Concrete appearance

have2flushtwice

Firstly I'm posting this in the f&f as the opinions I'm looking for are more relevant to the readers here..

We are hoping to build a house starting this year.
Looking ahead, the driveway will be tarmac or concrete.
The Price of tarmac is mad. Looking at a similar house with similar driveway he had tarmac laid for 17500k. Laid by a neighbor of mine. So my tarmac quote will be similar. For cement the cost I estimate will be less, but the advantage here is I can lay the cement at a load or two as I can afford it, and not putting 17k on the mortgage.....
So heres my question for the farmer, what way do you think Concrete wears for around a house? And a driveway? Sure it would need a power wash now and again, but the tarmac is darker and wouldn't need as much cleaning except for moss and a sweep. Looking at tarmac there today driving to work, a lot look shoddy which have been down a few years. Would Concrete look the same? For the record I would be looking at good foundation with 4inch cement and mesh also.

tismesoitis

Put a dye through the concrete to turn it a darker shade. Talk to your concrete rep.

Wildsurfer

Neighbour of mine put concrete down instead of Tarmac. He used 45N concrete so it will never again need replacing IMO as he used a vibrating roller on sub base also. Super job but does get a bit green over winter and needs a good power washing. It does look a bit harsh though, Tarmac sets off a property better I think. What about coloured imprinted concrete. That looks very well when done properly. If your Tipp/KK area and interested Pm me for a contact.

have2flushtwice

Yes I was thinking about the dye. Saw the mat Crete also but it looked very polished, so may be slippy in wet or winter, or frost.
Safety is important here too, can't afford any slips or falls. A spray of alge cleaner will take clear of the green.
The tarmac dies set things off better though.
The concrete has appeals due to the piecemeal financial outlay.

Who2

I've seen a few places done with concrete and panels broke up with paving brick, it looks the part. i wouldn't be going with tarmac, ashphelt all the way with a coloured chip thrown on just before the last roll. 17.5k seems like a serious amount of an area, are you sure your neighbour was doing you a favour.

thadg

go with the tarmac. too much concrete around the house looks dated and industrial. im on the same boat, concrete at back and side tarmac from there out

the colour die and mats etc need maintainance every few years. concrete wont be far off the cost of tarmac either

have2flushtwice

Who2 wrote: »

I've seen a few places done with concrete and panels broke up with paving brick, it looks the part. i wouldn't be going with tarmac, ashphelt all the way with a coloured chip thrown on just before the last roll. 17.5k seems like a serious amount of an area, are you sure your neighbour was doing you a favour.

Driveway and all around the house as well as back yard. No shortage of money with this lad In fairness to him.

venlo

17 k for a driveway.

fukkin hell

The part time boy

We have tarmac and it's not easy maintaines. But I guess the dirt more hidden if we had concrete. Not sure what I would do

MF290

Thought tarmac doesn't hold up well to diesel or oil if you're leaving a tractor or diesel tank by the house, just another consideration.

_Brian

Asphalt is the job rather than Tarmac.

I laid the back yard of the house with concrete from a practical perspective for splitting timber and storing coal and the likes.
But the rest is asphalt.

Wildsurfer

What is the difference between Tarmac and Asphalt?

Who2

Wildsurfer wrote: »

What is the difference between Tarmac and Asphalt?

tarmac is tar and pebbles worked together and rolled, ashphalt uses bitumen and a few other products, mixed with the stone and rolled. ashphalt is far harder wearing, tarmacs grand outside a small one car semi d in dublin but if its going to get work use ashphalt.

farawaygrass

Is ashphalt a lot more expensive than tar? Most houses would have tarmac I would have thought? And asphalt for businesses or factories etc with a lot of heavy traffic-even farmyards?

rangler1

We got a guy to do imprinted concrete, wasn't much more expensive than concrete at the time.
We used the matcrete mats to imprint the concrete and put a dye in the concrete.
diid it in dark grey in london cobble...all the advantages of paving and no weeds

http://www.constructionireland.ie/c/472849/matcrete-ireland

Victor

What do you have planning permission for?

