Patent Application
20210102376
This invention applies to the field of masonry tall wall construction and energy efficiency thereof.
Concrete block walls are an essential form of construction globally. Insulating concrete block walls is a must for energy efficiency, health, safety, welfare, and comfort. Utilization of large blocks of twelve-inch depths or greater (or width in masonry terms) is a requirement for tall walls (above eighteen feet) or for walls having higher weight loads and large spans. A simplified and improved way of insulating cementitious building blocks for constructing walls that allows for the use of a variety of insulation integral to the body of the block is therefore a must. The tall wall insulatable cementitious building block is designed to receive preformed insulating inserts and or be easily filled with insulating liquid expandable foam. The spaces for the inserts and or foam are predetermined openings within the block and may be filled during the time of construction with preformed inserts or after construction with the liquid expandable foam. The blocks are designed to be flexible as far as the types of insulation used (preformed or liquid expandable), they are easier to install than previous designs due to their lighter weight, they allow more space for a greater number and size of horizontal steel reinforcement (rebar), and they allow more space for easy installation of electrical conduit or plumbing without having to cut the block.
By providing a large preformed substantially rectangular building block for constructing tall walls that may be insulated with the use of either preformed inserts that are placed within the cores of the block during construction or may be filled with liquid expandable foam insulation after construction.
By reducing some of the cementitious material in the building block, it has larger openings than its predecessors which allows for more insulation as well as more types of insulation.
The reduction of cementitious material in the building block causes the block to weigh significantly less and make it easier for the mason(s) to construct walls with less fatigue and less injury.
The same reduction in cementitious material of the building block allows for the acceptance of greater size and amounts of horizontal reinforcement bars (rebar) for greater structural stability. Lastly, the open space within the block allows for easier routing of electrical conduit and plumbing pipes without cutting block.
Building blocks made of cementitious, concrete, and moldable materials are widely used for building walls. Pre-formed and pre-molded cementitious concrete blocks are manufactured in block making machines with block making molds. Cementitious concrete blocks are stacked in vertical layers either directly one on top of the other or in a running course where the end of one block is aligned with the middle portion of a block above and or below. Blocks that are cementitious can be bound together, horizontally and vertically, with mortar and further supported by steel reinforcement rebar and grout. The mortar (a cementitious blend of materials) acts as a bond, or “glue like” material between the blocks, and bonds the blocks together to form a completed wall. The most common pre-formed block used for constructing walls has been identified as the nominal eight by eight by sixteen inches (8×8×16″) CMU (Cementitious/Concrete Masonry Unit). The second most common pre-formed block manufactured is used for tall walls or walls with very heavy loads and wide spans. That block is the nominal twelve by eight by sixteen inches cementitious masonry unit (12×8×16″ CMU).
According to research by the NCMA, seventy two percent of concrete blocks manufactured by concrete block manufacturers in the United States is 8×8×16″ blocks. Roughly twenty percent of the concrete blocks made in the United States are 12×8×16″ blocks. These blocks are not truly twelve inches by eight inches by sixteen inches. They are referred to as “twelve-inch” blocks as they are eleven and five eighths by seven and five eighths by fifteen and five eighths inches in dimension.
The design of the standard CMU is such that there are two face shells (inside and outside of building) that are bound together by three cross webs that are the same height as the face shells and form air cavities which allow for a lighter weight block as opposed to heavier solid block. The CMU structure allows a laborer/mason to lay the block by grasping it at its central cross web as necessary for lifting and positioning.
The three cross webs are part of the total added weight of a CMU and create a barrier, and therefore must be cut, to install horizontal reinforcement rebar. They must also be cut to allow for an uninterrupted run of electrical conduit and plumbing piping.
With a heat transmission thermal Resistance Value of 2 to 2.5, the block alone offers little in terms of insulation from heat or cold and does very little for energy usage or costs. The three cross webs of CMU create “thermal bridges” for heat to conduct into, or out of, a building. These are direct thermal bridges thus heat may bypass any insulation in the cores and the direct thermal path also reduces the thermal lag time (time is takes for heat to move into or out of a wall/building).
Therefore, while CMU construction has tremendous value, it is an unacceptable method of constructing environmentally controlled buildings without the additional use of insulating materials. Almost every US jurisdiction has minimal thermal performance requirements for construction. These requirements, whether in warm or cool climates, add to the cost and use of labor and materials to achieve the desired or regulated thermal performance levels.
