Architecture - Why do manufacturers make ridiculous claims?

Author

Why do manufacturers make ridiculous claims?

RicodJour

2007-06-18, 3:25 am

I mean, really ridiculous. It's insulting. Case in point:
http://www.grassypavers.com/

They'll support 97,000 PSF?! Most interesting - particularly in light
of the fact that the IRC allows a prescriptive soil bearing capacity
of 12,000 PSF for crystalline bedrock.

R

TVeblen

2007-06-18, 9:25 am

Don

2007-06-18, 9:25 am

"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1182140915.450260.160540@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>I mean, really ridiculous. It's insulting. Case in point:
> http://www.grassypavers.com/
>
> They'll support 97,000 PSF?! Most interesting - particularly in light
> of the fact that the IRC allows a prescriptive soil bearing capacity
> of 12,000 PSF for crystalline bedrock.

Because they can?
The plastic itself, when supported properly, can probably hold 97k lbs, but
like you said, the soil below can't.
The whole thing will sink into the ground.
Its a meaningless fact meant to convince potential customers.
I consider that sort of thing fraud, or in todays legaleze, attempted fraud.
A good horsewhipping and then encapturement in stocks on the public square
for 5 days will cure that problem and deter others contemplating such
behavior.
....and the website should be shut down for 5 years.

Aardvark

2007-06-18, 1:25 pm

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 06:35:09 -0500, TVeblen wrote:

> That is what I've always refered to as "fun with math". Like in
> statistics, you can take any set of quanitative data and by cherry
> picking the scale you can greatly exaggerate the results.

Or as the Duke of Wellington once said, "There are lies, there are damned
lies and then there are statistics".

--
Registered Linux User 413057.
Both Mandriva 2007.1 and Ubuntu 7.04
You can have it all. My empire of hurt.

Liverpool F.C.-more European Cups than all
the other English teams put together :-)

eds

2007-06-18, 1:25 pm

"Aardvark" <Aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in message
news:waxdi.5218$tj3.170@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 06:35:09 -0500, TVeblen wrote:
>
>
> Or as the Duke of Wellington once said, "There are lies, there are damned
> lies and then there are statistics".
>
> --
> Registered Linux User 413057.
> Both Mandriva 2007.1 and Ubuntu 7.04
> You can have it all. My empire of hurt.
>
> Liverpool F.C.-more European Cups than all
> the other English teams put together :-)

The material works well for temporary overflow parking areas, but heavy use
results in dirt. Growies need sunlight and water.
EDS

Dennis

2007-06-18, 8:25 pm

Most likely they are attempting to make the potential buyer aware that the
pavers are stronger than the roofing components they are covering. Green
buildings are the future in certain cases.

Point in fact is, there's nothing wrong with this type of advertising;
engineers know that a roof is only as strong as its weakest link....... they
are simply stating htat this isn't it.

"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1182140915.450260.160540@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>I mean, really ridiculous. It's insulting. Case in point:
> http://www.grassypavers.com/
>
> They'll support 97,000 PSF?! Most interesting - particularly in light
> of the fact that the IRC allows a prescriptive soil bearing capacity
> of 12,000 PSF for crystalline bedrock.

RicodJour

2007-06-18, 8:25 pm

On Jun 18, 7:22 pm, "Dennis" <webmas...@npcc.net> wrote:
> "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> Most likely they are attempting to make the potential buyer aware that the
> pavers are stronger than the roofing components they are covering. Green
> buildings are the future in certain cases.

Roofing components...? They're designed to be driven on - used in
landscaping. Saw no mention of living roof ballast, thought they
would obviously be able to handle _foot_ traffic on a roof.

> Point in fact is, there's nothing wrong with this type of advertising;
> engineers know that a roof is only as strong as its weakest link....... they
> are simply stating htat this isn't it.

Point of fact - it's a bunch of crap. They're saying that _one_
square foot of their _plastic product_ would support 2/3s of an M1
Abrams battle tank. Puh-lease. The stuff would be dust.

