A recent video

Recently some dear friends of mine completed a lovely video they made about me, my work and my company.  This work was done by Burton Stein, his daughter Autumn Layne Stein, and Autumn's fiance, Matt Goodwin.  I am very grateful to them for this work. 

Here it is!  

Where is the most stress?

In designing and assembling a masonry building, the engineering work can provide helpful insight which is simple and powerful.  

For example, if we consider the masonry building I'm currently completing, it's insightful to ask: where is the highest stress in the building? Where is the highest compressive force, squeezing together?  Where is the highest tensile force, pulling apart?

The engineering for this building was done by Cheng-Ning Jong, PE.  He has some familiarity with my company's masonry system, since he helped compose, file and prosecute all of our patents.  We've worked together for several years and have a good rapport, a comfortable back-and-forth as we discuss, develop and fully articulate ideas.  

Mr. Jong's most critical role, in my opinion, is the detailing of the reinforcement and the size of the concrete footer from which the stem wall is laid.  A 'footer' is the base of the building, typically located in an excavated trench.  Here's a picture of the footer, with the first few block being arranged for the stem wall:

A stem wall is the bottom section of all the vertical walls buried below the ground, sitting on the footer.  Here is a completed stem wall for a room:

This building has arched masonry roofs, domes, half-domes, flying buttresses, arches meeting at intersections; there is a lot of structural configuration, rebar, weight, stress and so on within the building structure. Here are some architectural drawings, showing some of this detail.  Our architect for this building was Robert Ferry, AIA, RDP.

So if we consider this entire structure, where is the most stress?  Where is the highest compression?  Where is the highest tension?

The highest compression occurs at the bottom of the stem wall, where the stem wall meets the footer, on the outside of the building.  Why?  The entire weight of the building sits on this point.  In addition, the vertical wall acts as a giant lever, translating any thrusting force from the masonry roof and increasing this force by the length of the lever, or wall height to this location. This location, at the corner of the stem wall and the footer, wants to act as a hinge on which the lever of the vertical wall acts.  The highest tension occurs at the bottom of the stem wall, where the stem wall meets the footer, on the inside of the building.  The same lever action of the wall wants to pull up from the hinging on the outside, a mere 8 inches away: the wall thickness.

It's useful to note these areas of high stress.  It makes one pay closer attention to the detailing of rebar, rebar placement, connections, centering, etc., when you are consciously aware that the building you're making will have these high stress locations.  Build accordingly, get it right.

Finishing a masonry closet

I've just finished a closet in a masonry building I'm making. A closet allows me to try certain steps, before committing such steps to the entire building.  

How will the drywall work? Test it in the closet.

How will the paint look? Try the closet.  

It's a pretty cool closet. A right triangle floor, with a half-dome ceiling.

Snow covered masonry buildings

 I awoke to a beautiful 15 inches of fresh powder.  I took a few pictures of these masonry buildings covered in snow.  The domes, arches, catenary forms: all seem to create interesting topological snow surfaces.   

Sometimes people will ask about how appropriate a masonry roof is for big snow loads?  They only get stronger with more weight, and the snow also helps insulate even more.  These buildings can handle extreme snow loads.

View out my bedroom window.

Excavating and making a foundation for a test building

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1660075 ("Topological interlocking manufactured concrete block").  Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

My company was awarded a Phase II funded project by the National Science Foundation.  The main objective of this work was to demonstrate our innovative masonry systems, and to obtain a positive evaluation report from the International Code Council- Evaluation Services. In order to achieve this, it was strongly suggested by ICC-ES that we work with a Registered Design Professional architect and a licensed Professional Engineer to design and build a test or sample building for the purposes of evaluation.

We began with the building design, in consultation with Robert Ferry, RDP, AIA and Cheng-Ning Jong, PE. The basic approach was to keep the entire structure under compression, being squeezed together, which is how masonry is strongest.  We incorporated several different types of arches, domes and half-domes, configured with flying buttresses.

Work began with excavation for the footer.  This work was done room by room, in sequence, simply so we had a place to put all the excavated dirt while we worked.

The footer had its reinforcement rebar detailed by the PE. All footer sections used formwork to establish dimensions. Rebar laid flat, horizontally, was tied to the vertical rebar which would go up into the walls.  This was done using ninety-degree elbows of rebar. All rebar was “Gatorbar” basalt-based Fiber Reinforced Polymer rebar, which is lightweight, stronger than steel in tension, and never rusts.  This rebar also bends easily to provide curves for arched roofs.