There are methods of insulating standard CMU with preformed foam inserts and liquid expandable foam. However, the direct cross webs between the face shells allow for a direct thermal bridge to bypass the insulation in the cores of standard CMU making the insulations' contribution to the energy performance (insulating value) minimal at best.
Concrete blocks with six offset cross webs connecting to and divided by two middle lineal walls elongate the thermal path. Increasing the thermal path increases the thermal lag time. Increasing the thermal lag time makes these blocks more energy efficient.
These blocks have tall middle lineal walls that are the same height as the face shells thereby adding cementitious material to the blocks which occupies interior space. The full height middle lineal walls reduce the interior space of the blocks so that there is not enough space for the required amount of rebar and grout to meet the building codes of most jurisdictions for use as a bond beam block.
The tall middle lineal walls add significantly more cementitious material to the blocks making them much heavier than standard CMU. The weight of concrete blocks affects the installers' performance. A mason typically installs CMU. A hardy mason may lay up to 150 medium weight twelve-inch CMU per day and 200 lightweight twelve-inch CMU per day. Thus, the weight of the block directly affects the performance of the mason, how quickly the mason may fatigue, and ultimately the cost and time it takes to construct a wall or recover from fatigue and or injury. However, many cities with union masonry labor forces will not allow masons to lift and lay a block that weighs more than forty to fifty pounds by themselves. When the four wall assembly blocks are made with dense mix designs, the blocks can weigh upwards of eighty-two pounds. This is extremely difficult for mason to lift on his own. In many jurisdictions the municipality or union will require two masons to lift such a block. These very heavy blocks significantly reduce productivity and increase costs, delays, and injuries.
For the above reasons, the construction industry is continually challenged with the prevention of injury and fatigue as well as productivity and managing the cost of utilizing skilled labor. This has become a world where people are moving towards clean high-tech jobs and away from fatiguing, injurious, heavyweight labor jobs. These days, for every six to eight masons that retire, only one new one comes into the industry. There is a serious need and demand to have lighter weight construction materials that can handle heavier weight loads of taller and larger walls while being easier to install.
This invention improves upon the concrete blocks that have six offset cross webs connecting to and dividing two side walls with two middle lineal walls. This invention lowers the height of the middle lineal walls to that of the already constricted cross-webs. By lowering the height of the middle lineal walls, we immediately see a significant reduction in material enlarging the space between face shells 1 and 4 which lowers the weight of the blocks significantly.
This increased space allows for more insulating material to fill the void and give a higher performance in energy efficiency. It also allows for a variety of insulating materials to be used when previously, the blocks with the full height middle lineal walls were limited to specific foam inserts provided by one company. The flexibility and allowance of other insulating materials to fill the void opens the market to more competition and more participants in the economy.
The full height middle lineal walls prevent an even flow, if any flow at all, of liquid expandable foam into all the void spaces. By reducing the height of the middle lineal walls, we allow for the free flow of the liquid expandable foam to fill of the voids with ease and certainty. Here again, by improving on a product that has been in the market for at least 50 years, we allow for a greater variety of foam insulation to be used with the product than previously allowed.
Improving upon the invention of the concrete blocks that have six offset cross webs connecting to and divided by two middle lineal walls, by lowering the middle lineal walls removes a significant amount of material thereby making the units much lighter and easier to manage. They actually become lighted than the standard 3 web assembly large twelve-inch blocks.
Knowing that a hardy mason may lay more lightweight CMU per day then medium weight or even normal (heavy) weight CMU, improving upon the prior art by removing material and weight will lead to greater productivity. Since the weight of the block directly affects the performance and productivity of the mason, how quickly the mason may fatigue, and ultimately the cost and time it takes to construct a wall or recover from fatigue and or injury, we can be assured that making the blocks lighter and easier to lift will increase the mason's performance, reduce the mason's injuries, and ultimately make the construction more cost effective.
Improving upon the invention of the concrete blocks that have six offset cross webs connecting to and divided by two middle lineal walls by lowering the middle lineal wall removes a significant amount of material and opens the void space more than enough to accept horizontal rebar and grout to form a structural bond beam block that meets and exceeds all building codes for bond beams and bond beam blocks. This makes construction much easier as there will be no need for a change in materials or systems mid wall while meeting and exceeding building code requirements.