It's a simple, straightforward lie in advertising. They're either
misrepresenting the load capacity intentionally or through ignorance.
Neither is acceptable.

R

Don

2007-06-18, 9:25 pm

"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1182212482.135358.253200@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 18, 7:22 pm, "Dennis" <webmas...@npcc.net> wrote:
>
> Roofing components...? They're designed to be driven on - used in
> landscaping. Saw no mention of living roof ballast, thought they
> would obviously be able to handle _foot_ traffic on a roof.
>
>
> Point of fact - it's a bunch of crap. They're saying that _one_
> square foot of their _plastic product_ would support 2/3s of an M1
> Abrams battle tank. Puh-lease. The stuff would be dust.
>
> It's a simple, straightforward lie in advertising. They're either
> misrepresenting the load capacity intentionally or through ignorance.
> Neither is acceptable.

LOL, and what are the chances that 97k would ever be necessary?
I mean, everything I have ever owned all total prolly don't weigh that much.
2/3 of an abrams...heh

RicodJour

2007-06-18, 9:25 pm

On Jun 18, 9:25 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> LOL, and what are the chances that 97k would ever be necessary?
> I mean, everything I have ever owned all total prolly don't weigh that much.
> 2/3 of an abrams...heh

That's including the spent uranium armor.

R

Matt Barrow

2007-06-19, 3:25 am

Ken S. Tucker

2007-06-19, 3:25 am

On Jun 18, 8:05 am, Aardvark <Aardv...@youllnever.know> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 06:35:09 -0500, TVeblen wrote:
>
> Or as the Duke of Wellington once said, "There are lies, there are damned
> lies and then there are statistics".

LOL, Candy cig's cause cancer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience...IuYYUCgMxEDW7oF
Ken

Don

2007-06-19, 9:25 am

"Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
> LOL, Candy cig's cause cancer
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience...IuYYUCgMxEDW7oF

From that article:
25,887 U.S. adults who were surveyed online via a Harris Poll.....

22 percent of current or former smokers had also regularly consumed candy
cigarettes, while only 14 percent of those who have never smoked had eaten
or played with candy cigarettes
------------------------------------

Which also means that 78% of current or former smokers DID NOT consume candy
cigarettes and 86% of those that never smoked also didn't consume the candy.

Of course, this is a crisis of a magnitude that is unimaginable and a gov't
task force must be assigned with a $100bil/yr budget and a giant marble
tower for their twice annual meetings.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

They ought to do an online poll that will show that 99% of the people that
consumed Snickers bars as children consumed even more of them as adults and
thus the country has become populated by battalions of grossly obese fat
asses, causing the couch and big screen market to soar to the ionosphere.
The sock market is down 85%.
Fruit of the Loom has doubled, and doubled again, the size of their
manufacturing facilities for size 72 and over underpants.
Put your money in the slip-on shoe market and become tomorrows Bill Gates.

NYT best seller: "Fat Asses", Giving yourself a reach around.

Dennis

2007-06-19, 5:25 pm

There's a new trend to develop green roofs (covered with grass). Used on
some commercial buildings made to be walked on by the tenets, also used to
make a roof greener for a penthouse. That's where I've seen these types of
products used, but not to any real extent.

As far as the loading goes, did you see that its designed to use a base of
6-7 inches of stone aggregate, covered with a bed of gravel 2' thick, with
the hollows filled with pea gravel covered over with a 6" sand cover. The
plastic pavers are used as a stabilizer for the gravel.

There should no problem in carrying a load of 675 psi using the method
advertised on the website. I don't think you read through the entire
specifications completely.

As far as what they advertise for loading, 674 psi is high, but not unheard
of.
"> Roofing components...? They're designed to be driven on - used in
> landscaping. Saw no mention of living roof ballast, thought they
> would obviously be able to handle _foot_ traffic on a roof.