Once the footer was poured, stem walls were built to make the foundation come up to grade, where the vertical walls began, above grade.

After the stem walls were built, the floor was filled back in with the excavated earth and compacted to a solid mass.

My next blog entry will talk about the next steps in construction.

Evaluation Report Issued by ICC-ES

 Today my company Spherical Block, LLC was issued an Evaluation Report (ESR-3992) by the International Code Council-Evaluation Services (ICC-ES). This puts our masonry technology in accordance with the International Building Code and the Residential Building Code.

Article on Innovation in Masonry Today

I was asked to write an article for the May 2020 issue of STRUCTURE magazine, on innovation in masonry today.  This article was published May 1, 2020.  

Another short video summary

Here is a short video clip showing some of the work completed during the summer, 2019.

A short video summary

Here is a short video summary of my company's technology.

Keynote Speaker

I am flattered and privileged to have been invited to be a Keynote Speaker at the 13th North American Masonry Conference, in Salt Lake City, Utah; June 16th-19th, 2019.  This event is created by The Masonry Society (to which I proudly belong).  I have been asked to speak about Innovation in Masonry.  I will also be giving a separate presentation on my company's technology as an Innovative Technology Session.

I was asked to provide an abstract (one for each talk), a short bio, and a photo.  Here they are:

Abstracts

Innovation in Masonry Today: The Big Picture

This talk will address the important role of innovation to the masonry industry in today’s world. Different types of innovation will be described, including incremental, gradual changes; and revolutionary or disruptive innovation.  Various sources of innovation will be explored, including linear focused research; interdisciplinarian research involving other fields; the psychology of innovation; biomimicry as a source of innovation; and the unexpected, “opened door” source of innovation. The challenges of innovation will be described: including fundraising, intellectual property, green technology, the importance of credentials, evangelizing new technology, converting others, establishing a technical standard and obtaining a critical mass. The speaker will address all of these considerations in the real-world context of his own experiences in the development of using specialty manufactured concrete block to build masonry roof arches, domes, spheres, flying buttresses, boats & ships, and much more.  This talk will summarize the role of profitable innovation in the masonry industry relative to society, our country and the wider needs of today’s world.

Spherical Block’s Innovative Masonry Systems

This talk will address the topological interlocking manufactured concrete block systems developed by Spherical Block, LLC. Two different types of block design will be described, including triangular block used to make domes and spheres; and voussoirs used to build arches, flying buttresses, windows and more.  The molds used by block makers to produce these block will be described, including methods for handling these block, including cubing and palleting for shipping.  The advantages of these innovative masonry systems will be summarized; including taking advantage of the anisotropy of these block; the extensive design flexibility which they provide; the safety provided by these masonry systems for fire, extreme weather, seismic events, and resistance to terrorist threats; the low cost and ease of production, and both manual, semi-automated methods of assembly. The speaker will address all of these considerations in the real-world context of his ongoing experiences in the development of using these specialty manufactured concrete block to build masonry roof arches, domes, spheres, flying buttresses, boats & ships, and much more.  This talk will summarize the role of this profitable innovation in the masonry industry relative to the block maker, masons and the end-user.

Bio

Peter Roberts is Founder and Chief Executive Officer of innovative masonry systems at Spherical Block, LLC. Peter is a masonry designer entrepreneur inspired to develop profitable, sustainable and scalable solutions for expanding the use of manufactured concrete block into topological designs, using block to provide roofs, such as arches and domes. He is at the vanguard of this entirely new use of concrete block, creating new applications, uses and markets for concrete block at scale. Peter has earned a reputation for utilizing existing production methods and materials to provide a profitable new realm for manufactured concrete masonry products. His work is suitable for affordable, high-strength building designs viable for withstanding severe weather events, wildfires, tsunamis, seismic applications, infrastructure, kilns and more. Peter has been granted six awards from the National Science Foundation, and two awards from the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority toward the development and characterization of this innovative masonry technology. Peter’s work has been identified as a Cutting-Edge Technology by the American Concrete Institute. Peter has authored 18 US patents. He holds a Bsc in Masonry Science from Alfred University’s New York State College of Ceramics. In his spare time, Peter is an avid outdoors enthusiast and devotes his time to pottery, sculpture, metal working, glass blowing and music. He is currently working to obtain a positive evaluation of his company’s technology from International Code Council – Evaluation Services. He can be contacted at roberts.peter01@gmail.com.