An additional result of improving on prior art by reducing the height of the middle lineal walls of these blocks, is the allowance of electrical conduit to make turns and run perpendicular to the block without having to cut the blocks. The improvement reduces waste and additional labor associated with cutting concrete blocks.
There was a need for the improvement of the prior art as the prior art has been in the marketplace for over fifty years with masons complaining about the weight of the blocks, masons and general contractors wanting to use other types of insulation—specifically liquid expandable foam—without success, masons having to change blocks to make bond beam blocks, and masons having to cut the middle lineal wall whenever they wanted to run an electrical conduit from interior to exterior or vice versa.
Throughout the years, a multitude of products have been designed to counter the effects of the direct cross-web transmission of heat into and out of buildings. However, none have sought to make further improvements of the six cross-web assembly that has a middle lineal wall dividing said cross-webs, which has improved upon the problem of direct cross-web heat transmission.
To enhance standard CMU's thermal performance and make up for its flawed cross-web components, certain insulating products are focused on reducing or delaying the conduction of heat into or out of a building depending upon the season and or climate zone. These insulators have a dual function of maintaining the internal temperature as constant as possible, which is necessary to maintain comfort within the rooms of the building. They minimize heat transfer and subsequent energy loss and energy costs.
To replace standard CMU, due to its flawed cross web components, as well as reduce the cost of labor and materials needed to insulate standard CMU, many have sought blocks of greater thermal performance. In so doing, several types of insulating cementitious building blocks have been introduced into the marketplace. Some of these building blocks combine plastic or foam like dividers sandwiched between two cementitious parts and are referred to as composite blocks. The focus of these types of building blocks is strictly thermal performance. Most of these building blocks are not economical or cost effective in the short run as they add to the up-front cost of a build. Some of the insulated building blocks will give the end user a long-term return on investment if they use the building for a long and undetermined period.
To create an insulated building block, it is necessary that the insulation is surrounded by concrete while having either no thermal bridge at all, or at least a disrupted and reduced thermal bridge to be effective. Insulation inserts ordinarily pressed into the cavities of standard CMU do little to add insulation and do not either eliminate or disrupt the thermal bridge. Pre-insulated blocks tend not to be cost effective. The manufacturer is often required to manufacture two different block molds for the block's components, as well as additional labor costs to manufacture and assemble the units having at least two concrete components interconnected with plastic foam inserts. These blocks are assembled manually at the block plant after production of the components whereas a standard CMU is a singular unit, complete after use of one mold and curing.
After production, and during transportation of many pre-insulated block, the insulation insert is often displaced from within the block. Upon delivery if it is not positioned flush to the surface of the block, it is difficult for the mason to stage and stack the pre-insulated block. Many of the pre-insulated blocks are also of irregular or large dimension. The irregular dimension makes it challenging for masons to construct in the manners with which they are accustomed and limits both the types of buildings with which such blocks can be used and restricts these blocks from their use with standard CMU in the same project.
Composite insulated building block structures have been devised for two-stage construction. First, the blocks are laid using conventional block and mortar structure, but where the blocks have some open overlapping cells. Then a second step involves the subsequent insertion of insulating cores into the voids between the cross webs of the block. The U.S. patent to Perreton U.S. Pat. No. 3,204,381 September 1965, discloses such a structure. The insulation inserts of Perreton, however, are designed to extend above the upper surface of the blocks for the purpose of establishing a mortar space between adjacent courses. Also, there is no provision for accommodating mortar excess, which occurs during the construction of a wall using the blocks. As a result, insertion of the insulation inserts may damage or destroy the integrity of the mortar, resulting in an unacceptable construction.
Another patent using insulation inserts in an otherwise conventional block structure is the U.S. patent to Jensen U.S. Pat. No. 4,193,241 March 1980. Inserts in the Jensen system are placed in the hollow spaces between the webs of the block. These inserts are designed to extend above the upper surface of the block for the purpose of establishing a mortar space between adjacent courses. A problem which exists in both the Perreton and Jensen patents, using inserts which extend above the upper surface of the block itself, is that the inserts interfere with the application of and adjustability of the mortar joint between adjacent courses of blocks. They also require the mason to employ techniques in applying the mortar which differ from those which normally are used with standard concrete blocks not employing such inserts.