Dennis

2007-06-19, 5:25 pm

> They ought to do an online poll that will show that 99% of the people that
> consumed Snickers bars as children consumed even more of them as adults
> and

Milky Way <snort>

> thus the country has become populated by battalions of grossly obese fat
> asses, causing the couch and big screen market to soar to the ionosphere.

2007-06-19, 8:25 pm

Dennis wrote:

>There's a new trend to develop green roofs (covered with grass).
>
It's not a new trend. There have been roof gardens aand roof top
swimming pools for decades. What I love to do is visit these roof
gardens couple decades on.....It's not just the psi, it's also wheher or
not your substrate (elastomeric, whatever) is meant to be wet all the
time when you water mr. roof garden.When you are doing drainage into
aggregate like you suggest, it's not wicking into ground water, it's
wicking eventually onto your substrate. Essentially, then , what you
have to design is a swimming pool that is designed never to be kept
clean on top of a roof...And the best way to conquer such an issue is to
give that water somewhere to go and to do it without clogging it with
the dirt...

>Used on
>some commercial buildings made to be walked on by the tenets, also used to
>make a roof greener for a penthouse. That's where I've seen these types of
>products used, but not to any real extent.
>
>As far as the loading goes, did you see that its designed to use a base of
>6-7 inches of stone aggregate, covered with a bed of gravel 2' thick, with
>the hollows filled with pea gravel covered over with a 6" sand cover. The
>plastic pavers are used as a stabilizer for the gravel.
>
>There should no problem in carrying a load of 675 psi using the method
>advertised on the website. I don't think you read through the entire
>specifications completely.
>
>As far as what they advertise for loading, 674 psi is high, but not unheard
>of.
>"> Roofing components...? They're designed to be driven on - used in
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RicodJour

2007-06-19, 8:25 pm

On Jun 19, 6:16 pm, "Dennis" <webmas...@npcc.net> wrote:
> There's a new trend to develop green roofs (covered with grass). Used on
> some commercial buildings made to be walked on by the tenets, also used to
> make a roof greener for a penthouse. That's where I've seen these types of
> products used, but not to any real extent.
>
> As far as the loading goes, did you see that its designed to use a base of
> 6-7 inches of stone aggregate, covered with a bed of gravel 2' thick, with
> the hollows filled with pea gravel covered over with a 6" sand cover. The
> plastic pavers are used as a stabilizer for the gravel.
>
> There should no problem in carrying a load of 675 psi using the method
> advertised on the website. I don't think you read through the entire
> specifications completely.
>
> As far as what they advertise for loading, 674 psi is high, but not unheard
> of.

Forget left field, you've jumped the fence and are hanging out in the
bleachers. Typical undisturbed prescriptive lsoil bearing capacity
loads, according to the IRC, are in the range of a ton or two per SF.
In other words, their paving plastic grid, resting on gravel (assume
five tons PSF bearing capacity for gravel to show I'm not being
unreasonable), increases the bearing capacity by TEN times. That
sound right to you? If so, I sure hope you don't do your own
calculations.

R

MetalHead

2007-06-20, 1:25 pm

Good Morning,

Interesting thread.

http://www.grassypavers.com/MPI%20S...Explanation.pdf
ot http://www.grassypavers.com/specs.htm and select the load data
sheet link.

While I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, I do like to hear good
feed back on the products I sell. I am a dealer for the product and I
own the site http://www.grassypavers.com. I use data given to me for
the site. If it is incorrect I would like to update the info so it
correctly represents the product.

You guys obviously know your stuff in the load arena. I would love
some feedback on this load data from MPI. Is it crap? if so why? This
is where the facts come from we use on the site (actually from the 4
page brochure on the specs page). I will be glad to send samples out
to anyone that would be willing to conduct these tests to see how our
products hold up.

I would also be willing to take feedback and a real world writeup on
soil load capacities and what benefits any kind of pavers provide for
that soil base.

I want everyone to know about the product and I want that info to be
correct. Architects, Designers and End users a like should have
factual information in making decisions and choosing products.

