Feedback please: Filling drywalled partition with concrete...

Unless this is a load bearing wall underneath, the design loading

Reply to
Duane Bozarth
Loading thread data ...

...an off-the-wall plan for sound-deadening...

Might be as simple and practical to build a vacuum chamber between the two rooms...

Reply to
Duane Bozarth

A well written reply.

Reply to
Ralph Hertle
[clip]

Too much work. Just use GWB.

I was referring to the excess material hardening where ever it splashes, and I should have added that the initial pour could leak onto the floor adjacent or the the ceiling and walls below. The concrete handling is messier than the GWB and would take more labor.

The GWB will immediately soak up water from the concrete. Possibly 25-50% of weight in water added to the GWB.

Read "Walls & Ceilings" magazine for the phone numbers of the GWB makers. That's an excellent technical pro-free enterprise publication, and its free to the trade. Try online for advertiser's phone numbers.

The mass is what governs. There may be something additional said for the modulus of elasticity and rigidity of a material, but higher would mean more efficient transmission at the higher frequencies.

PSF is a bad idea. Again its a lot less work to simply apply layers of GWB.

More power.

You don't want to run out of working time for the time to mix, handle, place, and clean up.

Times the several bays.

Calculate the amount of material on hand and needed. Would GWB cost less than the additional concrete required?

Fine.

Lightweight concrete materials would be used in the floor slabs of high rise buildings. They would probably supply it in the pumped in mix. Check with those suppliers for materials or mfrs. They also use gypsum additives along with the Portland cement.

The GWB will uptake a lot of water before the concrete cures. Not all the water goes into combination with the cement, and would dry out later through the GWB. The excess water needs to be removed and the materials dried out prior to painting.

That's a valid concept to limit higher frequency transmissions - it lowers the rigidity of the wall; but its necessary to also have a high mass.

plus 1/8" thick lead sheeting

That would work OK, but GWB is a lot less expensive per unit mass.

Is the building structure below sufficient to support the additional weight, e.g., no archways, or too weak 28 ga. metal framing?

GWB.

Ralph Hertle

Reply to
Ralph Hertle

Before you begin this, have you throughly analyzed the load-bearing capacity of the supporting structure? The weight you're talking about will far exceed any normal design loads. While immediate failure not be the result, certainly long term the result is most likely going to be ugly, expensive, and perhaps dangerous.

Besides, how are you going to abate the direct transmission path, anyway? You've never described the noise source (and I I've read each of your posts) so I'm still not convinced it would actually solve the problem, anyway.

Reply to
Duane Bozarth

Plus, this is a concentrated load...

Reply to
Duane Bozarth

I understand that in the real joint, they have a form of credit card for "in (the big) house" use.

Jim

Reply to
lazenby

notwithstanding)?

To the contrary, Guest . . .

. . . I'm sure your problem is serious. In fact it is a common problem. That's sorta the point I was making: without the many, many responses that went well outside of being serious, there would not be much of this thread remaining. Your trial balloon, however, did prompt some of those less than sincere responses. It was the balloon, Guest, not the problem. And, to you, I'm sure the balloon was serious as well, being a measure to illustrate your complete frustration.

Take some comfort in being with lots of company. Many have tried solutions beyond your or my immaginations. Some may have even worked, but there is such a thing as economic feasibility.

Anyway, thanks for providing some fodder.

Jim>

Reply to
lazenby

Okay, got ya clear this time.

Well my hesitancy with the idea of relying on additional GWB alone stems from personal experience living in basement suite where two layers of 5/8" GWB were installed on the ceiling and all walls. I recall helping my brother -an experienced drywaller by trade, in those days- with the renovation. The result on sound transmission was that there was some muting or dulling of sounds from the people upstairs (i.e. my brother and his family) and between adjacent rooms. But the people who lived in the basement (which included myself for a couple of years) were very frequently annoyed by noise emanating from loud human activity upstairs and/or elsewhere in the house.

