Scott Perkins

About 25 years ago Monolithic domes  were made with  huge concrete male and female forms into which
concrete was poured much like foundation walls.    I guess they found the shotcrete method on inflatable forms much easier but the old method produced unbelievably strong structures... so much that their advertisement showed parking bulldozers on the roof of them.  I have an old original brochure somewhere that I saved because I was so impressed.   I hope I can find it.

Here are examples of what I see as essentially an Improved AFRAME  design.  Starting with a coat of paint on the metal panels and every 15 years thereafter,  I think the building will last forever.  Its possible with some of the new metal panel coverings that you might get 50 years with zero additional paint.  But a coat of paint is so easy, why not ?

I believe the ARCH is fantastic but the VAULT may possibly have some advantages in the difficulty and total cost of materials.  In other words some, of the benefits of AFRAME housing but improved.  This is what I am planning on for myself.

There is no benefit to arguing about Surfside Condos.   It is known all over Florida that many buildings build like Surfside and occupants are being bankrupted by the cost to repair ( destroy and rebuild)  All coastal areas especially around the world in salty environments and all the bridges etc.   Which is cheaper, better and most long lasting... stainless steel or composite rebar to prevent corrosion?  What about degradation of concrete?   If they use the same mix with admixtures that is used for pouring gigantic tanks for water treatment plants, the concrete is like plastic keeping everything away from internal reinforcing.   If the rebar doesnt corrode and the concrete which is stronger and doesnt degrade even submerged in salt water you have basically a permante or 1000 year building.   I'm not expert on anything but I have read that Romans had many recipes and one also used Volcanic ash and other weird stuff to make concrete structures that are submerged in Ocean Water for 1000 years.  If you can double triple or more the life of a structure than the extra cost can be justified.    Lets talk about engineering and bad construction practices.  No matter how bad, if a structure stands at all when finished,  it is "good enough"  to stand.   If nothing ever deteriorates then it will continue to stand.    In that way  admixtures could have helped immensely at Surfside.   But its the whole package being looked at.  How bout galvanized rebar ?   How about fiberglass fiber as reinforcement mixed in?   Its always been right in front of us in the portland cement that shower and swimming pool builders use.   Much stronger and water proof.   Driveways are another excellent example of where contractors use cheap concrete  and they break up in 6  to 10 years.   I dont have an axe to grind because when I do research I am finding tons of new info and experiments taking place in commercial and university environments.  Also very intersting are the guys building super strong and waterproof concrete kitchen countertops.   I think I read that the cost of the Surfside Collapse is now over a billion dollars with all the insurance company payments  etc.    That kind of money if known ahead of time would justify stainless steel reinforcement or carbon,  and some super strong water proof concrete etc.  The problem Surfside is just the tip of the iceberg .  Now that we know,  how will we build in the future ?

Some might consider this to be somewhat related,   I mix cheap because of wrong mis tint of custom color
latex paint from HomeDepot   and mix with portland cement  to create a flexible but tough covering over aging roofs where the shingles are degraded on  small utility sheds and other out buildings.  Before  I add enough water to make it paintable it seems a little like plastic if you wanted to trowell it on  or use it a mortar etc.
Think about the possibilities.  

This all leads back to my focus on admixtures in concrete that make it waterproof and impermeable to salt and other corrosive elements which then would also preserve the rebar from corroding.  I mentioned Surfside Condo as  at least a major catalyst in my awareness of the short lifespans of present day concrete.  Not only that but some admixtures massively increase the strength.  I dare say that if Surfside Condos were built with concrete modified with a few million dollars of the optimum admixtures ....  the Condos would still be standing today
and maybe for another 20 , 40, or 100 years.   Lets face it, if there is no degradation of material properties then why should it ever come down ?       I am saying that we at Permies can piggy back on this relatively new technology just as the bridge builders are doing.

For me, the collapse of the Surfside Condo in Miami, FL started an industry wide focus on the susceptibility and degradation in moisture rich and salt laden environments of our modern concrete.  Contrast this with some of the Roman structures that have survived hundreds of  years and there is now a big focus on concrete admixtures that increase the strength, create some self repairability, and make it completely impermeable and waterproof such that there should be zero degradation over time.   The major problem that is causing concern is the sometimes 25 to 35 year lifespan for major hi-rise and commercial buildings... same as smaller residential structures.    The government  has already studied and determined almost that any expense is worth building bridges that dont collapse with age.   I personally have been adding the "latex" admixtures that tile layers use for their portland cement when they make shower walls and floors ....  to my concrete mortar mix when I make outside steps and porches  with bricks.    I also have found  cheap mis colored Home Depot paint mixed with  Portland cement and painted on top of some old outbuilding asphalt roofs to be life extending ( so far for 14 years )    The point is that there is a big science right now in admixtures being added to cement to dramatically increase the lifespan and or strength and or water proofing etc.   Think about the shot crete walls of swimming pools?   Why cant we have that kind of waterproofing in foundations ?    I dont think a homeowner should ever be told that their house is now depreciating instead of appreciating because   cheap building components.   What do you think ?

I'd like to take some ques from Eskimos who also appear to build with dry stack blocks.   I've seen some molded concrete blocks that seemingly interconnect and-or overlap a bit to build retaining walls  and wonder if we couldnt produce a form for geometrical blocks to build either domes or probably better... Vaults.
IF circular or spherical structures are not acceptable then I want to focus on the significant benefits of grooves and tongues that can be molded in concrete blocks that can significantly enhance strength and if engineered can reduce material usage because of the strength.  ( In cases where a structure is calculated to produce a certain amt of strength.... less materials would be required.)    Whenever I cur oranges or grapefruits in half I think of the sections as suitable shapes for dome components... same as when I see soccer balls.  I look at the geometry of the hexagons and pentagons.