So I hope ya'll don't still want to take out behind the shed. My goal
is to provide factual data for our products. They are a good solution
and are more durable than people think.

Please keep up the thread. I like a good debate.

Don

2007-06-20, 1:25 pm

"MetalHead" <cvmikeray@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182338079.993271.152590@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Good Morning,
>
> Interesting thread.
>
> http://www.grassypavers.com/MPI%20S...Explanation.pdf
> ot http://www.grassypavers.com/specs.htm and select the load data
> sheet link.
>
> While I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, I do like to hear good
> feed back on the products I sell. I am a dealer for the product and I
> own the site http://www.grassypavers.com. I use data given to me for
> the site. If it is incorrect I would like to update the info so it
> correctly represents the product.
>
> You guys obviously know your stuff in the load arena. I would love
> some feedback on this load data from MPI. Is it crap? if so why? This
> is where the facts come from we use on the site (actually from the 4
> page brochure on the specs page). I will be glad to send samples out
> to anyone that would be willing to conduct these tests to see how our
> products hold up.

Hey Rico, if I get this dood to send me a sample will you lend me your
abrams so I can run it up and down the product a few times?
I promise not to mess around (too much) wif that nifty body armor you
mentioned.
When my product testing is complete, in about 7 years, I will post it to the
domain www.abrams-does-grassypaver.nifong complete with full documentation,
pictorials and even streaming video wif 'girls gone wild XXIII' as a
backdrop.
At that time I will issue you a gov't *check* in the amount of $1,000,000.00
for the compensation of your abrams, and you will receive full credit for
your contribution on the domain.
** Minus expenses, of course, which we already know in advance will be in
the neighborhood of $1,500,000.00.

I'm not trying to slip the nifong to ya. :-o

> I would also be willing to take feedback and a real world writeup on
> soil load capacities and what benefits any kind of pavers provide for
> that soil base.
>
> I want everyone to know about the product and I want that info to be
> correct. Architects, Designers and End users a like should have
> factual information in making decisions and choosing products.
>
> So I hope ya'll don't still want to take out behind the shed. My goal
> is to provide factual data for our products. They are a good solution
> and are more durable than people think.
>
> Please keep up the thread. I like a good debate.
>

Bobk207

2007-06-20, 1:25 pm

On Jun 19, 5:10 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 6:16 pm, "Dennis" <webmas...@npcc.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Forget left field, you've jumped the fence and are hanging out in the
> bleachers. Typical undisturbed prescriptive lsoil bearing capacity
> loads, according to the IRC, are in the range of a ton or two per SF.
> In other words, their paving plastic grid, resting on gravel (assume
> five tons PSF bearing capacity for gravel to show I'm not being
> unreasonable), increases the bearing capacity by TEN times. That
> sound right to you? If so, I sure hope you don't do your own
> calculations.
>
> R

RIco-

I visited the website & emailed the guy (he posted below) about the
claims being made.

He sent me a link to some info from the mfr (he jut sells them)

looks like the mfr had some tests done on the plastic unit (filled &
un-filled) AND the mfr (or their agent) did some hand waving based on
the ASSTHO H-20 loading

And then extrapolated the results to some of insane psf number

the guy who signed the test report is some sort of clueless
Phd.......reporting numbers with 6 or 7 "significant" figures,
reporting psf's that no soil in the world could possibly support

Using the ASSTHIO loading & then extroplating to a generalized psf is
like calc'ing the stress under a woman's high heel & extrapolating to
a psf for floor loading!

Example:

120 pounds, assume .375" diameter heel tip, standing equally on both
shoes,

540 psi translatesto >>>>>> 78,200 psf

makes as much sense as their test report & product claims

What they really have is a product that can take a higher "point
load" (actually a local small patch distributed load) than normal
(unconfined / un-reinfornced) soil.