Be wary of DIY concrete.

st1979

I would love concrete for similar reason to the op. But concrete won't suit him or me as he will be living there and needing to use the driveway. If your doing piecemeal every time you lay a section you can't drive on it for up to 28 days. Have you another access route while a section is curing

Muckit

rangler1 wrote: »

We got a guy to do imprinted concrete, wasn't much more expensive than concrete at the time.
We used the matcrete mats to imprint the concrete and put a dye in the concrete.
diid it in dark grey in london cobble...all the advantages of paving and no weeds

http://www.constructionireland.ie/c/472849/matcrete-ireland

The only concern I'd have is slipperyness in winter. Is this an issue?

rangler1

Muckit wrote: »

The only concern I'd have is slipperyness in winter. Is this an issue?

Same as any concrete i suppose.....use plenty of salt.
All our yard is concreted and the it's a lot less slippy where it's cobble marked

have2flushtwice

st1979 wrote: »

I would love concrete for similar reason to the op. But concrete won't suit him or me as he will be living there and needing to use the driveway. If your doing piecemeal every time you lay a section you can't drive on it for up to 28 days. Have you another access route while a section is curing

Yes I have another route, drive on the lawn!

have2flushtwice

Saw two houses side by side this morning, one with fresh cement and one which had it down a few years... The latter looked very grubby. I'd nearly offer to power wash it to see if it would come up to the original whiteish colour. A Grey dye would leave it darker which wouldn't be bad. Does much dye go into the darker matcrete?

patsy_mccabe

Put down large clean stone first (3" I think), blind with 1/2" down and leave for a year or two. You'll have a well compacted drive by then. Concrete all in one go then but do it right. Plenty of help, mesh probably raised, cured right and expansion joints cut in. Get your slopes right too. Any trapped water held in little dips will drive you mad.
We put concrete on our drive at home about 3 years ago. It's a steep hill and the same entrance for the farm. I felt that tractors and lorries going up it would just tear the tarmac out of it. Very happy with it so far. Water does not stay on it so no concerns with ice.

lakill Farm

I am doing a similar project at moment. I have hard core in and going to top dress with chip like 804 and roll soon. ill kerb it then as I have the drainage pipes in and ducting ready to go in for the gates and lights .

I was thinking SMA, I think it is but when I looked at it I would still pick asphalt.

However I have make up my mind on putting in concrete between plastic expansion joints , 5 inch deep. only vehicles will be cars and very very odd 4x4. I have side access for oil and wood pellet lorry delivery.

Approx pour is 150m3 so don't be shy

Mooooo

You can get a roller to rune over the concrete when it's going in. Makes it good and grippy. Any young lads that take a hopper would get a good skinning from it tho.

Buford T. Justice XIX

It's very difficult to get a company to mix dye through concrete. Also, it's very difficult to mix evenly so you will have a good chance of getting a mottled look in the concrete. And any company we asked around here weren't keen on having to wash out the lorries afterwards either.

Normally, when they use dye, they screed it in after it's laid as that gives the most even finish. The down side is there has to be a protective coat brushed on every 2-3 years to maintain the colour.

Victor

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Put down large clean stone first (3" I think), blind with 1/2" down and leave for a year or two. You'll have a well compacted drive by then.

Or you could do it properly by using mechanical vibration and not having to scrape off a layer of mud and stone before you can lay the concrete.

Concrete all in one go then but do it right.

Concrete roads should be done in panels with suitable joints to prevent cracking.

patsy_mccabe

Victor wrote: »

Or you could do it properly by using mechanical vibration and not having to scrape off a layer of mud and stone before you can lay the concrete.

Concrete roads should be done in panels with suitable joints to prevent cracking.