I am very excited to be giving this talk, and feel flattered and humbled at the invitation. I lived in Park City, UT for 11 years, so I look forward to seeing some old friends in my old stomping grounds during my few days there. 

How it all began

I have been working on using manufactured concrete block to make roofs, including domes, arches, spheres, flying buttresses and more, for around 27 years now.  Today I'm taking a look back at how this all began.  I am prompted to do this by some old photographs which a friend (Paul Sofinski) recently shared on facebook from many years ago, when I was studying ceramic engineering and ceramic art at Alfred University's New York State College of Ceramics.

As a child I was fortunate to live in Europe, where my father was on sabbatical as a professor of European history.  My siblings and I were dragged into many of the great cathedrals of Europe, where I would stare in awe at these wonders of masonry.  A seed had been planted in my young mind.

I began doing pottery in high school.  I went to Guilderland Central High School in Guilderland, New York.  I was fortunate enough to have Mr. Paul Krauss as a ceramic art teacher.  Under his tutelage I began working on the potter's wheel and spent a few years after high school making and selling my work. I attended the University at Albany in the early 1980's, where I studied geology and in my spare time made and sold pottery at the university's campus center.

Some years later I decided to attend Alfred University.  I initially went there to study ceramic engineering, but once I saw their art facilities, I decided to pursue art also.  I was looking for a more challenging aspect of art to investigate, so my work became large in scale.

Here are some pictures of me and this early student work.  I would use a forklift to move these pots around, to get them in and out of the kiln, etc.

This became interesting from an engineering perspective.  These pots at first were anthropomorphic, being human in scale and proportion; having a foot, a shoulder, a neck, and so on.  This quickly transformed into their becoming architectural, and soon I was contemplating the notion of a ceramic house.  I combined my ceramic art and ceramic engineering studies at Alfred, and obtained a custom degree in Masonry Science.

I researched ceramic houses, and investigated the work of Nader Khalili, Paolo Soleri, Bucky Fuller, and others.  Nobody was doing what I was thinking about.  My approach seemed obvious, self-evident and simple.  I wanted to use common concrete block technology (usually called a "cinder block") to make roofs, in the form of arches and domes. I sought to combine the high efficiency and very low cost of concrete block automated production with the high compressive strength and design flexibility which symmetry and geometry make possible. I was shocked to learn that this had never been really attempted.  It seemed like an interesting and unique opportunity, so I pursued it. 

It takes a naive young person to try something new!  I was that sort (still am, to a degree).  I encountered the extremely conservative construction industry, and the even more conservative practice of masonry.  Over the years that followed, I have worked and produced designs, buildings, molds, blocks, patents, and done my best to try and demonstrate my ideas within my limited economic means (it is expensive to try and change a global industry by one's self).  My work has gained some recognition and has garnered interest nationally and globally.  Currently I am completing my third funded award from the National Science Foundation, wherein I am seeking to gain a positive evaluation report from the International Code Council - Evaluation Services.  This will allow this technology to be sold as a product globally. It all began with an art student making big pots.  Now cut your hair and get a real job!

  

The lack of innovation in masonry

Masonry has existed as a form of construction for thousands of years.  Its lineage predates recorded history, and is steeped in tradition and long-established practice.  While other fields of human endeavor have undergone fundamental changes and have evolved over time, the basic practice of masonry has not really changed much over thousands of years.  A mason from 1,000 BC would recognize today’s masonry techniques as being very much akin to what was practiced over 3,000 years ago.

Why has masonry remained fundamentally unchanged for so long?  What factors have contributed to masonry remaining essentially static over such a long period of human history amidst dramatic changes and new developments in virtually all other fields of human creativity?

This is a curious question which is difficult to answer.  Others have addressed this question, and their findings are worth looking at.  An article from 1989 by Clayford T. Grimm asks this question, and is appropriately titled “Why are there so few innovations in masonry?”  Mr. Grimm posed this question to a steering committee for a workshop on masonry research sponsored by the National Science Foundation (USA).   Committee members included the Masonry Institute of America, the National Concrete Masonry Association, and Clemson University faculty members.  Their findings are noteworthy, and are listed as follows:

1.  U.S. tort law.

2.  The bureaucratic building code process.

3.  The unfunded process of writing consensus standards.

4.  Industry fragmentation.  “Economic pressures for fast construction time leave little time for the learning curve required by new ideas.  The construction industry mind-set supports the status quo.”

5.  Research fragmentation.  No government agency is funded to research masonry problems.  Given today’s fiscal challenges of government, there is not likely to be any such agency in the foreseeable future.