With the plastic grid & grass roots, you wind up with a reinforced
soil that (IMO) is at best is a few times stronger (locally) than
regular soil MAYBE 20 or 30 psi

but it ain't asphalt or concrete!

cheers
Bob

Michael Bulatovich

2007-06-20, 5:25 pm

"Bobk207" <rkazanjy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182362986.288773.300710@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 19, 5:10 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> RIco-
>
> I visited the website & emailed the guy (he posted below) about the
> claims being made.
>
> He sent me a link to some info from the mfr (he jut sells them)
>
> looks like the mfr had some tests done on the plastic unit (filled &
> un-filled) AND the mfr (or their agent) did some hand waving based on
> the ASSTHO H-20 loading
>
> And then extrapolated the results to some of insane psf number
>
> the guy who signed the test report is some sort of clueless
> Phd.......reporting numbers with 6 or 7 "significant" figures,
> reporting psf's that no soil in the world could possibly support
>
>
> Using the ASSTHIO loading & then extroplating to a generalized psf is
> like calc'ing the stress under a woman's high heel & extrapolating to
> a psf for floor loading!
>
> Example:
>
> 120 pounds, assume .375" diameter heel tip, standing equally on both
> shoes,
>
> 540 psi translatesto >>>>>> 78,200 psf

hehheh You obviously don't wear heels.
You forgot to account for the sizable percentage of weight on the balls of
the feet.
Why do I suddenly feel like Reese Witherspoon in Legally
Blonde?....................Bend....and Snap!

RicodJour

2007-06-20, 5:25 pm

On Jun 20, 2:09 pm, Bobk207 <rkaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 5:10 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RIco-
>
> I visited the website & emailed the guy (he posted below) about the
> claims being made.
>
> He sent me a link to some info from the mfr (he jut sells them)
>
> looks like the mfr had some tests done on the plastic unit (filled &
> un-filled) AND the mfr (or their agent) did some hand waving based on
> the ASSTHO H-20 loading
>
> And then extrapolated the results to some of insane psf number
>
> the guy who signed the test report is some sort of clueless
> Phd.......reporting numbers with 6 or 7 "significant" figures,
> reporting psf's that no soil in the world could possibly support
>
> Using the ASSTHIO loading & then extroplating to a generalized psf is
> like calc'ing the stress under a woman's high heel & extrapolating to
> a psf for floor loading!
>
> Example:
>
> 120 pounds, assume .375" diameter heel tip, standing equally on both
> shoes,
>
> 540 psi translatesto >>>>>> 78,200 psf
>
> makes as much sense as their test report & product claims
>
> What they really have is a product that can take a higher "point
> load" (actually a local small patch distributed load) than normal
> (unconfined / un-reinfornced) soil.
>
> With the plastic grid & grass roots, you wind up with a reinforced
> soil that (IMO) is at best is a few times stronger (locally) than
> regular soil MAYBE 20 or 30 psi
>
> but it ain't asphalt or concrete!

Well done, Bob! Let's see if they revise their claim to a number a
couple of orders of magnitude more realistic.

R

Bobk207

2007-06-20, 5:25 pm

On Jun 20, 11:25 am, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
> "Bobk207" <rkaza...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182362986.288773.300710@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> hehheh You obviously don't wear heels.
> You forgot to account for the sizable percentage of weight on the balls of
> the feet.
> Why do I suddenly feel like Reese Witherspoon in Legally
> Blonde?....................Bend....and Snap!

I was considering the load case when "she's" rocking on her heels.

I didn't consider the dynamic effect of foot fall "impact" while
walking

I think i also may have over estimated the heel tip diameter (I'm
wearing flats today & didn't measure or reseach tip dia)

in any case I'm sure you get my example........heel tips are hard
even oak floors so my number of ~540 psi is in the ball park

cheers
Bob

Michael Bulatovich

2007-06-20, 8:25 pm

"Bobk207" <rkazanjy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182374522.196895.60590@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 11:25 am, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
>
> I was considering the load case when "she's" rocking on her heels.