The U.S. patent to Johnson U.S. Pat. No. 4,748,782 discloses a variation of the Perreton block which employs overlapping open cells designed for use with insulating foam inserts to provide a self-aligning, self-leveling dry-stack (without mortar) construction. Since no mortar is employed in the block configurations of a wall built in conjunction with the blocks of the Johnson patent U.S. Pat. No. 4,748,782, uniform and accurate block sizing is critically important. Concrete masonry blocks currently are manufactured almost exclusively by automated heavy equipment, which rapidly produces the blocks. Because the concrete and aggregate employed in molding such blocks are highly abrasive, the precisely engineered, high stress metal molds wear rapidly. This causes the dimension of the block produced by the molds to vary as the mold ages. The blocks grow in length and thickness; and the core cells increase in size. As a result, the maintenance of a constant height becomes increasingly more difficult the longer the mold is employed in manufacturing.
Many prior attempts have been made to alleviate the problems associated with insulating building blocks for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,185,434 (Jones) the building block is formed from two block parts, one including the front wall of the block and one including the rear wall of the block. These two parts are maintained spaced apart by a layer of insulating material. There are internal “A” and smaller end cavities “B” in Jones' invention that are positioned so that when a plurality of blocks are placed in juxtaposition with each other to form a wall, the overall dimensions of adjacent cavities B are about the same as the dimensions of the cavities A. The cavities, corners and sections 4 and 5 all have squared or linear configurations which could cause the easy fracturing of the cementitious block when a strain is exerted thereon. Also, Jones' block does not have the appearance or feel of a conventional block and could present an unaccustomed structure for the mason to work with. In addition, main sections 4 and 5 are approximately the same size which could prevent obtaining maximum insulation properties.
An early attempt to increase energy efficiency by modifying the configuration of the blocks can be seen in U.S. Pat. No. 2,852,934 by Amundson. Here the block has two face shells and a middle lineal wall being held together by offset cross-webs. With full height cross-webs and full height middle lineal wall, there is substantially more concrete used to form the block making it much heavier than standard CMU. While the added mass may have increased the thermal lag time it also increased the installation time due to the increased weight and subsequent fatigue of the installers. Furthermore, Amundson did not provide us with a solution to tall walls with a larger block.
In Schmid, U.S. Pat. No. 4,551,959, an insulating building block is described having two spaced supportive parts separated from one another by an insulating material. The block of Schmid is substantially solid with no griping holes or means for the mason or builder to work with when lifting and placing the block in position.
In Larson, U.S. Pat. No. 4,856,248, a building element or block is described having linear sections of varied densities. All sections of Larson are squared or have a linear configuration which could cause easy fracturing of portions of the block. Also, there are no core holes in Larson's structure which would make it difficult for the mason to lift or place the blocks in position.
In U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,986,049 and 5,066,440 (Kennedy et al) a building block is described having main sections that interlocked by T-shaped structures. The main sections are approximately equal in size and do not provide any griping holes therein. The insulating portion has thumb holes which are intended to facilitate lifting of the blocks. These thumb holes are dangerous to the mason's thumbs and are an undesirable lifting point. Conventional CMU have substantially large cavities divided by cross webs which workers are accustomed to gripping with room for their entire hand.