The framing is wood. There are no archways, but the weight of the partition rests entirely on the suspended plywood floor. (I.e. there is no supporting or load-bearing wall directly underneath.) I do not know whether the partition rests directly over a joist, or between joists, though. But if the floor was built to standard, I see no reason to believe it could not easily support the additional 160 to 320 lbs. of the lead. (1/8" lead sheeting weighs 2 lb./sq. ft. The wall area is 8' x 10' (approx) = 80 sq. ft.; 80 sq. ft. x 2 lb./sq. ft. = 160 lb.; Double that for the 1/4" lead =

320 lb.) Afterall, our livingroom/dining area floor supports two pianos; one upright and one grand. And these have got to be hundreds of pounds each (not to mention that all of each piano's weight is being _concentrated_ at its 4 small wheels [to be exact, only 3 small wheels on the grand]).

Guest987

Reply to
guest987

I now have a clearer understanding of the challenges inherent with the concrete infill idea and how, rather than it being an 'as simple as it is crude' down-n-dirty-quick remedy that I had first assumed, it would in fact be a complicated, risk laden adventure at best. I definitely will NOT be trying it.

Guest

Reply to
guest987

When they transferred me to the military brig in Charleston, SC, they took all monies, cards, etc... They created me an account that I could use at the commissary to buy smokes (I don't smoke though), clothing, etc... Since it was the military, we had our names sewn on our cami's, so any other "cards" or identification wasn't necessary. They might issue cards in a civilian camp. All military brigs, except Leavenworth, are country clubs for "bad" military personnel. If there would've been a tennis court there, I'm sure they would've made us pay rent.

Reply to
John

"lazenby" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@gbronline.com...

[...]

Okay. I misread your post.

Exactly! Though this is indeed MY house and should be able to tell it's occupants to not be noisy, I co-own it (and due to recent circumstances, now share it) with a previously estranged family member and her difficult 20 year old son (who thinks HE owns the place) who's 'condo', er bedroom, is right next to my quarters...

Well it was, in fact, short-term economics that inspired me to think of it. My original plan was to use 1/8" thick lead sheeting (cheaper and 2x heavier than other, non-lead, mass loaded sheet products sold this purpose, but still costly) along with lots of drywall (and liberal use of silicone), plus decoupling measures (e.g. staggered-stud frame and/or resilient channel, etc.), plus possibly either sprayed cellulose or Homosote board inside the wall spaces. But my financial situation suddenly changed and I faced the disappointing realization that I could not immediately afford even the lead sheeting, which alone (covered by a layer of drywall) might afford some immediate noise relief. In the meantime, more holes were being punched through the drywall on my nephews side of the wall. (He does this whenever he has an argument with his girlfrind, which is quite often.) So then, in my dreams (that is, between sleep interruptions) I had fantasies of having a wall composed of a solid mass of depleted uranium or U-238, a metal harder than steel with a mass density greater than lead (used by the military to form the super strong armor-plating on the remarkable Abrams M-1 tank, among other uses). When I awoke I thought to myself, "Crazy dreams. U-238! Ha, ha, ha, ha... I don't even have access to 'civilian grade' lead sheeting right now. Oh but just a minute! Come to think of it, I do have these bags of cement in my garage. I wonder ..."

You're welcome, Guest987

Reply to
guest987

After we define the problem, we use this development tool to come up with a solution:

formatting link

Reply to
Buck Turgidson

Guest987 here (using a computer at work). What does "UF" refer to? When you say, remove the romex "before it degrades", are you saying that something in the romex insulation will chemically react with the PVC of the conduit? Where you continue, "before it degrades--which it will as there will be water accumulated in the conduit", I'm not clear what you mean. Do you mean "water accumulated" from internal condensation somehow, or leakage due to PVC breakdown of the PVC moisture barrier?

Not sure what you mean by "the whole run". I used conduit the entire length of wiring that is underground. But not inside the building, if that's what you meant.

