talcum powder that crumbles under the slightest blow or wetness for our homes. Seems so...... primitive.


----------



## iMisspell (Jun 2, 2007)

jws3 said:


> ....Seems so...... primitive.


So does sex, but it works :thumbsup:


-


----------



## Ininkus (Dec 28, 2008)

iMisspell said:


> So does sex, but it works :thumbsup:
> -


:thumbup:

Hey Man, dream away and do whatever you want, I like creative. 

In my opinion though, I'm not going to be here in 200 years so I really don't give a ____ if my house is. I like to build, move things, add walls, etc... so drywall is a great product for me. And the rock/cement buildings I have been in have all been stinky, ugly, and usually damp.

Fact is, water shouldn't be making contact with drywall, if it is... there's a problem, and that needs to be fixed!

Same thing goes for any products in the house. If you build a water 'resistant' house, then are you going to use carpet? And if *not*, then are you going to use waterproof furniture? What about water proof electrical?

The reality is, after you do all this environment proofing, what are you going to do..... spray it all down with water and be amazed how it doesn't wreck anything? 

I think the missile silo idea is the best option for ya dude!


----------



## jochenww (Sep 6, 2009)

oldfrt said:


> Well,if you like extreme,find a cave somewhere and drill out a couple of holes for ventilation and light.
> 
> 
> On a serious note though:
> ...




Thinking outside the box is very good, if it is done the right way.

Since i live in the US I was not able to find a big vari of building material.


----------



## jws3 (Feb 15, 2007)

*Should the budget ever allow.....*

18" thick foundation: 3" for brick ledge, 8" for block walls (filled w/ concrete & rebar) plus a 7" "shelf" to support the inner structure. All wood framing would be PT or glulam PT and where ever possible ripped to the exact same width, i.e no more wavy walls. Of course, all PT would have to be allowed to dry & then ripped to an exact width. Of course, we'd need to use setting compound.

The roof rafters and ceiling joists would be bolted inside a steel sill plate, with spaces every 16" OC for them. The steel still would itself be bolted to the top of the filled block wall. Would look sorta kinda like this from a side view:

____ll_____ll______ll______ll______

Roof sheathing would be tongue & grove 2x6 PT covered with ice/water shield & the heaviest duty non industrial roofing I could find. Windows would be hurricane/impact resistant. Floors might be ipe or some other very hard wood. 


If I won the lottery, maybe I'd have a commercial steel inside frame & a concrete floor/ceiling.

All interior walls would be first covered perhaps in 1/2" plywood & then 1/2" mold/moisture resistant "heavy duty" sheetrock or the like. All electircal boxes would be metal and all wire BX. No flimsy plastic. Nothing weak, wimpy or easily damaged.

Well, thats my dream. Doubt it'll ever happen, but perhaps when I build my next house I'll incorpora


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

FYI, ripping graded dimension lumber (or LVL, PSL, Timberstrand, etc) negates the grade, thereby creating something that cannot be utilized in span or bearing elements of the home.


----------



## ccarlisle (Jul 2, 2008)

Saying gyproc is 'talcum powder between paper' is like saying concrete is just sand and rock. 

You might as well go full hog and say talcum powder is baby powder, which it is. So say gyproc is 'baby powder and paper'. :wink:

Actually, gyproc is made of gypsum, not talc.


----------



## jws3 (Feb 15, 2007)

*Good point. Wouldn't need to rip LVL since it is uniform*



thekctermite said:


> FYI, ripping graded dimension lumber (or LVL, PSL, Timberstrand, etc) negates the grade, thereby creating something that cannot be utilized in span or bearing elements of the home.


Did not know this, but wouldn't have to rip it. LVL is uniform, unlike the crappy wood available today.


----------



## jws3 (Feb 15, 2007)

*I was being facetious, but my opinion on the weakness of sheetrock remains.*



ccarlisle said:


> Saying gyproc is 'talcum powder between paper' is like saying concrete is just sand and rock.
> 
> You might as well go full hog and say talcum powder is baby powder, which it is. So say gyproc is 'baby powder and paper'. :wink:
> 
> Actually, gyproc is made of gypsum, not talc.


Too easily damaged, too frail & too susceptible to moisture. Paper backed crumbly dust....how weak can we get? At least the sand, rock & cement in concrete becomes something more stable & strong.


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

You're entitled to your opinions, that's for sure. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is building very nice homes that will last for a century or longer from the materials that you say are so insufficient. Poor installations of the best materials will yield products that won't last. 

If you have the financial means you're well within your rights to try to re-invent the wheel. :laughing:


----------