<channeling Reeses again>Like I said, you obviously don't wear heels. Go get
a pair, strap them on and try that stunt. (Make sure their not anybody's
'good ones'.)

> I didn't consider the dynamic effect of foot fall "impact" while
> walking
>
> I think i also may have over estimated the heel tip diameter (I'm
> wearing flats today & didn't measure or reseach tip dia)
>
> in any case I'm sure you get my example........heel tips are hard
> even oak floors so my number of ~540 psi is in the ball park

Yes, probably the right order of magnitude. I'm just teasing you because you
can work a calculator but not a pair of Jimmy Choos ; )
http://www.jimmychoo.com/pws/Produc...ProductID=39893
--

MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca

Dennis

2007-06-20, 9:25 pm

Most of the responses you are reading here appear to be from kids who are
not associated with engineering nor with how engineered products are
marketed (note the off-topic preoccupation with the falsely-accused Duke
Lacrosse college kids).

Some are arguing that the underlying soil is not strong enough to support a
truck, which is of course ridiculous. The substrate conditions would be
engineered to take the assumed reactions necessary, while the manufacturers
product is design to provide a soil base and drainage stratum. It is assumed
that the underlying soils would be considered in any installation, and
improved if needed. This product's advantage is only in the addition of
adding grass to such areas; already deemed capable of withstanding the
loading of vehicular traffic.

Reviewing the test reports provided, it appears to me (my opinion) that the
testing performed by the university of Southern Mississippi is completely
within established guidelines and have sufficient credibility. The only
additional qualification I would ask to see is the signature of a licensed
professional, registered in the state where the tests were conducted or from
the state where the product is manufactured. I work in plan review for a
nationally recognized testing laboratory and review test reports similar to
this product, on a regular basis.

As always, the best results is the feedback from existing installations. If
you still have any concerns over the product's durability, I would recommend
contacting the manufacturer to see what problems and failures are occurring
in the field.

"MetalHead" <cvmikeray@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182338079.993271.152590@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Good Morning,
>
> Interesting thread.
>
> http://www.grassypavers.com/MPI%20S...Explanation.pdf
> ot http://www.grassypavers.com/specs.htm and select the load data
> sheet link.
>
> While I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, I do like to hear good
> feed back on the products I sell. I am a dealer for the product and I
> own the site http://www.grassypavers.com. I use data given to me for
> the site. If it is incorrect I would like to update the info so it
> correctly represents the product.
>
> You guys obviously know your stuff in the load arena. I would love
> some feedback on this load data from MPI. Is it crap? if so why? This
> is where the facts come from we use on the site (actually from the 4
> page brochure on the specs page). I will be glad to send samples out
> to anyone that would be willing to conduct these tests to see how our
> products hold up.
>
> I would also be willing to take feedback and a real world writeup on
> soil load capacities and what benefits any kind of pavers provide for
> that soil base.
>
> I want everyone to know about the product and I want that info to be
> correct. Architects, Designers and End users a like should have
> factual information in making decisions and choosing products.
>
> So I hope ya'll don't still want to take out behind the shed. My goal
> is to provide factual data for our products. They are a good solution
> and are more durable than people think.
>
> Please keep up the thread. I like a good debate.
>
>

Bobk207

2007-06-20, 9:25 pm

On Jun 20, 4:19 pm, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
> "Bobk207" <rkaza...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182374522.196895.60590@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <channeling Reeses again>Like I said, you obviously don't wear heels. Go get
> a pair, strap them on and try that stunt. (Make sure their not anybody's
> 'good ones'.)
>
>
>
>
> Yes, probably the right order of magnitude. I'm just teasing you because you
> can work a calculator but not a pair of Jimmy Choos ; )http://www.jimmychoo.com/pws/Produc...ProductID=39893
> --
>
> MichaelBwww.michaelbulatovich.ca

MB-

You have no idea what's in my closet....

cheers
Bob

I knew you were kidding me.