Guest987

Reply to
Attendant

Guest987 here (using a computer at work). What does "UF" refer to? When you say, remove the romex "before it degrades", are you saying that something in the romex insulation will chemically react with the PVC of the conduit? Where you continue, "before it degrades--which it will as there will be water accumulated in the conduit", I'm not clear what you mean. Do you mean "water accumulated" from internal condensation somehow, or leakage due to PVC breakdown of the PVC moisture barrier?

Not sure what you mean by "the whole run". I used conduit the entire length of wiring that is underground. But not inside the building, if that's what you meant.

Guest987

Reply to
Attendant

Always good to get this poop straight from the legit source. I'll bet you have one helluva resume'.

Jim

Reply to
lazenby

Actually, that's what the good thing about being in the military clink. My resume states USAF 4 years. My records are sealed, so no worry of a potential employer finding out.

Reply to
John

Had to look this acronym up. (It was not UF romex.)

Two questions: (1) Water will degrade the PVC sheath of the romex? (2) Why should we expect water to accumulate in the conduit though? The fittings between lengths, junction boxes, elbows, etc were all carefully cemented (and ostensibly, thereby sealed) with solvent type PVC cement. Or are you taking about water due to condensation? (Or, again, maybe you're anticipating water content of the lubricant I used?)

I do not understand this last statement.

Thanks,

Guest987

Reply to
guest987

...

Despite your best attempts, there virtually surely will be a leak and water will find a way in. Only underground-rated cable should be used in an underground run despite the conduit. Normally (unless there is an access tunnel in an industrial site, for example) conduit is used to protect the cable from the above ground junction to the required depth then the cable is laid in a trench. A protective barrier is sometimes used over the cable, but not normally full run buried conduit. It's not an immediate danger, but eventually it is virtually certain to get water...

Danger, fogey story... :)

Used to work w/ online coal analyzers at mines, prep plants, etc. Had location at mine in KY where they pulled the high voltage signal power cable (2.4kV) and had to go from the control shack where the electronics/computer were housed across a truck crossing to the analyzer mounted on the beltline. That installation was the mine's responsibility, wasn't around when they did it. Installed the unit, brought it up, calibrated it, watched for a few hours, went home...two weeks later, get call...it's not operating. Drive up, discover HV cable shorted. Hood up the spare (we did require a spare be pulled in the specs), it worked, calibrated, watched, went home. Within six months second failed...turned out they had buried the cables in conduit and it filled w/ water. HV instrumentation cable isn't designed for water immersion and water also got inside the insulation. Didn't help they had pulled the cable through the conduit by hooking it to a front end loader when they couldn't pull it by hand :(, but that was secondary...

Reply to
Duane Bozarth

I see. So conduit was never meant to be a substitute for rubber-sheathed underground-rated cable in the first place. And here people were conveying to me that rubber-sheathed underground-cable was something new in that it didn't require conduit underground! So I chose conduit thinking that was the 'tried-and-proven' standard method of laying underground cable. I now see I got it wrong. Well, the cable hasn't been tied in to the power yet (decided to wait until I can get the cash to hire a licensed electrician for the inside-of-house wiring --mainly for insurance reasons). Guess I'll be pulling out all the romex (as well as the single-strand-wires) from the conduit and replacing with underground-rated cable then. I have junction boxes underground too where power gets split to serve two separate destinations. (The rubber-sealed junction box covers, I had reinforced with silicone sealant --but come to think of it, silicone does in time lose some of its effectiveness), Guess I'll have to modify the cable layout scheme, in order to serve all of the separate power destinations, without those junctions...

They pulled with wire through with a front loader?! LOL! Now that's a case of applying too much 'brawn', as it were, and not enough brain. Why didn't they just use an approved lubricant and avoid stretching (if not the risk of breaking) the cable? (Don't try to answer. I'm sure you wondered the same thing.)

Thanks,

Guest987

Reply to
guest987

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.