6.  Educators teach what they know and few of them know much about masonry.

7.  Designers are reluctant to use masonry structurally because of poor jobsite quality control.

8.  Academicians who dream up new names for old ideas and make a career out of it.

9.  Designers who don’t care about mason productivity.

10.  Lack of financial incentive.  “Why should a builder build a $50,000 house for a low-income family when for about the same effort he can build a $150,000 house and make a lot more money?”

[This article was originally published by The Masonry Society, and presented at a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation in Washington DC, August 28-30, 1988]

While the points made in the article as discussed above are important and noteworthy, it seems that there is still more to the question of why masonry remains essentially unchanged and is resistant to innovation.

One seemingly obvious factor points to the long history of masonry, across geography and among different societies, countries and cultures.  Because masonry has been practiced for so long, and has been developed as an art for so long, it has already been rather fully developed.  As such, there appears to be little room for improvement or innovation.  This may seem trivial or obvious, yet I believe it is worth stating.

The notion that masonry has been fully developed over several thousand years and cannot be substantially improved upon is strengthened by the contemporary practice of masonry research.  Contemporary masonry research is primarily involved with the analysis of Romanesque, gothic, medieval and other ancient masonry structures.  Most notable masonry engineers have spent their careers looking back at some of the great architecture of humanity’s past accomplishments to gain a more complete understanding of the engineering involved.  For example, Jacques Heyman has done extensive analysis of masonry architecture in several books such as The Stone Skeleton (Structural Engineering of Masonry Architecture)  Cambridge University Press, 1995.  Mr. Heyman has a long list of such publications, each of which looks at explaining the engineering involved in old masonry structures.  Current masonry engineering work has a real focus on the past.

Another factor in explaining the lack of innovation brought to masonry is the mistaken notion that old ideas re-discovered and re-introduced are in fact new.  One example of this is the thin-shelled catalan arches originally developed in Europe (especially Valencia, Spain) in the 14^th century.  This type of masonry was re-introduced as a “new” type of construction in the US by Raphael Guastavino in the 19^th century in the US.  More recently, similar work is being done by people at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; it is also being touted as “new” but it remains essentially unchanged since the 14^th century.  MIT’s work on catalan arches is essentially derivative of much earlier work.  This phenomenon is close to #8 on the list which began this blog, as described by C.T. Grimm.

Finally, there is a curious and fascinating observation made by Frank J. Sulloway in his watershed book Born to Rebel  (Vintage Books, 1997; New York Times “notable book of the year”).  “Sulloway's most important finding is that eldest children identify with parents and authority, and support for the status quo, whereas younger children rebel against it. Drawing on the work of Darwin and the new science of evolutionary psychology, he transforms our understanding of personality development and its origins in the family.”  Sulloway describes how virtually all truly innovative ideas are the product of a last-born or later-born child, and explains this as a means to gain their parent’s attention.  It is essentially a Darwinian survival mechanism.  Conversely, first-borns are much more conservative and tend to end up in positions of power and authority.  These factors combine to create a scenario wherein a last-born innovator is presenting an innovative idea to a CEO or president or other authority who is typically a first-born conservative thinker.  While this idea may appear esoteric and irrelevant at first, I believe it has real merit.

Where do I see myself and my innovations in masonry?  I am a last-born child (youngest of four).   Are my ideas real innovations?  I believe they are; others do too.  I have had several US patents awarded for my ideas.  They were also identified as a “Cutting Edge Technology” by the American Concrete Institute.  Finally, there is no other masonry system like the one which I have developed.  How can this be?  I do not imagine myself some sort of unique genius.  I think I have been fortunate to have investigated ground which others have not.  Part of this is due to the fact that geodesic geometry was most recently developed by R. Buckminster Fuller (first developed by the ancient Greeks).  It was my good fortune that Fuller assigned great value to how much a building weighed (as I have discussed several times earlier on this blog).  This aspect of Fuller’s thinking was closely held by his followers, which meant that masonry was never considered as a suitable construction material; it was always thought to be too heavy.  His bias against massive material such as masonry left a niche for me to investigate and develop as I have.  My experience as a ceramic artist and mold maker provided me with the insight and awareness of mold releases, undercuts and interlocking features.  My education in geology and fault mechanisms opened my eyes to conjugate shearing.  Through focus and hard work I brought these things together in an innovative masonry design.

Is there room for real innovation in masonry today?  I think there is!