& I just pulled the example out of the air..... I divided the weight
bu two but I also chose 120lbs (wishful thinking?) ...could have been
150+

I refuse to go measure the heel tips...even too geeky for me.

Don

2007-06-21, 3:25 am

Its doubtful that piece of plastic will support 97,000 pounds, regardless of
what's supporting the plastic.

"Dennis" <webmaster@npcc.net> wrote in message
news:iFkei.14111$0j5.6247@trndny03...
> Most of the responses you are reading here appear to be from kids who are
> not associated with engineering nor with how engineered products are
> marketed (note the off-topic preoccupation with the falsely-accused Duke
> Lacrosse college kids).
>
> Some are arguing that the underlying soil is not strong enough to support
> a truck, which is of course ridiculous. The substrate conditions would be
> engineered to take the assumed reactions necessary, while the
> manufacturers product is design to provide a soil base and drainage
> stratum. It is assumed that the underlying soils would be considered in
> any installation, and improved if needed. This product's advantage is only
> in the addition of adding grass to such areas; already deemed capable of
> withstanding the loading of vehicular traffic.
>
> Reviewing the test reports provided, it appears to me (my opinion) that
> the testing performed by the university of Southern Mississippi is
> completely within established guidelines and have sufficient credibility.
> The only additional qualification I would ask to see is the signature of a
> licensed professional, registered in the state where the tests were
> conducted or from the state where the product is manufactured. I work in
> plan review for a nationally recognized testing laboratory and review test
> reports similar to this product, on a regular basis.
>
> As always, the best results is the feedback from existing installations.
> If you still have any concerns over the product's durability, I would
> recommend contacting the manufacturer to see what problems and failures
> are occurring in the field.
>
>
> "MetalHead" <cvmikeray@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1182338079.993271.152590@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>

Ken S. Tucker

2007-06-21, 3:25 am

On Jun 20, 7:46 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> Its doubtful that piece of plastic will support 97,000 pounds, regardless of
> what's supporting the plastic.

I find it complicated. It's not exactly the plastic providing
the support but the plastic is containing a granulate
that is taking the support. (The hex structure is famously
strong, even used in XB-70 wings).

Perhaps we should calculate the bursting strength of
one of the hexagon cells. Using 700#/sq.in, which is
approximately the load bearing of soft wood. When
struck with a hammer gets dented, iow's the hammer
blow exceeds the compression strength of the wood.
If I were to take a hexagonal shaped thingy into one
of the hexs filled with sand, and struck it equally hard
would the plastic hex burst?
If that's a fair test, off hand, I think it will survive.
IMHO, I think the spec is ok.
(Where's good ole Bob Morrison when we need him?)
Ken
[color=darkred]
> "Dennis" <webmas...@npcc.net> wrote in message
>
> news:iFkei.14111$0j5.6247@trndny03...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RicodJour

2007-06-21, 3:25 am

On Jun 20, 9:39 pm, "Dennis" <webmas...@npcc.net> wrote:
> Most of the responses you are reading here appear to be from kids who are
> not associated with engineering nor with how engineered products are
> marketed (note the off-topic preoccupation with the falsely-accused Duke
> Lacrosse college kids).
>
> Some are arguing that the underlying soil is not strong enough to support a
> truck, which is of course ridiculous. The substrate conditions would be
> engineered to take the assumed reactions necessary, while the manufacturers
> product is design to provide a soil base and drainage stratum. It is assumed
> that the underlying soils would be considered in any installation, and
> improved if needed. This product's advantage is only in the addition of
> adding grass to such areas; already deemed capable of withstanding the
> loading of vehicular traffic.

A lot of words that don't say very much, and what they do say is
misleading.

Obviously the product is intended for creating a drivable green
surface. Thanks for clarifying that - the name grassy paver had
confused me.

"It is assumed that the underlying soils..." That's your idea of
engineering? ASSuming bearing capacity and soil conditions?