How do you use panels for a concrete road?

darragh_haven

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

How do you use panels for a concrete road?

I thinks he's on about doing concrete in no larger than a 6m square with out an expansion joint. Cutting a joint afterwards is not recommended from an engineering perspective. But in reality engineers design a road or structure and then double the concrete and steel to cover their ass (and I'm an engineer saying this)

lakill Farm

darragh_haven wrote: »

I thinks he's on about doing concrete in no larger than a 6m square with out an expansion joint. Cutting a joint afterwards is not recommended from an engineering perspective. But in reality engineers design a road or structure and then double the concrete and steel to cover their ass (and I'm an engineer saying this)

doubled as in Newtons and amount of rebar or poured in 2 layers?

darragh_haven

lakill Farm wrote: »

doubled as in Newtons and amount of rebar or poured in 2 layers?

Usually it's if the design shows that 100mm of concrete and one layer of mesh will just be sufficient for the use of the yard, 200 mm and 2 layers of might be specified. Engineers have to take into account safety factors in design to cover themselves. And there is a different safety factor for every material. It might X2 for steel and x4 for concrete, depending on its application

patsy_mccabe

A Safety Factor is not about engineers covering themselves. It's standard practice in all design. It's good practice rather than 'over specifying ' as often suggested on here.
Loads and conditions are very unpredictable.

Victor

darragh_haven wrote: »

Usually it's if the design shows that 100mm of concrete and one layer of mesh will just be sufficient for the use of the yard, 200 mm and 2 layers of might be specified. Engineers have to take into account safety factors in design to cover themselves. And there is a different safety factor for every material. It might X2 for steel and x4 for concrete, depending on its application

Safety factors are there for a reason. Occasionally, there will be loads that are outside specification, e.g. construction loads, flooding, overweight vehicles, etc. and there is also the fact that site work by it's very nature has variation, e.g. their might be an air bubble in the concrete that renders both the concrete and reinforcement useless.

Short cuts, lack of training and mispalced DIY / "ah sure it will be grand" attitudes in farming and construction is why dozens of farmers / workers are killed every year.

T-Maxx

Who2 wrote:

tarmac is tar and pebbles worked together and rolled, ashphalt uses bitumen and a few other products, mixed with the stone and rolled. ashphalt is far harder wearing, tarmacs grand outside a small one car semi d in dublin but if its going to get work use ashphalt.

The difference is essentially in the amount and size of the aggregate. Tar is a natural product and has long been replaced by bitumen as binder.

Who2

A good concrete base can be driven on after 3 days, 100mm is sufficient but i usually go 125mm or 150mm if theres need for extreme loads. 200mm of concrete for a driveway would just be pure wasteful. if the base is screeded and packed properly, (and i dont mean just packing it with a digger) then there should be no issues. concrete looked after and cleaned at least annually will definately work better around a farm, ive seen some of the dyed and stencilled work done around yards and the grooves hold dirt and doesnt hold up well to tractors. its your own call on it but id be leaning towards ashphalt or plain concrete maybe laid with a couple of row of cobbles to create a design.

T-Maxx

darragh_haven wrote:

I thinks he's on about doing concrete in no larger than a 6m square with out an expansion joint. Cutting a joint afterwards is not recommended from an engineering perspective. But in reality engineers design a road or structure and then double the concrete and steel to cover their ass (and I'm an engineer saying this)

darragh_haven wrote:

Usually it's if the design shows that 100mm of concrete and one layer of mesh will just be sufficient for the use of the yard, 200 mm and 2 layers of might be specified. Engineers have to take into account safety factors in design to cover themselves. And there is a different safety factor for every material. It might X2 for steel and x4 for concrete, depending on its application

You're wrong chief. And I hope you're not really an engineer because you're giving the rest of us a bad name.

have2flushtwice

T-Maxx wrote: »

You're wrong chief. And I hope you're not really an engineer because you're giving the rest of us a bad name.