In U.S. Pat. No. 5,321,926 (Kennedy et al) an attempt to improve a building block is described with conventional large core holes, in addition to facilitating lifting, the holes also provide convenient conduits for accommodating wiring and providing an opening or openings for re-bar that are used to reinforce walls. However, because the twelve-inch version of this block is extremely heavy and cumbersome, it always requires to masons to lift and place this block. The average weight of such a block is over seventy pounds. This is extremely cumbersome to masons and limits production. Blocks of this size and weight require two masons especially on union labor jobs. In addition, when a mason builds a wall with a building block with two core grout holes the mason must lift every block over the re-bar during construction of the wall risking the block disassembling in the process. This is a dangerous, tiresome, and difficult task.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,593,480, Bouchillon demonstrates a block that has an outer appearance that is like an ordinary concrete block. The block is a plastic shell that has cavities that are filled with concrete. The block also has open areas that can be either dead air space or can be filled with insulating material. The problem with these blocks is that they must be filled with concrete, and the concrete must be cured, before they can be set into place. Once filled, these blocks become heavy and are difficult to work with.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,380,887 by Lee demonstrates a concrete block that is made with special slots that allow foam insulation panels to be inserted into the slots. The idea is to break up the thermal conductivity through the block webs. Although this design is an improvement, it still requires a full-size block. A twelve-inch version of this block would be extraordinary. Moreover, the insulating panels are designed to be inserted from both the top and the bottom of the block. This complicates the insulating process making it more difficult to insulate in the field than if a mason only had to add the insulation from the top. If the insulation is installed during manufacturing at the block plant, then it adds significantly to the cost of the block, makes it more difficult to ship, and is cumbersome to handle in the field at the time of installation.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,745,720 to Taylor shows a concrete block that is cut in two lengthwise. The split block is then reassembled with a special insulating channel in the center. Special clips are provided to secure the insulation within the block. Again, this non-standard method of assembling the block prior to construction of the wall adds to the cost of construction, confusion and error of masons, and risk of damaged materials/walls.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,209,037 and 5,321,926 (Kennedy et al) offer concrete blocks that have complex curves formed in them to receive insulation. Although these blocks provide improved insulating capabilities, the complex curved puzzle piece design increases costs of manufacturing and provides minimal hand holds for block placement. This makes construction much more difficult and slower. These blocks usually require two masons which drives up cost. Since the pieces are held together by their puzzle piece shape, they do not have approval for use in high wind load area as like South Florida.
The patent to Iannarelli, U.S. Pat. No. 4,348,845, shows a thermally insulated masonry block. This is a two-part composite insulated masonry building block assembled at the site of manufacturing which drives up the cost of the product. For the most part these have the same three web assembly configuration of a regular concrete blocks. The three cross webs remain as thermal bridges and are as energy inefficient as a standard CMU.
In U.S. Pat. No. 6,513,293 to Miller, an improvement on the design of U.S. Pat. No. 2,852,934 by Amundson, one sees a preformed building block of the same configuration with the modification being that of reduced height cross-webs only. This change accommodated slightly larger insulating inserts while decreasing the weight only minimally. Keeping the full height middle lineal wall(s) did not allow for the use of liquid expandable foam post construction and always required the installation of specific preformed inserts during construction. The presence of the full height middle lineal wall reduced the space available within the block cavity thereby preventing the block from being used as a one course bond beam block that met the code. Additionally, if a mason had to have a perpendicular path to run electrical conduit or plumbing, then the middle lineal wall must be cut adding to the labor, costs, and waste on the job site.
Many new building block designs have been created to address one or two issues associated with the energy efficiency of masonry or the lack thereof. However, none of these blocks address the issues of heat loss or gain while providing blocks for tall walls that may be insulated with more than one form of integral insulation, reduce the weight of the blocks, or create an internal space within the block so that an installer (mason) did not have to cut the block to make a bond beam block or install ninety degree elbows within the blocks to run electrical or plumbing without having to cut the block(s).
Perhaps just as important as the solutions above, this new design fulfills the current and most basic masonry industry building practices. The insulatable cementitious building block described above uses the same manufacturing processes as standard CMU. It uses the same accessories and complimentary building materials as standard CMU. It uses the same design and engineering practices of standard CMU. It uses the same labor force with the same skill sets (just easier on the mason). The block's nominal spatial dimensions are identical to standard CMU. This block provides a novel solution to many problems and code requirements of building without the undue burdens of; new manufacturing machinery requirements (other than a mold), new design requirements, and or new engineering requirements.
The opposite ends of the parallel middle walls (4 & 5) are joined to form a closed compartment (12) by vertical end cross webs (13 & 14) as illustrated in
As shown in
In constructing a wall with the blocks shown in
After a course of blocks has been laid, foam inserts, may be placed within the cores (10, 11, & 12). Alternatively, after a wall has been completed without inserts one may use liquid expandable foam to fill the cores as well as insulate on either the interior or exterior surface.
As desired for structural strength, periodic vertical, cells (10 & 11) seen in
It also is a simple matter to provide horizontal rebar in various courses of a wall by laying the rebar on the cross webs and covering with grout as necessary to completely fill the entire interior space. Obviously, when this is done, the voids are not provided with any insulating inserts.
The foregoing description of the preferred embodiment of the invention is to be considered as illustrative and not as limiting. Various other changes and modifications will occur to those skilled in the art for performing substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result without departing from the true scope of the invention as defined in the appended claims.
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62912446 | Oct 2019 | US |