An 18 wheeler typically weighs in at around 80,000 pounds maximum load
(federally mandated maximum).
An average semi tire has approximately 60 square inches of contact
area - that's ~7.5 SF of tire contact area per truck, or roughly
10,000 PSF.

If that grassy paver stuff has a rating of TEN times the maximum load
allowed on federal highway - with the graded, layered and compacted
base - why the nifong do they use asphalt and concrete for roads?

Your grasp of the numbers is as faulty as the manufacturer's claims.
Move on - please. This is getting embarrassing.

R

Ken S. Tucker

2007-06-21, 1:25 pm

On Jun 20, 8:30 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:39 pm, "Dennis" <webmas...@npcc.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> A lot of words that don't say very much, and what they do say is
> misleading.
>
> Obviously the product is intended for creating a drivable green
> surface. Thanks for clarifying that - the name grassy paver had
> confused me.
>
> "It is assumed that the underlying soils..." That's your idea of
> engineering? ASSuming bearing capacity and soil conditions?
>
> An 18 wheeler typically weighs in at around 80,000 pounds maximum load
> (federally mandated maximum).
> An average semi tire has approximately 60 square inches of contact
> area - that's ~7.5 SF of tire contact area per truck, or roughly
> 10,000 PSF.

Interesting, having drove many interstate miles
you get to notice the right hand lane has more
tire dents. I suppose the surface temp in a hot
sun could hit 120F, certainly can't walk on it in
bare feet, so maybe more. Maybe that creates
viscosity issues.

> If that grassy paver stuff has a rating of TEN times the maximum load
> allowed on federal highway - with the graded, layered and compacted
> base - why the nifong do they use asphalt and concrete for roads?

It costs to nifong much.

> Your grasp of the numbers is as faulty as the manufacturer's claims.
> Move on - please. This is getting embarrassing.
> R

Anybody gotta a nifong industrial sized press?
Ken

RicodJour

2007-06-21, 1:25 pm

On Jun 21, 12:22 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 8:30 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Interesting, having drove many interstate miles
> you get to notice the right hand lane has more
> tire dents. I suppose the surface temp in a hot
> sun could hit 120F, certainly can't walk on it in
> bare feet, so maybe more. Maybe that creates
> viscosity issues.

Did you notice the load claims at "high" and low temperatures? The
high temperature was 75 degrees. Where's that supposed to be and
what's it supposed to represent? HDPE softens considerably with
temperature. They don't attempt to make any disclaimers about
climate. What do you think would be a normal high temperature for a
paving product? I'd guess about 20 degrees higher than 75.

>
> It costs to nifong much.

It'd cost a fraction of a real road and would shut all the greenies
up. Someone would have suggested it and there'd be test roads under
construction.

I don't doubt there are plenty of locations and applications for their
stuff. It's just the ridiculous claims that are nifonged.

R

Dennis

2007-06-21, 8:25 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:f5couu01jm9@news1.newsguy.com...
> Its doubtful that piece of plastic will support 97,000 pounds, regardless
> of what's supporting the plastic.

With gravel on the bottom, inside the hex spaces and on top, how much load
do you think the plastic forms are actually carrying?

Don

2007-06-21, 9:25 pm

"Dennis" <webmaster@npcc.net> wrote in message
news:kjEei.8223$u65.694@trndny07...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:f5couu01jm9@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> With gravel on the bottom, inside the hex spaces and on top, how much load
> do you think the plastic forms are actually carrying?

Is this the part where I answer a silly question with a silly answer?

Tony

2007-06-22, 3:25 am

"Dennis" <webmaster@npcc.net> wrote in message
news:kjEei.8223$u65.694@trndny07...

> With gravel on the bottom, inside the hex spaces and on top, how much load
> do you think the plastic forms are actually carrying?

it's the weakest link principle

don't pay me no mind, Im just agreeing with you

Tony

why he keep asking about the damn gravel
now if his HEAD was in the plastic, yeah, maybe 100G

just kidding!

Posted Via mcse.ms Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mcse.ms

LinkBot