T-Maxx wrote: »

You're wrong chief. And I hope you're not really an engineer because you're giving the rest of us a bad name.

T-maxx I'm sorry but I'm with darragh on this one. Some engineers are giving themselves a bad name by overestimating what should be going down under the feet. Afterwards they aren't sticking around after to see if it stands the test of time or machine. I'll give you an example, 200mm with 20mm mesh at 40n spec for a pedestrian footpath in Pfizer. Saw it myself. Couldn't believe it. Have a guess what the road for the lorry was like.
Saw another one recently, same depth with double mesh spaced 50mm apart at 35n, for an area with a two tonne forklift.... No future proofing required. These both designed by engineers. I'd fire these guys. Defend those engineers.

patsy_mccabe

have2flushtwice wrote: »

T-maxx I'm sorry but I'm with darragh on this one. Some engineers are giving themselves a bad name by overestimating what should be going down under the feet. Afterwards they aren't sticking around after to see if it stands the test of time or machine. I'll give you an example, 200mm with 20mm mesh at 40n spec for a pedestrian footpath in Pfizer. Saw it myself. Couldn't believe it. Have a guess what the road for the lorry was like.
Saw another one recently, same depth with double mesh spaced 50mm apart at 35n, for an area with a two tonne forklift.... No future proofing required. These both designed by engineers. I'd fire these guys. Defend those engineers.

Show me your calculations for what the spec should have been.

darragh_haven

T-Maxx wrote: »

You're wrong chief. And I hope you're not really an engineer because you're giving the rest of us a bad name.

I am a fully qualified engineering, but unlike the majority of design engineers, i have to deal with the real world too. And the reality is that most designers don't give a continental fcuk about the cost to the client as long as their design exceeds the BS or eurocode.
I agree safety factors have to be adhered to as a designer has to ensure that a structure is fit for purpose. But many seem to add 50 to 100 percent on top to cover their ass. Add significant cost to the client.
I deal with 3 prominent consultant engineering firms in my current job, and occasionally give them the exact same simple structure to design (4 m high retaining wall in this instance). One firms design had 60% more cubic concrete and 50% more tonnage of steel than the leanest design.
Afterwards they agreed that the leanest design stood up to design parameters.

have2flushtwice

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Show me your calculations for what the spec should have been.

Once it meets en206 or 306,cant remember which and I'm not going looking it up for you.
At 28 days to cure and an ever increasing strength stopping at anywhere over 3000psi post 28 days, off the top of my head I would be asking for 35n at 100m with mesh and chip at 25mm size, is ok for a pedestrian footpath with little slump risk.

patsy_mccabe

have2flushtwice wrote: »

Once it meets en206 or 306,cant remember which and I'm not going looking it up for you.
At 28 days to cure and an ever increasing strength stopping at anywhere over 3000psi post 28 days, off the top of my head I would be asking for 35n at 100m with mesh and chip at 25mm size, is ok for a pedestrian footpath with little slump risk.

That's the strength of the concrete, not the strength of the structure. Big difference.

I work as a design engineer, not civil more mechanical. The number of times I've had to listen to comments about over-designing stuff. Usually from guys with a lot of practical experience and no engineering qualifications.
One time this older German guy berated me in front of a lot of colleagues for a design I did that was not working. He told me I had way over designed it. He took out a piece of paper and sketched up something simple, as he put it.
The following day we all gathered to see it working. Far worst than what I had done. He turned around all red-faced.:D He then sat down beside me and said 'We'd make a great team together'. We solved it ourselves back in Ireland. Took months but only through trial and error.

On another occasion, we had an Italian customer refuse to pay for a stainless steel component we sold. He went away and made it himself at a fraction of the price. Part exploded and a miracle it didn't kill someone. He used a completely different grade of stainless.

The point I'm making is there is usually a good reason for things being the way they are. Don't pass judgement unless you know better yourself.